The Semitic "Perfect" and the Problem of the Third Person Zero Morpheme
In many languages, third person forms in a verbal paradigm are unmarked, and scholars have suggested that such cases are either a result of loss or nondevelopment. In this article I will argue that in the perfect/stative paradigm in Semitic, the third person morphology is a result of nondevelopment....
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
JAOS
Year: 2025, Volume: 145, Issue: 2, Pages: 327-348 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In many languages, third person forms in a verbal paradigm are unmarked, and scholars have suggested that such cases are either a result of loss or nondevelopment. In this article I will argue that in the perfect/stative paradigm in Semitic, the third person morphology is a result of nondevelopment. I suggest that these forms are constructed as predicative adjectives, without person markers, because Semitic never developed third person nominative pronouns. I further discuss other innovative verbal formations in Semitic and show that when subject clitics are noncanonical, for example in Neo-Aramaic, third person forms are clearly marked. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2169-2289 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: American Oriental Society, JAOS
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.7817/jaos.145.2.2025.ar014 |
