|
ИСТИНА |
Войти в систему Регистрация |
ИПМех РАН |
||
Persian subsyntaxтезисы доклада
- Автор: Иванов В.Б.
- Сборник: Abstracts. International Conference on Linguistic Heritage. Edited by Dr. Možgān Esmāili. ISBN 978-600-6953-45-6
- Тезисы
- Год издания: 2015
- Место издания: پژوهشکده زبانشناسی، کتیبهها و متون؛ پژوهشگاه میراث فرهنگی و گردشگری English), 76 (Persian), Tehrān
- Первая страница: 67
- Последняя страница: 69
- Аннотация: In the works of well-known Russian iranianists A. Arends, L. Peysikov and Yu. Rubinchik a coherent system for the description of the Persian syntax from the level of word collocations to complex sentences was developed. With some reservations, this system can be applied to closely related languages: Tajik and Dari, as well as their dialects. More elementary syntax level – the connection of clitics and function words with the other words (subsyntax) – was not taken into account at all. The purpose of this article is to fill the mentioned gap, and to revise those parts of the syntax theory that are responsible for the docking of subsyntax with the higher levels – syntax of collocations and sentences Syntactic connection between notional and functional words is unequal and is of a subordinate nature. Upon closer inspection inside this category on the subsyntax level three subtypes are found. 1. Ezafe (non-predicative) connection. According to the beliefs of L. Peysikov the combinations like lab-e daryā ‘at the sea shore’ unlike lab-e man ‘my lip’ is not a collocation. The reason for this is the erosion of the lexical meaning of the word lab ‘lip’ and turning it into a function word. However, the ezafe marker in the combination lab-e daryā ‘at the sea shore’ can be seen clearly, and its function is the link between two words. The first one became a preposition (a function word) and occupies the vertex position in the ezafe collocation. The second one is a noun and occupies the dependent po-sition. Grammatically, the second one extends the first one, semantically – vice versa. The word order is not a decisive factor here, because there are ezafe col-locations with the reverse arrangement of the members, like sāyer-e rofaqā ‘other comrades’, where the first word sāyer ‘the rest’ grammatically occupies the vertex position, and semantically it is the specifier of the second word rofaqā ‘comrades’. 2. Adjunction. All other cases can be reduced to this type of non-predicative connection between the function words: (a) Connection of a pronominal enclitic to a preposition: barāye-šān ‘for them’; beh-et ‘to you’. (b) Connection of a prefix to the verb foru-raftan ‘to sink’. (c) Connection of the preposition to a noun dar šahr ‘in the town’. (d) The connection of the indefinite article to a noun: šahr-i ‘a city’; dānešju-yi ‘one student’. The article and the pronominal enclitic are mutually exclusive in the position after a noun: either xāne-i ‘a house’ or xāne-yaš ‘his house’. Se-mantics plays the main role in this exclusion: the article makes the subject in-definite, but a pronominal enclitic makes it definite. (e) The connection of the postposition -rā to a noun: tasvir-rā ‘the picture + Acc.’, asb-rā ‘the horse + Acc.’. The postposition perfectly combines with the pronominal enclitic, and with the indefinite article: gusfand-i-rā ‘some sheep + Acc.’ ↔ gusfand-aš-rā ‘his sheep + Acc.’. However, in relation to the noun it occupies a more distant position than the other clitic. This order cannot be vio-lated. (f) The connection of a coordinative conjunction to a nominal part of speech: si-vo do ‘thirty-two’. Enclitical conjunction -o/-vo/-yo ‘and’ can act as a purely bilateral link. (g) The connection of subordinating conjunction -ke to a notional part of speech in the clause: Zan-i-ke āmad... ‘the woman who came...’. The noun that refers to a subordinate clause can be expanded by an adjective, and complex -i-ke (article + conjunction) can be combined with the postposition -rā: Zan-e javān-i-rā-ke didam... ‘a young woman I have seen...’. This conjunction also establishes a two-way connection. (h) The connection of a particle to a notional part of speech: čār-tā ‘four pieces’. The particle is closer to the noun than the pronominal enclitic and postposition: čār-tā-šun-o ‘the four of them + Acc.’. Other particles may be placed farther from the noun: Čār-tā-šun-o-am-ke nadidam ‘I, too, saw four of them’. In this example, we see that, firstly, the particle -ke ‘for some one’s sake’ is combined with a particle -tā ‘piece’, and, secondly, separated from it by the pronominal enclitic -ešān ‘them’, the postposition -rā and the conjunction -ham ‘also’. In addition to subcollocations, i.e. non-predicative combinations of function words, there are also capsules, i.e. several types of phonetic words with weak internal word boundaries, which are characterized by the presence of predicativity, for example: dide-i ‘you have seen’ (Perfect), var-eš dār ‘take it away’, goftam-eš ‘I told him’, nist-eš ‘he is not here’, To-yi? ‘Is that you’? The classification of the capsules will be discussed in another paper.
- Добавил в систему: Иванов Владимир Борисович