Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Amharic and Romance

 Language Learning Forum : Philological Room Post Reply
berabero89
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 4648 days ago

101 posts - 137 votes 
Speaks: English, Amharic*
Studies: Spanish, Japanese, French

 
 Message 1 of 6
23 December 2012 at 5:15am | IP Logged 
Recently, I've noticed a few things that I never had paid attention to while I was
talking in Amharic:
1) That the future tense was formed by the verb allä, akin to the formation of the
future tense of Romance languages through the use of an auxiliary "to have".
2) That allä, although its primary meaning is "there is/are" (like the Spanish "hay" or
French "a" in "il y a"), it also denotes obligation (like the French "avoir" and
Spanish "hay" again, except conjugated [he de lavar]).
3) The verb allä also means "to have" when conjugated in a certain form (akin to
"avoir" and "aver" [in Old Spanish])
4) The present perfect is also formed using allä. Again, the same thing is found in
Romance languages: "J'ai vu deux hommes" or "He visto a dos hombres"

Here is an internet article I found showing a whole section devoted to compound verbs
formed using allä
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~eilamavi/AmharicExponence_Handout _Final.pdf

I find it very strange that there should be a verb in a Semitic language, Amharic, that
would denote obligation, existence, ownership and also be used as an auxiliary for
forming a future and perfect tense, just like in the Romance languages. Is this all
some coincidence or is this a pattern that crops up throughout languages? What do you
think of this?

Edited by berabero89 on 23 December 2012 at 9:46pm

2 persons have voted this message useful



Volte
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 6445 days ago

4474 posts - 6726 votes 
Speaks: English*, Esperanto, German, Italian
Studies: French, Finnish, Mandarin, Japanese

 
 Message 2 of 6
23 December 2012 at 3:58pm | IP Logged 
A lot of languages do not have this pattern. Japanese, for instance, doesn't make a grammatical distinction between present and future. The mechanisms for indicating obligation and existence are also independent of each other.

It can be surprising how often a familiar pattern shows up when you least expect it, though.

1 person has voted this message useful



berabero89
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 4648 days ago

101 posts - 137 votes 
Speaks: English, Amharic*
Studies: Spanish, Japanese, French

 
 Message 3 of 6
23 December 2012 at 9:45pm | IP Logged 
Volte wrote:
A lot of languages do not have this pattern. Japanese, for instance,
doesn't make a grammatical distinction between present and future. The mechanisms for
indicating obligation and existence are also independent of each other.

It can be surprising how often a familiar pattern shows up when you least expect it,
though.

Actually, Amharic doesn't make a habitual present/future distinction either. It does,
however, have a separate gerundive present (I think Japanese also has this). And my
question wasn't if this was common, but rather if it was found in other unrelated
languages also.
1 person has voted this message useful



viedums
Hexaglot
Senior Member
Thailand
Joined 4672 days ago

327 posts - 528 votes 
Speaks: Latvian, English*, German, Mandarin, Thai, French
Studies: Vietnamese

 
 Message 4 of 6
24 December 2012 at 5:01pm | IP Logged 
That’s an interesting observation, thanks for posting. It seems to me that your question has to do with language typology. I’ll quote what one typologist has to say about “have”:

“It has been shown that in many languages ‘have’ evolved from a transitive referential verb with a meaning like ‘hold, grasp’ or ‘take.’ In a number of languages, ‘have’ has developed a further function, as a tense and/or aspect marker. […] A recurrent scenario is for phonological erosion to reduce the inflectional complexity of a verb, new categories then being created periphrastically, typically involving ‘have’ and/or ‘be’ in new functions. For example, ‘John has gone’ and ‘Mary is coming’ in English. ‘Have’ may develop into a marker of perfect aspect, or of past tense, or of obligation modality ‘have to’ or of future tense. Illustrations of these changes [can be found in] Indo-European, African and Asian languages.” (Robert Dixon, Basic Linguistic Theory vol. 2, p. 301.)

Dixon goes on to cite a range of sources, several of which are on grammaticalization. Clearly what we are talking about here falls under the rubric of grammaticalization, with the content verb “hold” (etc.) taking on various grammatical functions. So you could check a work like Heine and Kuteva’s “World Lexicon of Grammaticalization” to find a discussion of the common pathways that “have” may take when becoming grammatical as it were.

I guess part of your point is that allä ‘have’ isn’t just taking on one grammatical function, but a range of them, and these happen to be similar/identical in Amharic and Romance. I would be interested to know if there has been a “reduction of inflexional complexity” as Dixon puts it in the Amharic verb – is there an “Old Amharic” with a different, less periphrastic verb system, and is there any clear development across time like that between Latin and the modern Romance languages? I don’t know anything about Amharic myself, but looking at the question diachronically like this might explain a lot.

I’ll end this with the observation that while unrelated languages may be similar in this way, closely related ones may diverge. Comparing Latvian and Lithuanian, Lithuanian has grammaticalized the verb ‘tureti’ (to hold) for both possession and obligation. Latvian on the other hand uses a dative construction in both cases:

Lithuanian ‘Aš turiu pinigus.’ [I (nom.) have money (acc.).]

Latvian ‘Man ir nauda.’ [I (dat.) have money (nom.).]

Lithuanian ‘Aš turiu eiti.’ [I have to go.]

Latvian ‘Man jāiet.’ [I have to go.]

In both languages, compound tenses are formed with ‘be’, not ‘have.’ Latvian also has the verb ‘turēt’ ‘to hold’, but it hasn’t taken on these extra meanings. Even though Lithuanian is generally considered the more archaic of the two, in this case the dative possessive of Latvian is actually the older, ‘common Baltic’ form (don’t ask me to prove that, though!) The Latvian obligation construction with ‘jā-’ is also an innovation, as far as I know.

You could probably show this with more mainstream European languages too – linguists have compared IE languages with dative possessive constructions and ones with the verb ‘have’. I would be really interested to hear about less well-known languages from other parts of the world in this regard.



8 persons have voted this message useful



Random review
Diglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 5789 days ago

781 posts - 1310 votes 
Speaks: English*, Spanish
Studies: Portuguese, Mandarin, Yiddish, German

 
 Message 5 of 6
20 February 2014 at 10:03pm | IP Logged 
What an underrated post that was from viedums! Brilliant.
1 person has voted this message useful



Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 7162 days ago

4228 posts - 8259 votes 
20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

 
 Message 6 of 6
24 February 2014 at 8:48pm | IP Logged 
Ukrainian can also express future activity using a bound morpheme that derives from a verb meaning "to get, receive" (although this structure is valid only for imperfective verbs - that is the process or repetition of the actions is more important than their completion or result).

- "Tomorrow I will be reading their letters."
Uk: Я читатиму завтра ïх листи. (I read-(infinitive)-(morpheme derived ultimately from 1st person singular present tense of Proto-Slavonic *jьmati "to have, take") (Cf. variant: Я буду читати завтра ïх листи. - "I will read-(infinitive) tomorrow their letters")

In Hungarian, an emphasized future of sorts is expressed by using the present tense of fogni "to catch, grab; hold" as an auxillary with the main verb's infinitive.

- "Tomorrow I will be reading their letters (and there's no doubt about it, either)."
Hu: Holnap olvasni fogom a leveleiket. (Cf. unemphasized variant: Holnap olvasom a leveleiket. "Tomorrow I am reading / will be reading their letters.")

In Finnish, pitää "to hold" in an impersonal form is used an auxillary verb to indicate a relatively moderate obligation or prescription.

- "I have to go home." (as opposed to "I must go home (or else).")
Minun pitää mennä kotiin. (I-(genitive) hold-(3rd person singular present tense) go-(infinitive) home-(illative)) (as opposed to Minun täytyy mennä kotiin.)
- "I should/am supposed to go home."
Minun pitäisi mennä kotiin. (I-(genitive) hold-(3rd person sing. conditional) go-(infinitive) home-(illative))

On a related note, Finnish saada "to get" can indicate prohibition (negated obligation) or permission (cf. "get" as in "I get to go to the movies tonight.")

- "I cannot/must not/am not allowed to go home." ~ "I don't get to go home."
En saa mennä kotiin. (I-(negative present tense) get-(verbal stem) go-(infinitive) home-(illative))
- "I can/am allowed to stay over at Marja's place." ~ "I get to stay over at Marja's place."
Saan yöpyä Marjan luona." (Get-(1st person singular present) stay overnight-(infinitive) Marja-(genitive) vicinity/place-(essive))

As far as I know in Northern Saami, the verb oažžut "to get" can be used in a similar way to English "to get" and Finnish saada "to get" for indicating permission.

- "I can/am allowed to stay at Márjá's place." ~ "I get to stay over at Márjá's place."
Mun oaččun idjadit Márjjá luhtte." (Get-(1st person singular present) stay overnight-(infinitive) Márjá-(genitive) vicinity/place (postposition))

For more information, see the following:

Modality in Finnish
Acquisitive modals 1
Is There Any Inflectional Future in East Slavic? A Case of Ukrainian against Romance Reopened

The use of verbs referring to possession or acquisition in expressing the future tense or grammmatical mood seems like a rich area of typological research as alluded to by viedums.


4 persons have voted this message useful



If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 0.6406 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.