Search

Ergativite ve bunun cümleler üzerindeki etkisi, diller arasındaki büyük farklardan biridir. Ergativite, Farsça gibi dillerde herhangi bir tesiri kalmamıştır ama Zazacada halen etkisini sürdürmektedir. Lakin Zazaca da tam ergatif bir dil değildir. Zazacada ergativite sadece geçmiş zamanda kalmış olup, bu anlamda Zazaca yarım-ergatif bir dildir. Bu çalışmanın amacı Zazacada ergativiteyi açıklamaktır. Çalışmada bazen Zazaca ve Kurmancca karşılaştırmalı olarak verilmiştir. Zazacada eski dillerde olan arkaik özellikler kalmış ve korunmuştur. Çalışmada ergativite geçişli ve geçişsiz fiil çekimlerine bağlı olarak açıklanacaktır. Bu çalışmada standart Zazaca kullanılmıştır. Çünkü bazı ağızlarda ergativite ortadan kalkmaktadır., Ergativity and its effect on sentences is one of the big differences between languages. Ergativity has no effect on languages such as Persian, but in Zaza language still continues. However, Zazaki is not a fully ergative language either. In Zaza language, ergativity is only in the past, and in this sense, Zazaki is a semi-ergative language. The aim of this study is to explain the ergativity in Zaza language. In the study, sometimes Zazaki and Kurmanci are given comparatively. In Zaza language, the archaic features of the old languages have remained and preserved. In the study, ergativity will be explained depending on transitive and intransitive verb conjugations. In this study, standard Zaza language is used. Because in some dialects, ergativity disappears.

International audience; The paper deals with a verbal construction 'root + -kar' called 'conjunctive participle' in Hindi/Urdu. The main objective of the paper is not to present a full syntactic or semantic account of this construction, but rather to compare it with the Italian gerund. Although the Hindi 'conjunctive participle' is thought to be similar to the Italian gerund, it is not always possible to translate the Hindi 'conjunctive participle' using it. Furthermore, whereas in Italian the gerund can be used both at predicate level or at the level of phrase, in Hindi it is almost always used at the level of predicate. This paper is an attempt to establish similarities as well as differences between these constrictions in two languages.

Agreement in Itelmen is represented by means of both prefixes and suffixes. While the prefixes reference subjects (of both transitive and intransitive verbs), the suffixal agreement morphemes on a given verb may reference the subject, the object, or an oblique argument, or some combination of these. We propose that the proper characterization of the factors that determine which arguments control suffixal agreement involves a division of labour between morphology and a notion of discourse prominence/salience. In essence, we propose that the suffixal agreement morpheme is an object agreement marker, but the features of the subject are reflected in this position when the object lacks the relevant features (for example, we treat third person as the lack of a person feature), or is absent altogether (thus, intransitive verbs agree twice with their subjects). When a verb occurs with an oblique as well as a direct object, discourse salience will determine which of these non-subject arguments will control object agreement. In addition to providing a description of a complex range of facts from Itelmen, the paper sheds light on the nature of “multiple exponence” and the role of “competition” among affixes for a particular position in the verbal agreement system.