Article published in:
Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events: Verb-verb constructions at the syntax-semantic interface
Edited by Brian Nolan and Elke Diedrichsen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 180] 2017
► pp. 213–243

Complex verbs in Bohairic Coptic

Language contact and valency

| University of Amsterdam
This chapter discusses second argument markers in Bohairic Coptic complex verbs constructed with the light verbs er‑ ‘do, make’ and ti- ‘give’ and typically used to integrate verbal borrowings from Greek. The question is examined if Coptic argument marking can be considered a replica of Greek valency patterns. Enhancement of already existing marking strategies seems more plausible, however, whereby the rise of complex verbs has contributed to a radical restructuring of the transitivity system in Coptic. Two competing subsystems of transitivity are distinguished: a recessive one characterized by head marking and emphasis on the discriminating function of case and a productive one in which the characterizing function of case becomes prominent thanks to dependent marking by means of a preposition.
Published online: 26 January 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.180.08zak
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2006 Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 1–66. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Almond, Mathew
2010 Language change in Greek loaned words. Lingua Aegyptia 18: 19–31.Google Scholar
Bagnall, Roger S.
1993 Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Walter
1988 Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th edn, Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland (eds). Berlin: de Gruyter. (English language version: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 2nd edn revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth edition 1958 Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press 1979). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
1994 Case. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Blass, Friedrich & Debrunner, Albert
1979 Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 15th rev. edn, Friedrich Rehkopf (ed.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Bortone, Pietro
2010 Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to the Present. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broden, Thomas
2006 Paradigm versus syntagm. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd rev. edn, Vol. 9, Keith Brown (ed.), 173–175. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chanet, Anne-Marie
1994 Sème négatif et génitif grec. In Cas et prépositions en grec ancien: contraintes syntaxiques et interprétations sémantiques: Actes du colloque international de Saint-Étienne (3–5 juin 1993), Bernard Jacquinod (ed.), 45–62. Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne.Google Scholar
Crum, Walter Ewing
1939 A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
1997 Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole
2002 A construction grammar approach to transitivity in Spanish. In The Nominative & Accusative and Their Counterparts [Case and Grammatical Relations 4], Kristin Davidse & Béatrice Lamiroy (eds), 81–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Depuydt, Leo
1993 For the sake of ⲟⲩⲱϣ ‘love’: an exception to the Stern-Jernstedt Rule and its history. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79: 282–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon
1997 The Theory of Functional Grammar, Vols 1–2, Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
2005 Head marking, dependent marking and constituent order in the Nilotic area. In Studies in African Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 64], F.K. Erhard Voeltz (ed.), 71–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Engsheden, Åke
2006 Über die Markierung des direkten Objekts im Koptischen. Lingua Aegyptia 14: 199–222.Google Scholar
2008 Differential object marking in Sahidic Coptic. In Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses [Studies in Language Companion Series 103], Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds), 323–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Iain
(ed.) 1996–2007 Kellis Literary Texts, Part 1–2. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Gardner, Iain, Alcock, Anthony & Funk, Wolf-Peter
(eds) 1997 Coptic Documentary Texts from Kellis, Part 1. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude
2010 Adpositions. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2009 Terminology of case. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 505–517.Google Scholar
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2013 Case in Semitic: Roles, Relations and Reconstruction. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2009 Grammaticalization of cases. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 458–469.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2005 Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
1991 Transitivity and Clause Structure in Polish: A Study in Case Marking. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole
2014 Argument marking and grammatical relations in Baltic. In Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic, Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornberger, Nancy H.
2003 Introduction. In Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings, Nancy H. Hornberger (ed.), i-xxix. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey
2010 Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Humbert, Jean
1930 La disparition du datif en grec (du Ie au Xe siècle). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Hyvernat, Henri
1886[1977] Les Actes des martyrs de l’Égypte. Paris. Reprint Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Jannaris, Antonius, A.
1897[1968] An Historical Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time: Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek. Reprint Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars
2009 Case and contact linguistics. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 494–501.Google Scholar
2013 Written language intertwining. In Contact Languages: A Comprehensive Guide, Peter Bakker & Yaron Matras (eds), 273–33. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2008 Animacy effects on differential goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2): 245–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Case and typology of transitivity. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 356–367.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael, Blass, Friedrich W. & Gerth, Bernhard
1890–1904[1963–1966] Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Reprint 3rd edn, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Lander, Yury A.
2009 Varieties of genitive. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 581–592.Google Scholar
Lavidas, Nicolaos
2009 Transitivity Alternations in Diachrony: Changes in Argument Structure and Voice Morphology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Layton, Bentley
2004 A Coptic Grammar: With Chrestomathy and Glossary; Sahidic Dialect, 2nd edn, revised and expanded. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth Carol & Rappaport Hovav, Malka
2005 Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio
2001 From ancient Egyptian to Coptic. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International handbook [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20], Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds) 1742–1761 Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2004 Egyptian and Coptic. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, Roger D. Woodard (ed.), 160–217. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio & Müller, Matthias
2012 Ancient Egyptian and Coptic. In The Afroasiatic Languages, Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay (eds), 102–144. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2003 On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series 67]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Narrog, Heiko
2014 Perspectives on semantic roles: an introduction. In Perspectives on Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 106], Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds), 1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2005 Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds), 73–117. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Swart, Peter
2009 Differential case marking and actancy variations. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 339–355.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & Spencer, Andrew
(eds) 2009 The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mallon, Alexis
1956 Grammaire copte: Bibliographie, chrestomathie et vocabulaire, 4me éd., revue par Michel Malinine. Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron
2007 The borrowability of structural categories. In Matras & Sakel (eds), 31–73.Google Scholar
2009 Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Sakel, Jeanette
(eds) 2007 Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayser, Edwin
1926–1934 Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Merlier, Octave
1931 Le remplacement du datif par le génitif en grec moderne. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 55(1): 207–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter
2000 Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2007 Mixed codes. In Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, Peter Auer & Li Wei (eds), 325–340. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol
2006 Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2007 Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Varieties of dative. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 572–580.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1986 Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panagl, Oswald
2006 Zur verbaler Konstruktion deverbativer Nomina. In Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek: Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Greek Syntax and Word Classes’ Held in Madrid on 18–21, June 2003, Emilio Crespo, Jesús De la Villa & A.R. Revuelta (eds), 47–57. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Panévová, Jarmila
2014 Contribution of valency to the analysis of language. In Spevak (ed.), 1–17.Google Scholar
Reintges, Chris H.
2001 Aspects of the morphosyntax of subjects and objects in Coptic Egyptian. Linguistics in the Netherlands 18: 177–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic Dialect): A Learner’s Grammar. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Rice, Susan & Kabata, Kaori
2007 Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the ALLATIVE. Linguistic Typology 11(3): 451–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richter, Tonio Sebastian
2014 Neue koptische medizinische Rezepte. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 141(2): 154–194.Google Scholar
Roegiest, Eugeen
2007 Transitivity and referentiality in Spanish and Rumanian. In On Interpreting Constructions Schemas: From Action and Motion to Transitivity and Causality, Nicole Delbecque & Bert Cornillie (eds), 39–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette
2007 Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Matras & Sakel (eds), 15–29.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Bakker, Dik
2009 Case and alternative strategies: Word order and agreement marking. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 290–303.Google Scholar
Simpson, R.S.
1996 Demotic Grammar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal Decrees. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum.Google Scholar
Spevak, Olga
2014 Noun valency in Latin. In Spevak (ed.), 183–210.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2014 Noun Valency [Studies in Language Companion Series 158]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spiegelberg, Wilhelm
1925 Demotische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Stern, Ludwig
1880[1971] Koptische Grammatik. Leipzig. Reprint Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag.Google Scholar
Tadmor, Uri
2009 Loanwords in the world’s languages: Findings and results. In Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook, Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds), 55–75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Till, Walter C.
1946–1947 Koptische Rezepte. Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 12: 43–55.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988 The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan
2009 A Typology of Verbal Borrowings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vierros, Marja
2012 Bilingual Notaries in Hellenistic Egypt: A Study of Greek as a Second Language. Brussel: KVAB.Google Scholar
Worp, Klaas A.
2011–2012  (Dia)phylassō + DAT.: A linguistic regionalism in inscription from Christian Egypt? Analecta Papyrologica 23–24: 237–239.Google Scholar
Zakrzewska, Ewa D.
2006 The hero, the villain and the mob: Topicality and focality in Bohairic narrative discourse. Lingua Aegyptia 14: 325–346.Google Scholar
2011 Masterplots and martyrs: Narrative techniques in Bohairic hagiography. In Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East: Literary and Linguistic Approaches [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 189], Fredrik Hagen, John Johnstone, Wendy Monkhouse, Kathryn Piquette, John Tait & Martin Worthington (eds), 499–523. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
2015a GIVE and its arguments in Bohairic Coptic. In Causation, Permission and Transfer: Argument Realisation in GET, TAKE, PUT, GIVE and LET Verbs [Studies in Language Companion Series 167], Brian Nolan, Gudrun Rawoens & Elke Diedrichsen (eds), 227–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015b  L* as a secret language: Social functions of early Coptic. In Christianity and Monasticism in Middle Egypt: Al-Minya and Asyut, Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla (eds), 185–198. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming 1. A ‘bilingual language variety’ or ‘the language of the pharaohs’? Coptic from the perspective of contact linguistic. In Language Contact and Bilingualism in Antiquity: What Linguistic Borrowing into Coptic Can Tell Us about it. Papers Read at the Inaugural Conference of the DDGLC Project, Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, April 2010 [Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica], Peter Dils, Eitan Grossman, Tonio Sebastian Richter & Wolfgang Schenkel eds Hamburg Widmaier Verlag
Fortcoming 2. Why did Egyptians write Coptic? The rise of Coptic as a literary language. In Copts and Society: Documentary-historical Studies. Proceedings of the First International Coptic Studies Conference “Life in Egypt during the Coptic Period:Towns and Villages, Laymen and Clergy, Bishops and Dioceses”, Alexandria 21–23 September 2010, Ahmed Mansour ed. 227 236 Alexandria Bibliotheca Alexandrina
Zanchi, Chiara, Sausa, Eleonora & Luraghi, Silvia
(eds) 2015 The Homeric Dependency Lexicon (HoDeL). http://​studiumanistici​.unipv​.it​/hodel​/index​.php (23 December 2015).