lr

Chaprer 4Meronyrnic union in Arnharic

4.1 lVIu in Atrtharicl

The -two

,a.guages considered in trre two preceding chapters diffbr ina significant way: whileì(9re11is typically dependerìt ,rr.ti"g, L.ì,",.is r.ainly heacl rnarking. This crifferen.. rru. interesti,g conseque,ces fbrthe rnorphology of MU co,st.rctio,s: Korean flags thc rcration betweenI-l aud M by l,a.ki,g thenr with the sarne casc, wrrire Lakota,rrstchoose a different icon, namery arì agreerìlerlt r,arker on the verb trratcan only be contro'ed by ,' but not M. Trre A,rharic casc- is po,rr.rr"rtvi,teresting because the' Iang,agc rras both hàad and dependent ,rrroì,r*characterisrics, as ( I ) illustràtes:

( l) k{ibbàdà rnulu-n angàr-wa-n yaz_(ri)_at.Kebbede Mulu_,rcc. n..k_1.,.._.oc.c. seize_pasr..he_her'Kebbede seizecl Mulir by the neck.,

TIrc constnrction in (l), a case of MU, shows soure strikirrg parallelsto both Korean and l_akora MU. Morphologically. f",. "_ri"pi.,'if-,.lrolonyrn A'ltrlu and the urero.yr, r,igrrl .,e.ck.are

both.rarkecl with ac_cusati'e case just as happens i. transitive MU i, Korean. ilr. pì..ir.rwitlr Lakota can bc seen in the agreenrent rnarker on the verb t.tt:at'seize" which c.oss-r-cfere.ces the iiorony,r L,rLtru, a-*ì,-i., ,*,r..i,,,'"",the meronyu-r rrrgril.The otrrcr para,ers to l(orean a,d Lakota which sentc,ccs Iike ( l ) re-veal fonn the topic of this chapter. With regarcl to the MU constructio,hcre a.alyzed, w^at these langirages hrr. i,i.on,,on is the set of prop_r Antharic is a Southern Scrnitic language spokcn in Ethiopra lry about l0 nrillion pcople. ltssc'r''-vowcr systcrn incrur,cs, unr.unrlcd rou-r.rd *hrerr n,oi b" aan,r"r or fì.nt (\\.rittcn .r) arìd rhiehcr ccntral sch\ra (wriricn r). prrcnrhcsizr,d,"*,,r",r;.;,.:;"i"tcrl

bv phonokreical rrr[,. Capirrllctters rcprc-sc'nr r'jcclirc consonlnts (thus jn trrc r\i,haric "r;,,;;,., propc. rìarììcs rrcn.t capirarizr,tr.though in Ihc othcr languagcs thcv arc ).

94

erties that follow from the structure proposed in chapter 1 for MU.Amharic MU is also of particular interest b""urs" of other turrgrug"-rp"_cific characteristics trrat differentiate it from Korean and Lakota MU.For example, M mantator,y_ takes a morpheme signaling definiteness(wa in (1)) that agrees in gender with H. oiher main differences concernintransitive MU: unlike Korean, in an Amharic intransitive MU, M bearsaccusative rather than no*rinative case. This option is atso sereciea in ÀeHomeric Greek MU, shown in chapter 1 (fooinote g). Moreover, it willbe shown that Amharic has two varieties àr mi.unrrtiue MU: the first ofthe type found in Korean and Lakota, while the second is to be treated asan impersonal unaccusative structure. Before fuming to MU, some im-portant feafures of verb agreement are introduced.

4.1 .1 Verb Agreement

The table below shows the agreement markers ofAmharic:

(2) [From Cowley, Bender, and Ferguson 1976:g6]2

Person Poss SubjectPAST TENSE

SubjectPRES TENSE

Object

lsc -e _h*, _k* i _ -(à)f,2u.sc -(i)h _(r)h ti _ _(r)h2p.sc -(r§ _(i)s ri _ _ i _(ù§3na.sc -u, -w -a yi _ -(,i)w, _t3p.sc -(i)wa -àòò i+ _atlpt -aòòin -R in(n)_ _(à)n2pt -aòòih* -aòòih' 6 _ _365;1r* _aòòihw3pr -aòòàw -u yi - _u _aÒòàw

, Th".A-l1ic verb agrees in person, genderi, and number with its final1 mandatorily, and with a fi nat- 2 variairy, according to discourse condiltions. Definite or modified final 2s can #ntrol objelt agreem;ri fu;;;;theses in (3) stand for optionalify):

2 The polite forms for second and third person singular are omitted. The vowel indicated withthe symbol s in Cowrey, Bender, Ferguson_ rsTo i. Ir*"i";*nr"o u. a. The parentrresized vowelsin the object column (not i. cowley, Bendel Ferguson i;;;;;;"phonorogically rearized when thesuffix is to be attached to a consonant (drawn fio- ooot"n.t y, Zelelie, Andualem (rg6a:D))-3 A,rharic has two genders, masculine and feminine. Nouns denoting inanimates are masculine(however, masculine nouns can he used as feminine to obtain a diminutive or pejorative meaning). Forconvenience the rnasculi,e agreement marker z/p is grossed as ,itl *h", th" "orrt

olrer is inanimate.

lI

95

(3) a. làmmaLemma

bet-u-nhouse-the-acc

ai,y-à(-w).see-rasr.he(-it)

ayy-à(-w).see-rasr.he(-it)

'Lemma (m.) saw the house.,b. Kon§o màkina

beautiful car'He saw a beautiful car.,

in (3) the first agreement marker -a registers both past tense and oer-son, gender, and nurnber of the final t h;;o4,*hil"il;';i"o _"iu".-w (-u before a consonant) is optionat unalru.t, person, gender, andnumber of the final 2s b^etun.the housel, }À mrikina , car,s.

- àl: agreement rule for nuclear *"* i, e-rraric can be formulated as

(4) VERB AGREEMENT IN AMHARIC

A final I triggers subject agreement.Firu,l2 and 2_Cho trigger Jbject agreement.

The rule is adequate for yielding the correct agreement markers in(3a,b), where the third person singular suffix a is triggered by kimmaand the zero pronoun rr"' .""p""7ir"ir.ii; finar 2s aer .house, andKonso mrikina'a beautifur

"u.'àorooiii',; ffi person object agreementmarker -w, which, in this contexr, i, ;p;;;;i. ìrr" *t" is blind to othergrammatical relations that the tnat t migh;iear. This is clear with sen_tences like (5), where almaz, the a.gumEnilitrr" ,or, predicate astd_mari' is a 2 in the initiar stratum, u"; ir th";reinitialized sti, as a 2 bythe inchoative predicate honaéò.U".o*",1--" .*

.

(5) a. almazAlmaz

astàmari hon_àòò.teacher become-pasr.she

'Almaz became a teacher.,

b.2p

2ChoplChop

almaz astàmari hon_àòò

,r,,, l, àJi}:?irbisvllabic (biliteral) verbs, -a is used instead of -rr (e.g. nrikka .totch,

or ntcìta

.r. i,.l""l'ilT;*:,)|jjultr::",Urhe conditions for occurence of the second asreemenr marker.

:'ilÉ

il;

,;t

,,ii

]d,,t:*r

.l$i,i§

I.tf,il*illir

igi

#r,

96

More complicated is the clause type in (6a), which must be analyzed asan impersonal construction with a structure, shown in (6b), containing anexpletive that enters as a 2, thus putting in chòmage armatz (the u.guÀ"rtof the noun predicate astcimari) and advancing to f @erlmutter l9§3).

(6) a. almazAlmaz

astàmariteacher

Cho

Cho

n(à)-at.be-pesr.it-her

P

P

P

'Almaz is a teacher.'

b.22

I

I

Expl

(i) I am nàriyou (ul.) are nàhyou (r.) are nà§

he is nàwshe is n(à)at

Cho P

astàmari n(à)-at

Cho

almaz

In (6b), the final I is an expretive which triggers the suffrx for the de-fault form, namely the third person singular masculine of the past rj6. Asa final 1, the suffix is drawn from the subject paradigm u, ài"tut"d by(4). The 2-cho, i.e. alntaz, controls the agreement markàr _at,butappearsas an introductory nominative (see footnote g below).

The contrast in (5) and (6) highrights a difference between seriar pred-icates like 'become', which initialize their argument(s), and auxiliarieslike 'be'which only inherit the argument§) from the pieceding stratum,but do not initialize any. The difference between these two rype"s of pred-icates is discussed and motivated in detail in Rosen 1993 (see also foot-note l6 in chaprer l).

6 As obolensky, Zelerie, and Andualem poinr out (r.964:253),,,the present perfect of verbs de-noting 'state' or 'condition' refers usually to the situation existing at the time of speaking,'. This ex-plains the presence in (6) of a suffix drawn from the paradigrn fo. p".t t"n.", i.e. ri, for a sentencewith present tense meaning- The third person singurai ,ou.*lin" sufiix of the past a is the defaultfonn triggered here by the expretive. That (6b) is the correct analysis is supporied by trre paradigmin (i) (from obolens§, Zelerie, and Andualem (r96a:25)), whose pkases har" un imp"..onul st,.ìc-ture in which the expletive is responsible for the invariant subject agreement marker ri appearing inall foms (but phonologically unrealized when followed by a):

we are nànyou (er) are n(à)aòòih*they are n(à)aòòàw

L

9't

4.2 Meronymic (Jnion

we now tum our attention to both transitive and intransitive cases ofMU in Amharic. As we did for Lakota, we must first verifz whether theMU structure gives the correct results with regard to agreement.

4.2.1 MU: Transitive Examples

In Amharic transitive MU too, an asymmetry befween holonym andmeronym is evident; the holonym (in both (7a,b) anull pronoun) éontrolsobject agreement o, the verb (itaricized), while the meronym doÉs not;

(7) a. òanka-§-in abbàlas§-ii-sYshoulder-your.F.sG-ACC destroy_nest.he_you.r.sc'He ruined your shoulder.,

b. yih sibkàtthis sermon

'This sennon really touched my heart.,

c.2p

bàTam libb-e-n nàkk-a-fi'very heart-my-acc touch_pesr.it_rne

. The structure we posited yields the right predictions about agreementin MU. As (7c) shows, in (7a,b) the finàl I .he,, which heads-no otherarc, triggers a subject agreement markeq as predicted by the agreementrule formulated in (4). In a transirive MU conìtruction, Iiake Hlo be thefrnal 2, so it follows that H should control object agreement. In (7a"b)the final 2, 'you.sc' and .me'respectively,

trigger the corresponamg oUject agreement markers -§ and -fi. The final zls also the argument #thenoun predicates òanka and libb, which take a possessirre agreementmarker triggered by their argument. Note also that only the horJnym cancontrol object agreementT. As the folrowing pair illustrates, the verb can-

7 And, while object agreemenr with other definite Nps is onry optionar (recail (3)), in MU theagreement with H is rnandatory:

I

[3'd sc]yih sibkàt

(i) Tàg§-u

mead-the Dawit-ACC

'The mead gave Dawit a headache.,

2Chopx<[2nd sc] òanka-§-in abbàlass-à-sx<[l't sc] libb-e-n nàkk-a-fi'

ras-u-n ammàm_à_w.head-his-acc hurt-pAsT.it-r,)n

98

not agree with the meronym igr ,leg,:

(8) lAllan 1976:3021

The contrast in (8) is consistent with the claim that His solely a predicate.

a. issu Sàhay-in igr-wa-nhe Tsehay-acc leg-her_ecc

'He hit Tsehay's leg.,

b.* issu Sàhay-in igr-wa-nhe Tsehay-ecc leg-her-,+cc

'He hit Tsehay's leg.,

bànzid-(à)-at.

cold-pAST.ither

'Almaz feels cold.'

màtt-(a)-at.hit-pasr.he-her

màft-(a)-w.hit.pesr.he-it

is a term and M

4.2.2 MU: Intransitive Examples

In Amharic, intransitive MU is easily recognized since it does notgive rise to double nominatives as in Korlan8. Further, no active/inactive

(ii)* T১-u dawit-in ras-u-n ammiim_à.rneadthe Dawilecc head-his-ecc hurt_pAsr.rt

. Ge-tachew (1971:107) argues that a nominal can be interpreted as theme (topic in his parrance)only if: (a) it is definite and (b) it controls an agreement -urk". o, the verb. A useful conjecture,then, is that H is always thematic- This would

"rf,rri, oo, onry why agreement with H is mandatorybut also why H is always definite (see (23). Inview of the discourse function of MU, namery tospecifu what part of H is being tarked about, it is plausible that H should typicalty represent old in_formation and M new informatiou.8 Amharic does have sentences similar in format to Korean sentences like (3a,b) of chapter 2,employing the 'introductory nominarive'(as Ambruster 1908 calrs it). In this pattem, prcmiieni mAmharic, a topic may occur in initial position and take zero case marking, regardless of what rera_tion (ifany) it bears in the ensuing clause. For example, (i)(ii) are impersonal constructions in whichthe noun imposes object agreemenr on the verb, y", ì, .un-upp"r. us an .introductory

nominative, byvirtue ofits topic status (the same analysis *u. piopor"d obàve for (6)):

(i) almaz

Almaz

(ii) yonas

Yonasrab-à-whungry-eesr it-hirn

'Yonas is hungry.'

In this wày, doubre nominatives ca, arise, as in (iii), prarer to (3a,b) ofchapter2. However, thenominative topic salay is visibly identified as a non-argument by its failure to control v*b ugr""."nt,

t

99

split is found as in Lakota. The holonym is nominative and controls sub-ject agreernent, while the meronym is in the accusative case:

(9) a. Sàhay

Tsehayras-wa-n Kossail-aii.head-her-ecc wounded-pAST..rre

'Tsehay's head is injured.'

b. Sàhay ayn-wa-n tawwar-ciéòTsehay eye-her-Acc become.blind-pASr.she

'Tsehay became blind in her eyes.,

c.2P

2

ISàhay

Cho PCho P

ras-wa-n Kossàl-aòiayn-wa-n tawwar-ciéò

The agreement rule in (4) correctly predicts that the agreement markeron the verb is from the subject paradigm, since in these structures sr)hryis the final I of the final predicates Kosscir-eiòé ard tawwrir-riòé. Again,the GR that the final I bears in previous strata in (9c) does not affecf theagreement marker selected. The accusative case ot ras ,head,

and, ayn'eye'might suggest that the sentences in (9) are transitive. But these ac-cusatives are unlike those in (3) since they cannot control object agree-ment on the verb. The sentences, I propose in (9c), are intransitive. Theaccusative marking on M is determined by a rule, introduced in §4.4 be-low, which covers both comrlon nouns and noun predicates.

Any attempt to identif,z intransitive MU in Amharic should also takeinto account the prevalence of impersonal constructions (see (6)1. rn(10), which I take to be an impersonal unaccusative, the nominal argu_ment controls object agreement (but appears as an introductory nomina-tive: recall footnote 8). Likewise intransitive MU can be impàrsonal, asin (11a,b,c), where the verb carries a subject agreement -u.k.. (alwaysthird person singular masculine, i.e. the default form), but also an object

(iii) Sàhay

Tsehayabbat-wa mot-rifather-her die-p,q.sr.3.dÀar.sr;

'Tsehay's (fern.) father died.,

Intransitive MU, as shown in (9), differs from (iii) not only in agreement but arso in case mark-ing, so no problem ofconstructional homonyny arises.

100

agreement marker which registers the features of H:

( l0) ineI

bàrràd-à-frcold-pesr.it-me

'I'm cold.'(ll) a. ine

I

(12)

i§§-e-n bàrràd-à-flhand-my-ncc cold-pesr.it-me

'My hands are cold.,

b. [Abraham 1968:95]

ine ras-e-n màllàT_à_flI head-my-Acc plucked.out_rasr.it_me

'I'm bald.'

c. Mulu hod-wa-nMulu stomach-her-acc

ammàm-(à)-athurt-pASr.it-her

'Mulu has a stomach ache.'

. A suitable analysis for these is the impersonar unaccusative structurewith an expletive advancing from 2 to i (perrmutter l9g3), combined

with the MU structure, i.e. an inner p-sectoi where M is the predicate:

2I

Expl

2

ChoCho

x<inex< I

Cho PCho PCho Pi§§en bàrràdàfrhand cold

The structure in (12) differs from plain intransitive MU only in thepresence of an expletive, which enters the structure as a 2, puttin gH ene.I'), rnto chòmage. The verb carries fwo agreement markers: the first, _a,is. third person singular and is the default-form triggered by the dummy.The second is controlled by .me,a final Z_cto. òIn", i,";";r;;;i';;;_tences like (13) substantiate this analysis:

(13) a. ifrfra rab-à-n.we hungry-resr.it-us

'We are hungry.'

L

t01

b.2p2ChoptChop

Expl iflfla rabàn

In (13) too, the expretive trig.gers a third person singular subject agree-ment marker (default case), while ififia, the initial 2 ol rabrin, .o.rr.oi, u,object agreement marker. with regard to the second agreement marker (i?.in(12),n in (13)), in a formulation of conditions fo". ot:".i"g.""_*tone would have to state, as was done in (4), that both 2s uriZ_Cfro,,(such as ine in (12)) are relationally eligibleto control agreement.

4.3 Semantic Cons traint.s

In Amharic too, this construction requires a meronymic pair as de-scribed in chapter l. Commonly, H and M are a person and a body part.MU is impossible if M is ordinary possession and not u _"ronyrn, " '

(14) a. * issu Sàhay-in màkina_wa_n miitr_(a)_ar.he Tsehay-ncc car_her_ecc hit_pasr.he_her'He hit Tsehay,s car.'

b. * làmma mulu_n màSihaf_wa_n nàkk_(a)_at.Lemma Mulu_ecc book_her_acc touch_pesr.he_her'Lemma touched Mulu,s book.,

Kinship terms are excluded, which confirms again that some pairs re_lated by inalienable possession are not meronymic pairs, and thus cannotoccur in MU:

(15) a. * issuhe

mulu-n abbat-wa-n rnàtt_(a)_at.Mulu-acc father-her-acc hit_pasr.he_her

'He hit Mulu's father.,

b. * rnulu làmma-n li§-u-nMulu Lemma-Rcc child_his_acc

àTTàb-àòò-u.wash-pesr.she-him

'Mulu washed Lemma,s child.'

The semantic constraints observed in Amharic MU are correctly de-

102

limited by the structure.plog_os9d in chapter 1, which is interpretable on_ly when the node labeled H denores u fu* of H, and the predicate Mspecifies this part.

4.4 Tests for Termhood

,As before, we expect syntactic tests to verify that H is a term and M issolely a predicatee.

4.4.1 Relativization

In Amharic, as in Korean, a noun predicate canaot be relativized. In(16b) an attempt to relativize asrcimari,t"u"h".,fuils:

(16) a. Sàhay astàmari hon_àòò.Tsehay teacher become-pasr.she'Tsehay became a teacher.,

b. * Sàhay yà-hon-àòòTsehay REl-become_pesr.she

nàw.be.3.dvt.sc

'The teacher that Tsehay became is outstanding.,

Applying this test to an MU like (r7a), we find that H is accessible torelativization and M is not:

(11) a. tàmari-w-n rgr-u-n

astàmari asdànnaKiteacher outstanding

màtt-a-w.hit-pasr.he-himstudent-the-acc leg_his_acc

'He hit the student on the leg.,

9 In this section on svntactic diagnostics, ropicarization is onìitted as irrerevant becauseArùaric, unlike Korean, ailows topicaliziti., "fr"rir"ì'p1l uJìnown in 1tiy,(i) Yonas tàmari ndw.

Yonas shident

'Yonas is a shrdent.,

(ii) tàmari nàwstudent be.3'dul.sc

'A student, yonas is.,

be.3,dvr-.sc

yonas.

Yonas

t

Thus in this context H and M are not expected to show asymmetric behavior

103

b. igr-u-nleg-his-acc

komunistcommunist

yà-màtt-a-wREL-hit-pASr.he-him

nàwbe.3'dt'tr.sc

tàmarisfudent

.The student he hit on the leg is a communist.,

c.* tàmari_w_n yit-matt_a_w igr(_u) iyyà_dàmmastudent-the_acc hit_pasr.he_him t"g(+tre; r;;;_b;;;nàw.

be.3rdrur.sc.The

leg that he hit of the student is bleeding.,

The contrast in relativization revealed by (l7b,c) is expected. H is aj:* Td rhus an erigibre targer [or reratiuizàtion, whereas M behaveslike other noun predicates in tÀat it .unrot t"ilativized.

4.4.2 Passiveto

The expected contrast between H and M also shows up in passives.For a transitive MU such as (1ga) the "rrfy

p"rri"" .orrt;fo;;i;?;6,with H (trimma) advancing to I . A purrirÉ i,irt, rrf advancing to l, as in(1 8c), is unacceptable:

(18) a. kàbbàdà làmma-n igr-u_n matt_a_wKebbede Lemma_acc làg_his_acc hit_pesr.he_him'Kebbede hit Lemma on the leg.,

b. làmma igr_u-n (bà kàbbàdà) tà_màtr-a.Lemma leg-his-ecc by Kebbede pass-hit-pasr.he'Lemma was hit on the leg (by Kebbede).,

c.* igr-u làmma-n tà-màtt-a.leg-his Lemma-ACC pass_hit_pasr.it.His leg was hit Lemma.,

Again, this contrast is consistent with the claim that H is initiarized asa 2, while M is not a nominal at all, but u p."ai"ut".

I0 The passive voice is used only rarely in Amharic (R. Hetzron, p.c.).

t04

4.4.3 Case Marking on Nominal Predicates

In Korean, we saq M takes the same case as its argument H, in keep_ing with the way Korean treats noun ps in general. In Amharic, If,l is al-ways accusative, and one could now ask how this language assigns casemarking to nominals used as Ps. The rule is elusive at first, since somenominal Ps are accusative and others zero-marked. However, the same istrue of final 2s. There seems to be a single semantic criterion that deter-mines case marking on nominal Ps as well as on final 2s.

In (19) the noun Ps (italicized), which are zero-marked, cannot takeaccusative case:

(19) a. SàhayTsehay

astrimari(*-n) hon-àòò.teacher(*-ecc) becorne-past.she

bi-hon...if-become

'Tsehay became a teacher.'

b. làmma yonas-in hakim(*-in) adàrràg-à-w.Lemma Yonas-ecc doctor(+-acc) make-easr.he_him

'Lemma made Yonas a doctor.'

c. hanna mist-u(*-n) nat.Hanna wife-his(*-ncc) be.3.dr,.sc

'Hanna is his wife.'

In the following equational sentences, however, referential pronounsare used as predicates, and these take accusative case:

(20) [Getatchew 1974:150]

a. tne anta-nI you-ACC

'If I were you...'

b. iflfla innantri-n nàn,we you.pL-ACC be. 1.tpL

innantà ififra-n naòòih*you.pl- us-ACC be.2ndpt

'We are you, you are us.'

Related to this contrast, I suggest, is the fact that final 2s are marked ac-cusative if and only if they are definite. For final 2s headed by a comrnon

t

105

noun, the accusative and definiteness markers are mutually concomitant:

(21) a. kassa

Kassa

b. kassa

Kassa

bet(*-in) ayy-à.house(*-ecc) see-pesr.he

'Kassa saw a house.'

bet-u-n ayy-a.house-the-acc see-pasr.he

'Kassa saw the house.'

c.x kassa bet-u aw-a.see-pASt.heKassa house-the

'Kassa saw the house.'

In (2la) accusative case is excluded because the definite articre (m.sg.-ul-w, f-sg- 'wa) is absent. conversely in (2lb,c) the definite articìe oc-curs and accusative *rarking is mandatoryll. proper names behave likedefinites though not overtly marked as such.

obviously, then, there is a semantic criterion for the use of accusativemarking on final 2s. This condition, if stated as in (22b), can be extend-ed to cover the distribution of accusative marking on nominal ps as weil:

(22) accuserrvE MARKING rN AMHARTc

The head of a noun phrase r bears the accusative marker _(i)n iff:a. risaPorafinal2,andb. the existence of the entity denoted by x is presupposed.

As stated in (22a), there are two rerationar crasses of Nps erigible foraccusative marking: predicates which are morphologically Np{ and fi_nal 2s. But the semantic condition (22b) must also be met.

ll Some authors cite examples where indefinite 2s have accusative case:

(i) [Titov 1976:40]

sàw ber-in aW_àlnan house-acc see_pasr-he

'The rnan saw a house.,

(ii) fHetzron 1963:43 l]kàbb?idà bà-hit-u rnàSihaf+n as_màràT-àKebbede by-sisterìis book_acc ceus_choose_pa.sr.he

'Kebbede made his sister choose a book.,

My info.nants systematicalry reject these examples, and require indefinite objects to bezero-marked-

106

Condition (22b) differ entiates straightforwardly berween indefi nites

as in (21a), whose existence is not presupposed, and definites as in(2lb), which do meet the condition and thus mandatorily take accusative

marking. As for nominals used as Ps, condition (22b) fails in such con-

texts as (19): the existence of, respectively, a teacher, a doctor, and a

wife of x is not presupposed by these clauses. This is confirmed by the

traditional test based on negation, e.g. 'Tsehay did not become a teacher'

fails to entail the existence of a teacher. In (20), on the other hand, the

pronouns used as Ps are inherently referential and definite, so condition(22b) is met and accusative rnarking is required.

Returning now to MU, it becomes clear why M always takes ac-

cusative case marking. First, we observe that in Amharic H is required to

be definite. This means it must be marked definite if it is a common

noun rather than a proper name. For example, (23b) is excluded:

(23) a. li§-u dimmàt-u-n òira-w-n yaz-à-w.

child-the cat-the-ACC tail-his-acc seize-pasr'he-him

'The child caught the cat by the tail.'

b.* li§-u dimmàt-in òira-w-n yaz-à-w.child-the cat-ACC tail-his-.qcc seize-pasr.he-him

'The child caught a cat by the tail.'

In the MU structure proposed here, M is a nominal serving as a predi-

cate, and its accusative marking is computed analogously to that of the

pronouns in (20). The definiteness of H, by a well-known mechanism,

spreads to M: if the referent of H is presupposed to exist, then all of itsparts are too. So M, because it names a part of H, necessarily meets con-

dition (22b) and must therefore be marked accusative:

(24) a. fGetatchew 197l:1041

sànTi-w almaz-in i§§-wa-n KorràT-(à)-at.pen.knife-the Almaz-.q.cc hand-her-ecc cut-p.A'sr.it-her

'The pen knife cut Almaz on the hand.'

b.* sànTi-w almaz-in i§§-wapen.knife-the Almaz-ecc hand-her

'The pen knife cut Almaz on the hand.'

KorràT-(ii)-at.cut-PAST.it-her

This semantic condition unifies meronyms with pronouns occuring

107

as Ps, and distinguishes them frorn zero-marked nominal Ps. Under thisaccount the case marking on M conforms to the general treatment ofnominal Ps in Amharic.

4.4.4 The 2-Hood Constraint

Another invariant in MU is the fact that, with respect to the valence ofthe main predicate, H is always a 2. In (25a) lcimnta belongs to a con-stituent headed by i§§-oòò'hands', as shown by the plural verb agree-ment. In (25b) we attempt a paraphrase using MU. But MU is impossi-ble whenever the verb would initialize H as a 1 rather than a 2'.

(25) a. [yà-làmma i§§-oòò] mulu-n nàkk-u-at.of-Lemma hand-pl Mulu-acc touch-msr.they-her

'Lemma's hands touched Mulu.'

b.+ làmma i§§-oòò-u mulu-n nàkk-(a)-at.Lemma hand-pr--his Mulu-acc touch-pasr.he-her

'Lemma's hands touched Mulu.'

c.* wi§§a-wdog-the

'The dog's teeth broke the bone.'

This result bears out the prediction (from independently based con-straints on serialization, explained in chapter 1) that H can only be reini-tializedas a2by the verb, never as a l. If MU has the relational struc-ture I propose, then the structure corresponding to (25b,c) is correctlyruled outl2.

4.5 MU in Amharic: Summary

The Amharic construction I identifz as MU is well characterized bythe structures posited in chapter l, which correctly predict: (a) the re-quirement that the 'extra'noun M be a meronym, (b) the contrasts show-ing that H is a term and M is not, and (c) the 2-hood constraint on H,which is evident in all transitive (or passive) examples.

12 The prediction that intransitive MU should be cornpatible only with unaccusative verbs isunverifiable owing to a lack of independent tests to identify unaccusative verbs. The available ex-amples, howevel all belong to the semantic type associated probabilisticatly with unaccusativity.

Tirs-u aTint-u-n sàbbàr-à-wtooth-its bone-the-acc break-pa,sr.it-it