The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in

Amharic and Geez

Published by
LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111
Trans 10
3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected]
The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl

Cover illustration: The Dome Tower and its surrounding, Utrecht by Mulusew
Asratie

ISBN: 978-94-6093-154-3
NUR 616

Copyright © 2014: Mulusew Asratie Wondem. All rights reserved.

 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication
in Amharic and Geez
De syntaxis van Non-verbale predicatie
in het Amhaars en Geez
(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)

proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Universiteit Utrecht
op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. G.J. van der
Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties
in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag 19 november 2014
des ochtends te 10.30 uur

door
Mulusew Asratie Wondem
geboren op 7 januari 1972
te Felegebirhan, Ethiopië
Promotoren: Prof.dr. M.B.H. Everaert
Prof.dr. O.M. Matushansky
 CONTENTS
List of Tables …….……………………………………………………...….i
Acknowledgement…………………………………….................................iii
Glosses Abbreviations……………………………........……………….….vii
PART ONE…………….........…………………………………………..……1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………...………………………………3
1.Introduction………………………………………………………….3
2.The problem………………………………………………………….4
3.The data…………………………………………………………….10
4.Theoretical framework and review of related literature ............................ 12
4.1.The minimalist program in brief ………………………………….12
4.2.The structure of copular clauses………………………………… 13
4.2.1.Absence of a copula……................................................................. 14
4.2.2.More than one copula ...................................................................... 20
4.2.3.Case-marking………… ................................................................... 23
5.Summary……………………. ................................................................... 29
CHAPTER TWO: THE MORPHOSYNTAX OF AGREEMENT, ASPECT AND TENSE IN
AMHARIC AND GEEZ………………………………………………………..31
1.Introduction……………………................................................................ 31
2.Aspect…………………………. ............................................................... 32
2.1.Perfective and imperfective verbs……………………………………32
2.1.1.Interpretation in embedded clauses……….................................... 33
2.1.2.Stative verbs…………................................................................... 35
2.1.3.The syntactic derivation of perfective and imperfective clauses...37
3.Agreement…………………….................................................................. 41
3.1.Subject agreement…….. .................................................................... 42
3.2.Object agreement……… ...................................................................... 43
3.2.1.Object agreement as a realization of affectedness .......................... 48
3.2.1.1.Semantic effects of object agreement ....................................... 48
3.2.1.2.Obligatory occurrence of object agreement .............................. 49
3.2.1.3.Impossibility of object agreement ............................................ 51
3.2.2.The syntax of affectedness.............................................................. 55
3.3.Genitive agreement……… ................................................................... 57
3.4.The phi-features of agreement .............................................................. 58
3.4.1.Morphological analysis of Geez independent pronouns:
The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

thespeaker/ non-speaker and the proximate/distal distinction...…60

3.4.2.Proximity markers ......................................................................... 63
3.4.3.Gender and number marking ......................................................... 64
3.4.4.Reanalyzing the agreement system ................................................ 68
4.Summary………………………………. ................................................... 70
PART TWO……………………………. ........................................................ 71
CHAPTER THREE: NON-VERBAL PREDICATION IN AMHARIC……….………73
1.Introduction…………….…………………............................................... 73
2.The role of copular verbs in Amharic ........................................................ 77
3.Amharic copulas as personal and impersonal verbs .................................. 79
4.Amharic copulas as raising verbs .............................................................. 84
4.1.Raising in Amharic…….. ...................................................................... 85
4.1.1.Subject raising ................................................................................. 86
4.1.2.Possessor Raising ............................................................................ 94
4.2.Copulas as raising verbs……… ......................................................... 100
5.Predicate selection………….…..……..………….. ................................ 104
6.Summary…………………………… ...................................................... 105
CHAPTER FOUR: CASE-MARKING IN AMHARIC NON-VERBAL PREDICATION 107
1.Introduction………..……………….................................................... …107
2.Nominative predicates…………… ......................................................... 114
3.Accusative predicates………………. ..................................................... 119
4.How is nominative assigned to predicates? ............................................. 127
5.Summary…………………………… ...................................................... 130
PART THREE…………………..................................................................... 131
CHAPTER FIVE: NON-VERBAL PREDICATION IN GEEZ…….…………….133
1.Introduction…………………….............................................................. 133
2.Copulaless clauses………………. .......................................................... 137
3.Copular verbs…………………. .............................................................. 143
3.1.The role of copular verbs ................................................................... 145
3.2.The copula konä……………............................................................. 148
3.2.1.Subject raising in Geez ................................................................ 148
3.2.2.Predicate case-marking in subject-raising constructions ............. 151
3.2.3.Konä as a subject raising verb ...................................................... 153
3.3.The copula halläwä ………………………………………….155
3.3.1.Two types of Datives in Geez ....................................................... 156
3.3.2.Further properties of the case-marker lä-... .................................. 162
The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

3.3.3.Interpretation……………….………. .............. ….………………166

3.3.4. Affected datives: control structures or structural dative cases...169
3.3.5.Halläwä as a possessor raising verb .............................................. 176
3.3.6.Accusative location........................................................................ 177
3.3.6.1.Applicatives in Geez................................................................ 177
3.3.6.2.The location PP as a high applicative ...................................... 184
4.Summary……….……………… ............................................................. 184
CHAPTER SIX: PRONOMINAL AND PREPOSITIONAL COPULAS ...................... 185
1. Introduction…………………................................................................. 185
2. Pronominal copulas………….. .............................................................. 188
2.1.The atemporal interpretation of pronominal copulas…….. ...... ……..190
2.2.Obligatory vs. optional presence and absence of pronominal
copulas..………………………...……………………………..… 191
2.3.Interpretational difference between pronominal copular clauses
and simple juxtaposed clauses………………………..………… 192
2.4.Syntactic structure of pronominal copula clauses............................ 193
3. Prepositional copulas………… .............................................................. 195
4. Summary………………………. ....................................... …………….199
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUDING REMARKS…… .......................................... 201
1.Introduction………………….................................................................. 201
2.Summary of the major claims .................................................................. 201
2.1. Chapter one…………..… .................................................................. 202
2.2. Chapter two………………..……………………………….….203
2.3. Chapter three……………................................................................. 203
2.4. Chapter four…………… .................................................................. 205
2.5. Chapter five…………… .................................................................. 205
2.6. Chapter six………..……. ................................................................. 206
3.Some theoretical implications ................................................................. 206
3.1. Syntactic structure of copular clauses............................................... 207
3.2. On the relationship between BE and HAVE ................................... 209
3.2.1.Have = be + P(reposition)…………… .............................. 209
3.2.2.HAVE = BE + external argument ...................................... 211
3.2.3.The relation between BE and HAVE in Amharic and
Geez………...………………….…………….………212
4.Summary………………….. .................................................................... 213
References…………………………..…………………………………….…..215
The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Appendix………………………………..………………………….…………233
Samenvatting in het Nederlands………………………………………..……..243
Curriculum vitae………………………………………………………………245
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Reclassification of Geez pronouns………………………………………..67
Table 2: The copular and case-marking system of Amharic
non-verbal predication…………………………………………………......76

Table 3: Summary of agreement system of personal and

impersonal verbs…………………………………………………………….81

Table 4: The copular and case-marking system of Geez

non-verbal predication......................................................................136
ii The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This dissertation would not be a reality without the help of other people and
institutions. I would like to begin with Addis Ababa University and Utrecht
University, the former for giving me a study leave and the latter for giving me
the position. The dissertation is carried out by the financial support of NWO. I
owe special thanks to these institutions.
June 18, 2009 has a special place for this dissertation. It was on that
day that I was introduced to Ora Matushansky who has been providing me an
indispensable support. Ora, your role goes back to the inception of this project.
Our first contact begins with a telephone interview for the PhD position. I
should thank you first for your trust on me.
After the start of the project, your input was so immense. You helped
me in identifying the focal areas of the dissertation. The ideas in each of the
titles and subtitles of the dissertation are enriched by your comments and
suggestions. Our frequent meetings were not only limited to office hours. We
were also meeting in weekends and even at mid night through Skype and
telephone. Especially when I was in Ethiopia, where disappointing failure of
internet connection is so common, you were also reaching me through the very
expensive telephone call. Ora, compared to your unreserved effort, the
dissertation might not have reached to the level of your expectation. But, your
power goes beyond this dissertation. You have changed my understanding of
syntax a lot. ስብሃት ለኪ (Thank you in Geez) for all what she did for me.
Martin Everaert also deserves my special thanks. Martin, despite your
busy schedule, you were always there whenever I needed your assistance. You
were so patient to listen to my ideas no matter how naïve they were. The several
discussions we made, the comments and suggestions you gave me have
improved the dissertation a lot. አመሰግናለሁ ( Thank you in Amharic) Martin.
Bert Le Bruyn and Desirée Capel have translated my abstract in to Dutch.
Thank you, Bert and Desirée for the timely response and translation.
Maaike Schoorlemmer has been providing me a lot of support starting
for my arrival in Utrecht. Maaike, the ‘cultural shock’ (as you called it) I
experienced in my first days in Utrecht could have turned everything off had you
not been there. Throughout my stay in UiL-OTS, you were always helpful to
me. The ‘how are you?’ emails you were writing to me and you warm welcome
whenever I wanted to talk to you were so comforting.
iv The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

I have also benefited a lot from the syntax and semantics lectures of
UiL-OTS professors particularly Sief Barbiers, Henrriette de Swart, Bert Le
Bruyn, Joost Zwarts, Rick Nouwen, Eric Reuland, Alexis Dimitraidis Ora
Matushansky. Attending your classes was so interesting. Thank you.
My informants Zelalem Meseret, Belay Mekonnen, Muluken Andualem,
Getachew Endalamaw and Dereje Gebre also deserve my thanks. Thank you for
our fruitful discussions. Another group of people to be mentioned here are
members of my intervision group. André Krom, Marko Simonovic, Rob
Zwitserlood, Qijun Han (Cynthia), Liv Persson, Daria Bahtina-Jantsikene, Tom
Wang and Rogier Kraf. The formal and informal discussions we had were
unforgettable. Cynthia, you were so nice to chat with at occasional morning
coffee, evening beer or dinner
UiL-OTS is an excellent environment to work. I owe my gratitude to
Martin Everaert, Maaike Schoorlemmer, and Henriette de Swart as well as the
secretaries Yvonne van Adrichem, Mariëtte van Bonenkamp, Martien
Kamphuis, and Martine Paulissen. I was also lucky enough to share the attic in
Janskerkhof and Trans with Bert Le Bruyn (who is always ready to help others),
Gianluca Giorgiolo, Sander van der Harst, Aihemaiti Kayshaer, Marie-Elise Van
Der Ziel, Ana Aguilar, Kiki Kushartanti, Rianne Schippers, Anna Volkova,
Jingwei Zhang, Anja Goldschmidt and Björn ’t Hart and Jolien J. Scholten.
Thank you for being good officemates.
I am also thankful to the following fellow PhD students whom I met in
UiL-OTS: Daria Bahtina-Jantsikene and Xiajuan (Judy) Xiong, Marijke de
Helder, Rianne Schippers, Anna Volkova, Jingwei Zhang, Desirée Capel,
Bettina Gruber, Xiaoli Dong, Tom Lentz, Frans Adriaans, Nadya Goldberg,
Dagmar Schadler, Jacomine Nortier, Marieke Schouwstra, Anneloes Canestrelli,
Liv Persson, Loes Koering, Ao Chen, Ji Liu, Yueru Ni, Nicole Grégoire,
Hannah de Mulder, Luca Ducceschi, Liquan Liu, Marko Hladnik, Brigitta Keij,
Sandrien van Ommen, Alexia Guerra Rivera, Anqi Yang, Anna Chernilovskaya,
Eva Poortman, Sharon Unsworth, Assaf Toledo, Ileana Grama, Hanna de Vries
and others whose name I might have not mentioned here.
My stay in the Netherlands was very enjoyable with my friends Melaku
Manaye, Amensisa Ayana (including his family), Yared Abebe, Sanni
Mohammed and Mulugeta Tsegaye. Thank you for making life in the
Netherlands full of fun. Tesfa Mengistu , Feven and Rahel also deserve my
thanks. Owners of the Sunshine Ethiopian restaurant in Utrecht (Ato Zeleke,
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez v

W/ro Yebahreka and their children) were so special to visit on holidays and
weekends. Thank you for your hospitality. I was feeling home while I visited
you. My friends Getachew Adam, Seyum Tikeher, Yihunie Ayele and Yaregal
Asabe has been providing me with great moral support.
I stayed in Utrecht while I left my family back home. This could not be
possible without the strength and patience of Etalemahu Mengesha (Et), my
wife. She was not only taking care of the family, she was also my engine. Et, my
thanks are beyond words. Selam Shiferaw (Eta), a lot of things were on your
shoulder. Thank you so much for being such a strong and good sister. My son
Hiruy Mulusew, the dark days were too long; but they are over now. Thank you
for allowing me to sit in front of the computer although it had been so boring to
you. My brothers Yeshiwas Enyew and Mulugeta Asratie were taking care of
my family. Woynshet Desalegn, Yehizbalem Asratie, Tarekegn Fente, Wudalem
Asratie, Belayneh Esubalew, Belaynesh Shiferaw, Teshome Asratie, Bamlaku
Desalegn and Dirib Biru were also supporting my family and encouraging me.
In my absence my family was so lucky to stay with the very hospitable
family of Ato Yirgalem Woldeyesus (Aba) and W/ro Atsede Birega (Atse).
Atse, Aba, Mikiyas Yirgalem , Ruth Yirgalem, Ato Birega Yahoche , w/ro
Mulunesh Yirga, Etenesh Birega , Askale Birega and Nahom Mulugeta, you
deserve my special thanks for being so good to us. እግዚአብሄር እድሜና ጤና
ይስጥልኝ::
I extend my gratitude to the following linguistics professors at Addis
Ababa University who introduced linguistics to me: Getahun Amare, Baye
Yimam, Girma Awgichew and Bikale Seyum and zelealem Leyew. I also thank
my colleagues at Addis Ababa University who supported me in one way or
another: Getachew Endalamaw, Dereje Gebre, Alem Eshetu, Wondwosen
Adane, Sinknesh Atale, Alemu Kassaye, Zerihun Asfaw, Zelalem Meseret,
Fekade Azeze, Mehari Zemelak, Tewodros Gebre, Girma Gebre, Selamawit
Mecca, Yenialem Aredo, Teshager Asmare, Melkam Geshaye, Shewangizaw
Balkew, Yemisirach Ayalew, Meaza Gebru, Semira Mohammed, Ayele
Fikre, Mohammed Ali, Yewondwosen Awlachew, and Aregga Hailemichael.
vi The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

1 = FIRST PERSON
2 = SECOND PERSON
3 = THIRD PERSON
A = ADJECTIVE
ACC = ACCUSATIVE
AFF = AFFECTED
AFFP = AFFECTEDNESS PHRASE
AGR= AGREEMENT
AP= ADJECTIVAL PHRASE
APL= APPLICATIVE
ASP = ASPECT
ASPP = ASPECT PHRASE
AUX= AUXILIARY
C(OMP) = COMPLEMETIZER
CAUS = CAUSATIVE
CIT = CITATION
CP = COMPLEMTIZER PHRASE
CS = CONSTRUCT STATE
D = DETERMINER
DAT = DATIVE
DEF= DEFINITE
DO = DIRECT OBJECT
IO = INDIRECT OBJECT
DSTL= DISTAL
DSTNT = DISTANT
DUR = DURATION
ECM = EXCEPTIONAL CASE MARKING
viii The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

ESS = ESSIVE
F(EM) = FEMININE
FOC = FOCUS
GEN = GENITIVE
GRND = GERUND
IP= INFLECTIONAL PHRASE
IMPERF = IMPERFECTIVE
IMPRTV = IMPERATIVE
INFNTV = INFINITIVE
INSTR = INSTRUMENTAL
INTRMDT = INTERMEDIATE
M(ASC) = MASCULINE
N = NOUN
NEG = NEGATION
NOM = NOMINATIVE
NP = NOUN PHRASE
O(BJ) = OBJECT
P = PREPOSITION
PASS = PASSIVE
PERF = PERFECTIVE
PF = PHONETIC FORM
PL = PLURAL
PP = PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE
PRES = PRESENT
PROX = PROXIMATE
PRTCPNT = PARTICIPANT
PST = PAST
S(UBJ) = SUBJECT
SC= SMALL CLAUSE
SG = SINGULAR
T= TENSE
TAM = TENSE, ASPECT AND MOOD
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez ix

TP = TENSE PHRASE
TRS = TRANSLATIVE
V = VERB
VP = VERB PHRASE
x The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez
PART ONE
2 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction

This dissertation is about non-verbal predication - i.e. the main predicate is

an NP, an AP or a PP - in two Ethiopian Semitic languages, namely Amharic
and Geez1. Amharic belongs to the South Ethiopian branch of the Semitic
language subfamily. It is the most widely spoken language. Unlike Amharic,
Geez does not have native speakers these days. It is used as a liturgical
language of Ethiopian Orthodox Church in the same way as Latin was/is
used in the Catholic Church. It is taught as a second language in the
traditional schools of the church. Non-verbal predication in Amharic and
Geez shows some properties which are not seen in better known languages
like English. These properties are mainly visible in their copular system and
case-marking properties of the predicative NPs and APs that show up with
the copulas. The main objective of this dissertation is to provide a syntactic
analysis for these copular clauses which explains the variation we will
discuss below.
The thesis is organized in three parts which constitute six chapters,
and another concluding chapter. The first part is the background. It contains
two chapters. The first chapter introduces the research problem, the
theoretical framework and the review of literature. Chapter two deals with
aspect, tense and agreement system of the languages, which serves as a
spring board to explain a number of phenomena in the chapters that follow.

1
The ISO 639 identifier is: amh; for Geez: gez. Geez is also known as Ethiopic
4 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Part two (i.e. chapters three and four) focuses on the non-verbal
predication system of Amharic. In chapter three, I discuss why Amharic
copulas differ in terms of agreement system and type of predicate they show
up with. In chapter four, I discuss the nominative and accusative alternation
of the predicate case-marking.
Part three (chapter five and six) deals with Geez. In chapter five, I
discuss the copulaless clauses and copular verbs. In chapter six, I deal with
pronominal and prepositional copulas. The case-marking system of Geez
copular clauses will be discussed along with the discussion of each type of
copula. Chapter seven concludes the thesis.

2. The problem

Amharic has three copular2 verbs näw, allä and nabbär, which are used to
indicate tense (Goldenberg 1964, Demeke and Meyer 2001. Demeke 2003,
Yimam 2006 among others). The copulas näw and allä indicate present
tense. The former is a predicational copula while the latter is an existential
copula. The copula näbbär is the past counterpart of both näw and allä.
These copular verbs differ in terms of their agreement system and the type of
predicate they show up with. The present tense predicational copula näw is
obligatorily marked for what are traditionally known as subject and object
agreement and it appears with all types of predicates (NPs, APs, and PPs)
(1):
(1) saba3 mämhɨr/tɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’ n-ø-at4
Saba teacher/tall/at-house inside be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is a teacher/tall/at home.

2
By the term copula, I am referring to a semantically vacuous element which is
neither part of the subject nor the predicate in non-verbal predication. In Amharic,
the copular verbs näw, näbbär and allä also differ from other lexical verbs in their
morphological behavior. Unlike lexical verbs, they have only perfective form. They
do not have imperfective form. This distinguishes, real copular verbs from the
apparent ones. For example, many people consider the verb honä in Amharic as a
copula. Unlike the real copular verbs, however, honä behaves like other lexical
verbs in that it has perfective (honä) and imperfective(yɨhun) aspect.
3
Saba is the name of a female person.
4
Note that the 3MSG subject agreement marker –ä disappears due to phonological
reason. Amharic does not allow two consecutive vowel clusters.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 5

The present tense existential copula allä and the past tense copula näbbär on
the other hand are marked for subject agreement or for subject and object
agreement with a corresponding alternation in BE (locative) and HAVE
(possessive) interpretations. When they are marked only for subject
agreement, they are interpreted as BE. In this case, allä shows up only with
PPs (2)a while näbbär shows up with all types of predicates (2)b.
(2) a. saba *mämhɨr/*tɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’ all-äčč
Saba *teacher/*tall/at-house inside be.PRES-3FSGS
Saba is at the home.

b. saba mämhɨr/tɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’ näbbär-äčč

Saba teacher/tall/at-house inside be.PST-3FSGS
Saba was a teacher/tall/at home.

When they are marked for subject and object agreement, they are interpreted
as HAVE and they show up only with NPs (3):
(3) saba tamari-wočč all-u-at/ näbbär-u-at
Saba student-PL be.PRES-3PLS-3FSGO/ be.PST-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba has/had students.

Furthermore, the case-marking pattern of NPs and APs in Amharic varies

depending on the copula. With the copula näw and the BE interpretation of
näbbär, NP and AP predicates can be nominative, which is morphologically
unmarked, or accusative while the subject is always nominative (4). With the
HAVE interpretation of allä and näbbär, on the other hand, the possessor
and the possessee are always nominative (5):5
(4) a. saba tämari-wa/ tämari-wa-n n-ø-at
Saba.NOM student-DEF.NOM/ student-DEF -ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-
3FSGO
Saba is the student. (with nominative)
Saba is just like the student. (with accusative)

5
Note that the definite markers –u(w) and –wa are homophonous with the 3MSG and
3FSG genitive agreement markers. As a result, the nouns which are marked for these
suffixes are always ambiguous between definite and possessive interpretations. For
example tämari-w can mean ‘the student (masc.)’ or ‘his student’. Similarly, tämari-
wa can mean ‘the student (fem)’ or ‘her student’.
6 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. saba tämari-wa/tämari-wa-n nӓbbӓr-ӓčč

Saba.NOM student-DEF.NOM/ student-DEF -ACC be.PST-3FSGS
Saba was the student. (nominative)
Saba was just like the student. (accusative)

(5) a. saba tämari-wočč/ *tamari-woččɨ-n all-u-at

Saba.NOM student-PL.NOM/*student-PL-ACC be.PRES-3PLS-
3FSGO
Saba has students.

b. saba tamari-wočč/*tamari-woččɨ-n nӓbbӓr-u-at

Saba.NOM student-PL.NOM/ *student-PL-ACC be.PST
-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba had students.

Geez, on the other hand, exhibits non-verbal predication with or without a

copula. In the absence of a copula, the subject and the predicate are simply
juxtaposed (6). In this regard, Geez behaves like Arabic (Benmamoun 2000)
and Hebrew (Doron 1983, Rapoport 1987) which also belong to the Semitic
subfamily, like Geez:
(6) mämhɨr/näwwiha p’awlos
teacher/tall Paul
Paul is/was a teacher/tall.

In addition to this, Geez has copular elements which differ in terms of their
category, agreement system and type of predicate they show up with
(Teklemariam 1899:123-129, Dillmann 1907: 498-499, Kifle 1948:79-80,
Demeke 2007). In this regard also, it behaves like Hebrew and Arabic in that
it has pronominal copulas (7)a. However, it differs from them in that it
exhibits prepositional copulas (7)b6. Moreover, Geez uses the verbs konӓ
(7)c and hallӓwӓ (7)d which have the lexical semantics of ‘become’ and
‘exist, be.present’ respectively as copulas (Teklemariam 1899, Dillmann
1907, Kifle 1948, Fenta 1986)7.

6
Of the prepositions in Geez only two, namely bä and lä are used as copulas.
7
Although the verbs show such difference in their lexical meaning, I gloss both of
them as ‘be’ in their copular function.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 7

The copular elements in Geez also differ in terms of their agreement

system and type of predicate they show up with, just like Amharic copulas.
Pronominal copulas (7)a and the verbal copula konä (7)c agree only with the
subject and show up with all types of predicates. The prepositional copula
and the copular verb hallӓwa alternate between BE (locative) and HAVE
(possessive) interpretations with a corresponding difference in agreement
marking. In their BE interpretation the prepositional copula takes the default
3MSG subject agreement (7)b and the copular verb halläwä agrees only with
the subject (7)d:
(7) a. antɨmu mӓmhɨr-an/ näwwiha-n/ wistä bet antɨmu
you.MPL teacher-PL/ tall-PL/inside house you.MPL
You guys are/were teachers/ tall/ at home.

b. b-o may wɨstä bahr

in-3MSG.GEN water inside sea
There is/was water in a sea.

c. wä-kon-ä abel nolawe abagʔ-a/yäwwah-a/ laʔlä

and-be.PERF-3MSGS Abel shepherd-ACC/polite-ACC/top
manbär8
chair
And Abel was a shepherd/polite/ on the chair.

d. halläw-ä mäs’haf laʔlä mänbär

be.PERF -3MSGS book top chair
There is/was a book on the chair.

As (8)a shows, in their HAVE interpretation, the prepositional copula agrees

with the possessor while the verbal copula establishes subject agreement
with the possessee and object agreement with the possessor (8)b:

8
The form of the accusative marker in Geez varies depending on the final sound on
the nominal. It is –e before front vowels (nolawi > nolawe), -o before back vowels
(wäldu > woldo) and a before glottal consonants (yäwwah > yäwwaha) and ä in
other environments (wäld > wäldä).
8 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(8) a. b-atti awald lӓ-bɨʔsit

in-3FSG.GEN girl.PL to-woman
The woman has/had children.

b. hallӓw-ø-a mäs’haf lӓ-saba

be-3MSGS-3FSGO book to-Saba
Saba has/had a book.

Furthermore, NPs and APs in Geez copular clauses show various case-
marking patterns (Teklemariam 1899, Dillmann 1907, Kifle 1948, Fenta
1986). With copulaless clauses and pronominal copulas, both the subject and
the predicate are nominative, which is morphologically unmarked (9)a. With
the copular verb konӓ, the predicate is accusative while the subject is
nominative (9)b. With the prepositional copula and verbal copula halläwä,
on the other hand, the case-making varies depending on the BE and HAVE
interpretations. In the BE interpretation, the subject is nominative while the
location can be a PP or accusative (9)c&d. In the HAVE interpretation, the
possessor is dative and the possessee is nominative (9)e:
(9) a. antɨmu (wɨʔtu) mӓmhɨr-an/ nӓwwih-an
you.MPL.NOM he teacher-PL.NOM/ tall-PL.NOM
You guys are teachers/tall.

b. kon-ä yonas mämhɨr-ä/sännay-ä

be.PERF-3MSGS Jonas.NOM teacher-ACC/good-ACC
Jonas is/was a teacher/handsome.

c. b-o/ halläw-u s’adk’an wɨstä bet-kä

in-3MSG.GEN/ be-3MPLS righteous-PL inside house-2MSG.GEN
There are/were righteous people in your house.

d. halläw-u gädam-ä
be.PERF -3MPLS field-ACC
They are/were in the field.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 9

e. b-atti/ hall-ø-wa mäs’haf lä-saba

in-3FSG.GEN/ be-3MSGS-3FSGO book.NOM to-Saba
Saba has/had a book.

To sum up, the non-verbal predication systems of Amharic and Geez exhibit
variation along the following lines:
I. Amharic:
a. agreement system
b. type of predicate the copular verbs show up with
c. case-marking of NPs/APs
II. Geez:
a. presence vs. absence of a copula
b. lexical category of the copula (verb, pronoun,
preposition)
c. agreement system
d. type of predicate the copulas show up with
e. case-marking of NPs and APs
Theoretically speaking, copular constructions are assumed to have a uniform
structure. They are considered to be built on a predicational core known as a
small clause (Stowell 1981, Bowers 1993, den Dikken 2006 among others).
The copula - inserted in order to provide information about tense, aspect and
mood (TAM) - is assumed to take this small clause as a complement. The
syntactic derivation of copular clauses then proceeds in such a way that the
copula at TP establishes agreement with the subject of the small clause. The
subject is assigned nominative case as a byproduct of the agreement it enters
with the copula, and it moves to spec, TP in order to satisfy the EPP feature
of T9. Since Bowers (1993), the small clause is assumed to be headed by a
functional head known as Predo. Accordingly, the syntactic structure of the
English copular clause John is a teacher is analyzed as follows:

9
See section 4 about EPP
10 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(10) TP
NPi T’
o
John T PredP
is ti Pred’
Predo DP
a teacher

Given this uniform analysis, cross-linguistic variation with regard to the

copular system and case-marking of subjects and predicates in Amharic and
Geez, as described above, raises a question. If copular constructions have a
uniform structure, which involves a copula and a small clause construction
which looks like (10), how is the morpho-syntactic variation that we see in
the non-verbal predication system of Amharic and Geez explained? The
main objective of this dissertation is to provide answer to this question.
Specifically, the dissertation provides a syntactic analysis for Amharic and
Geez copular clauses which explains:
1. Why the copular elements in Amharic and Geez differ in
terms of their agreement system and type of predicate they
show up with.
2. What is the status of copulaless clauses in Geez.
3. Why the copular elements in Geez differ in their category.
4. What determines the case-marking patterns of NPs/APs that
show up with different copulas.

3. The data

The data used in this study comes from a number of secondary sources, as
well as from my own fieldwork, which took place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
from October 2010 to January 2011. For Amharic, the data is obtained from
my native intuition and from that of two other native speakers, Getachew
Endalamaw, 55, male and Dereje Gebre, 53, male. The data for Geez is
collected from three sources: (1) Geez grammar books, (2) texts written in
Geez, and (3) individuals who have extensively studied the language. The
grammar books mainly used for this study are የግዕዝ ቋንቋ ሰዋስው (yägɨʔɨz
k’uank’ua säwasɨw) written by Aba Teklemariam in 1899, መጽሐፈ ሰዋስው
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 11

ወግስ ወመዝገበ ቃላት ሐዲስ (mäs’hafä säwasɨw wägɨss wämäzgäbä qalat haddis)
written by Kidaneweld Kifle in 1948, ፍኖት ግዕዝ (Fɨnotä Gɨʔɨz) written by
Yared Fenta in 1986 and Ethiopic Grammar written by August Dillmann in
1907. The Geez texts are mainly extracts from the Bible,which is accessible
online from http://www.tau.ac.il/~hacohen/Biblia.html and
http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/reference.html. The informants whom I
consulted are Zelalem Meseret, 53, male; Belay Mekonnen 55, male, and
Muluken Andualem, 43, male. All of them have studied the language for
more than ten years in the traditional schools of the Ethiopian Orthodox
church and graduated as Geez teachers. Currently, they are engaged in
teaching and researching on the language. In particular, Zelalem Meseret
teaches Geez at Addis Ababa University, Belay Mekonnen has published
books on Geez, and Muluken Andualem is a Geez instructor in Axum
University, Ethiopia. He wrote his dissertation on Geez grammar 10.
The data collection from the informants took place based on the
questionnaire attached in the appendix. First, the questionnaire was
distributed to each of the informants so that they can give the Geez and
Amharic translations of the given English sentences. After they returned the

10
Note that all of the Geez informants have learned the language as a second
language. There have been arguments regarding the reliability of the grammaticality
judgments of second language speakers for linguistics research. For example Davies
and Kaplan (1998) argue that second language learners do not use the same
strategies as native speakers in grammaticality judgments, thereby creating doubt on
theoretical claims based on data elicited from them. On the other hand, Mandell
(1999), after comparing the grammatical judgments of intermediate and advanced
Spanish second language learners, have concluded that grammaticality judgment
data from these second language Spanish learners is a reliable measure of linguistic
knowledge. This may cast some doubt on the reliability of the data obtained from
my Geez informants. Two things need to be considered here, however. Firstly, my
informants, although they learned the language as a second language, are beyond the
subjects (intermediate and advanced learners), which are used as a source of data for
the researchers mentioned above. As stated, my informants are linguistically
sophisticated in that they not only master the language, but also engage in teaching
and researching on it. This means that they have high proficiency which enables
them not only to assess general grammaticality, but also to identify and/or correct
particular details as indicated by Gass (1983). Secondly, they are not the sole source
of data. The data obtained from them is cross-checked against the grammar books
and texts in order to make it more reliable.
12 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

filled out questionnaire, individual discussion was conducted with each of

them for about 4-6 hours. The discussion was recorded on tape.
In the dissertation, all examples coming from secondary sources are
marked as such, with their sources indicated. For the remaining data,
which is collected from informants and grammar books, the relevant
sources are indicated in footnotes or in the accompanying discussion.

4. Theoretical framework and review of related literature

4.1. The minimalist program in brief

The theoretical framework adopted in this study is the Principles and

Parameters Theory, specifically, the Minimalist Program developed in
Chomsky (1995, 2000, and 2001). In Minimalism, language is assumed to be
based on simple principles that interact to form intricate structures. Like the
earlier versions of Generative Grammar (Transformational Generative
Grammar and Government and Binding theory), Minimalism hypothesizes
that there is a component in the human cognitive system specialized for
language. This cognitive component is assumed to interact with other
cognitive systems, namely, the phonological-articulatory (P-A) and the
conceptual-intentional (C-I) systems which interpret linguistic expressions.
Any linguistic expression is acceptable only if it is legible to the P-A and
C-I systems. As a result, linguistic representations have only two interfaces,
which are known as phonological form (PF) and logical form (LF) that
correspond to the P-A and C-I systems respectively. The PF is an input for
P-A, and the LF is an input for C-I. Syntactic constructions are built through
three operations known as Merge, Move and Agree. Merge is a binary
operation which is applied recursively. This means that two objects merge
and form a bigger syntactic object, and the bigger object merges with
another object to form another bigger object:
(11) Merge (X, Y) Z
Move (also known as internal merge) and Agree are applied to merged
objects. The notions of Agree and move are highly related to formal features.
Thus, in order to understand them, it is better to start with the discussion of
features. Syntactic constituents are endowed with semantic, phonological
and grammatical (formal) features. Among these features, the phonological
and semantic ones are interpretable at PF and LF respectively since they are
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 13

legible to the P-A & C-I systems. Grammatical features, however, can be
interpretable or uninterpretable. For example phi-features (number, gender
and person features) are interpretable on nouns, but uninterpretable on verbs.
Moreover, heads have an uninterpretable EPP feature which requires their
specifiers to be filled.
In order for a derivation to converge at the interfaces, uninterpretable
features have to be deleted. The process of deleting uninterpretable features
is done through a feature checking operation which involves Agree and
move. Through Agree a head which contains uninterpretable features targets
another constituent which contains interpretable features. If the features
agree, the unintepretable phi-features of the head are erased or deleted. If
not, the derivation crashes. The operation Move is used to check the
uninterpretable EPP feature of heads. That is in order to satisfy the EPP
feature of a head, a constituent moves from the complement position to the
specifier position of that head. Satisfying the EPP feature may also involve
inserting an expletive rather than movement.

4.2. The structure of copular clauses

In Minimalism, a clausal structure is assumed to be built on a predicational

core on which other functional projections, which are responsible for
checking formal features (case, agreement and EPP features), and
information structure are built. In the verbal predication, the predicational
core is built by filling the argument structure of the verb. For example, the
predicational core of a clause which is built on a di-transitive verb contains
one object as a complement of V, the other object as specifier of the VP and
the subject as specifier of vP ( little vP)11:

11
whether the direct or indirect object is the complement of V is a debating issue.
For example Chomsky (1981) and Larson (1988) argue that the indirect object is the
complement of V. Hoekstra (1991) on the other hand argues that the direct object is
the complement of V.
14 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(12) vP
NP v’
o
subj. v VP
NP V’
DO/IO Vo NP
IO/DO

As we mentioned earlier, in copular constructions the predicational core has

been known as a small clause (Stowell 1981, Bowers 1993, den Dikken
2006), which, since Bowers (1993), is assumed to be headed by a functional
head, Predo, which is the equivalent of the vo of verbal predication. In such
clauses, the copula - inserted in order to provide information about tense,
aspect and mood (TAM) - is assumed to take this small clause as a
complement. The syntactic derivation of copular clauses then proceeds in
such a way that the copula at TP establishes agreement with the subject of
the small clause in order to check its uninterpretable phi-features. The
subject is assigned nominative Case as a byproduct of the agreement it enters
with the copula, and it, moves to spec, TP in order to satisfy the EPP feature
of T as demonstrated in (10) above.
Given this uniform analysis, cross-linguistic variation with regard to
the copular system and case-marking of subjects and predicates, as described
above in Amharic and Geez, raises a number of questions. If copular
constructions have a uniform structure, which involves a copula and a small
clause construction which looks like (10), what is the syntactic status of
clauses without a copula? Why do some languages have more than one
copula which differ in terms of the type of predicate they show up with and
their agreement system? Why do languages show variation in case-marking
patterns of the NPs/APs in copular constructions? These questions have been
addressed by a number of researchers based on data from different
languages. In the sections that follow, I review some of the literature that
addresses these questions.

4.2.1. Absence of a copula

Clauses that do not contain a copula are found in a number of languages

such as Arabic (Mouchaweh 1986), Hebrew (Doron 1983, Rapoport 1987),
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 15

Russian (Pereltsvaig 2001). Among Ethiopian languages, Oromo (Kebede

1981), Hadiya (Sim 1989) and Gumuz (Irwin 1966, Ahland 2012) exhibit
copulaless clauses. In the generative literature, the syntax of such clauses is
given two types of analyses: a small clause analysis and a full clause
analysis. The small clause analysis was first introduced by Mouchaweh
(1986) and adopted by Rapoport (1987) and Rothstein (1995). Such analysis
considers clauses that lack copular elements matrix small clauses. For
example, Rapoport claims that Hebrew clauses which contain no copula
(13)a, unlike those which contain a pronominal copula (13)b and a verbal
copula (13)c, are matrix small clauses that do not contain a functional layer.
(13) a. ha-yeled student
the-boy student
The boy is a student.

b. ha-yeled hu student
the-boy he student
The boy is a student.

c. ha-yeled haya student

the-boy was.M student
The boy was a student.

She then analyzes their syntax as in (14)a, as opposed to (14)b:

(14) a. copulaless clauses:
NP=SC

NP NP/AP/PP

b. clauses with pronominal and verbal copulas:

IP
NPi I’
ha-yeled I NP=SC
hu/haya ti NP
student
Under this analysis, the presence of a phonologically null copula is ruled out
for theoretical reasons. For example, Rapoport argues against null copula
based on Travis’ (1984) idea that every empty category must be licensed
either through lexical government or antecedent government. This means
that the content of every empty category should be recoverable. If copulaless
16 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

clauses had contained a functional projection dominating the small clause,

the contents of the head of this functional projection would not be
recoverable since it is neither lexically governed nor has local antecedent.
To explain why matrix small clauses are allowed in Hebrew,
Rapoport claims that it is because there is a morphological agreement in
number and gender between the subject and the predicate, and that the
subject is assigned Case through this morphological agreement:
(15) a. dani xol-e
Dani sick.MASC
Dani is sick.

b. tali xol-a
Tali sick-FEM
Tali is sick.

c. tali ve-david xol-im

Tali and-David sick-MPL
Tali and David are sick.

d. tali ve-xeli xol-ot

Tali and-Xeli sick-FPL
Tali and Xeli are sick.

However, she also pointed out that this analysis fails to explain matrix small
clauses which contain PP predicates that do not morphologically agree with
the subject:
(16) yoram al ha traktor
Yoram on the-tractor
Yoram is on the tractor.

The full-clause analysis of copulaless clauses is advocated by Doron (1983),

chaine (1993), Benmamoun (2000) and recently by Hazout (2010). In this
analysis, copulaless clauses are assumed to be full-fledged clauses just like
those which contain overt copulas except that the copula/tense projection is
phonologically null or abstract. Arguments in favor of this analysis come
from two sides: the similarity between copulaless clauses and full clauses
( oron 198 , chaine 1993, Benmamoun 2000) and the differences
between copulaless clauses and small clauses (Hazout 2010). Benmamoun
(2000:40-42) lists six similarities, including those mentioned by Doron
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 17

(1983) and chaine (1993) between copulaless clauses and full clauses in
Arabic on the basis of which he claims that copulaless clauses must contain a
tense projection (TP). The first of these similarities is that copulaless clauses
can contain temporal adverbs, which Benmamoun claims to be anchored by
tense:
(17) omar f-d-dar daba Moroccan Arabic
Omar in-the-house now
Omar is in the house now.

Secondly, embedded copulaless clauses have a present tense interpretation

even if the matrix verb is past:
(18) a. qal bəlli Omar f-d-dar Moroccan Arabic
say.PAST.3MSG that Omar in-the-house
He said that Omar is in the house.

b. qul-ti bəlli Omar naʕəs

say.PAST-2SG that Omar sleeping
You said that Omar is sleeping.

Thirdly, copulaless sentences are dominated by a complementizer bǝlli (18)b

which is allowed only in tensed clauses, but not in non-tensed clauses (19)a,
nor genuine small clauses (19)b:
(19) a. ṣʕɨb baš/*bǝlli y-ži Moroccan Arabic
difficult that 3M-come
It is difficult for him to come.

b.* šəf-t bəlli Omar naʕəs

see.PAST-1S that Omar sleeping
Intended meaning: I saw Omar sleeping.

Fourthly, the subject of copulaless clauses is assigned nominative Case:

(20) ṭ-ṭaalib-u fii 1-maktabati Standard Arabic
the-student-NOM in the-library
The student is in the library.
18 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Fifthly, both the subject and the predicate can be wh-moved in questions and
relatives, which suggest that these clauses contain CPs12:
(21) a. škun f-d-dar Moroccan Arabic
who in-the-house
Who is in the house?

b. fin Omar
where Omar
Where is Omar?

c. 1-wəld lli f-d-dar

the-boy who in-the-house
The boy who is in the house.

Sixthly, the subject of the copulaless sentence can be an expletive

pronominal, which is inserted in spec, TP:
(22) lazəm tə-mši ltəmma Moroccan Arabic
necessary 2-go there
It is necessary for you to go there.

Benmamoun argues that these properties belong to full clauses. Copulaless

clauses could not show these properties if they were small clauses. He then
claims that they contain a tense projection and should be analyzed as full
clauses. To explain the absence of a copular element, Benmamoun relies on
Chomsky’s (1995) assumption that functional categories are specified for
uninterpretable categorial [+V] and [+D] features which need to be checked
in the derivation. He then argues that T in Arabic is specified only for [+D]
feature in the present tense and for [+V, +D] features in the past and future.
The verbal copula is required in order to check the [+V] feature of T. Since
the present in Arabic does not have [+V] feature, a verbal copula is not
required. As a result, present tense clauses appear without a copula.
Hazout’s argument in favor of a full clause analysis of copulaless
clauses, on the other hand, is based on the difference between copulaless
clauses and canonical small clauses. His argument basically comes from
what he calls predicative and atmospheric interpretations of some Hebrew
predicates which, according to him, are determined by the referentiality of

12
Benmamoun does not provide any evidence whether the wh-words in such
clauses undergo movement or not.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 19

the subject. By atmospheric interpretation, Hazout is referring to the type of

interpretation in which a property denoted by the predicate is registered as
present in a given spatiotemporal location without being attributed to a
specific object in the same way as describing a weather condition like it is
cold. The atmospheric interpretation obtains when the subject is an expletive
pro (23)a as opposed to the predicative interpretation which obtains when the
subject is referential (NP/DP/PRO), as in (23)b:
(23) a. kar hayom
cold today
It is cold today. Atmospheric interpretation
#One is being cold today. Predicative interpretation

b. ha-manoa kar. Predicative interpretation

the engine cold
The engine is cold.

According to Hazout, copulaless clauses do not allow the predicative

interpretation with a PRO subject although they allow the atmospheric
interpretation with pro, as in (23)a, and predicative interpretation with NP
subjects, as in (23)b. On the other hand, the atmospheric interpretation is
totally ruled out in canonical adjunct small clauses, as the opposition
between (24)a and (24)b shows. Hazout argues that the unavailability of the
predicative interpretation in copulaless clauses (cf.(23)a) is because such
clauses contain an abstract finite tense projection which licenses pro, but not
PRO. Similarly, the atmospheric interpretation is ruled out from adjunct
small clauses (cf. (24)b) because small clauses do not contain a finite tense
which licenses an expletive pro. Based on this, Hazout argues that copulaless
clauses are full clauses.
(24) a. kar ve gašum kan hayom.
cold and rainy here today
It is cold and rainy here today.

b. *[kar ve gašum] Dan lo rocé la-lexet la-avoda.

cold and rainy Dan not wants to-go to-work
Intended meaning: It being cold and rainy, Dan doesn’t want to go
to work.

To sum up, copulaless clauses have been analyzed in two ways: as small
clauses ( Mouchaweh 1986, Rapoport 1987) and as full clauses ( oron
20 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

198 , chaine 1993, Benmamoun 2000, Hazout 2010). In this thesis, I will
argue in favor of the full clause analysis for Geez copulaless clauses. I will
discuss this in chapter five.

4.2.2. More than one copula

The explanations given to why a particular language exhibits more than one
copular element can be classified into two. I call them the exclusive analysis
and the inclusive analysis. The exclusive analysis rejects the copular status
of one of the existing copular elements. This is mainly seen in languages
which have pronouns in their copular system. For example, Adger and
Ramchand (2003) reject the copular status of pronouns that appear in the
non-verbal predication system of Scotish Gaelic. Adger and Ramchand
argue that the pronominal element which is found in what they call
augmented copular construction (cf. (25)c), as opposed to substantive (cf.
(25)a) and inverted (cf. (25)b) copular constructions in Scottish Gaelic, is
used as a true predicate. This pronominal element is interpreted via a link
with one of the DPs it shows up with, as shown in (25)c. According to Adger
and Ramchand, the augmented pronominal is inserted in these clauses
because both DPs are referential and thus neither of them can be a predicate.
The augmented pronominal is like the KIP (Kind Determiner Phrase) of
Zamparelli (2000) and it is inserted in order to serve as a predicate13.
(25) a. tha calum faiceallach
be.PRES Calum carefull
Calum is being careful.

b. is mor an duine sin

cop.PRES big that man
That man is big.

13
Zamparelli decomposes DP in to three layers of functional projections, which he
calls Strong Determiner phrase (SDP), a Predicative Determiner Phrase (PDP) and
Kind Determiner Phrase (KIP). He argues that these determiner Phrases have
different distributions. SDPs are referential, and they appear only in argument
positions. PDPs are predicative and can appear in certain predicate positions such as
Fido is a dog. KIPs represent pure properties and can appear in environments such
as the complement of the kind of construction in English: This is a friendly kind of
dog.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 21

c. ‘s ei calum an tidseari
Cop.PRES AUG Calum the teacher
Calum is the teacher. (Adger and Ramchand 2003)

Another proposal which partially rejects the copular status of pronouns in

non-verbal predication is Edwards (2006). Although he accepts their copular
status synchronically, Edwards argues that pronouns found in Egyptian
Arabic non-verbal predication were originally subjects. According to him
pronouns are obligatorily found in equatives, which are derived from left
dislocated constructions that contain left-displaced definite DP followed by a
complete predication. The complete predication contains the subject
pronoun, which resumes the leftmost DP, at the specifier of the vP
construction, as in (26)a. Later on, the subject pronoun in the spec, vP is
reanalyzed as head of vP and gives a structure which looks like (26)b.
Edwards does not give any explanation for the claim that the pronoun is
reanalyzed as a verb while it does not show any property of a verb:
(26) a. [CP il-walad [C’[C] [vP huwwa[v’[v][XP il-mas’ul ]]]]]

b. [CP il-walad [C’[C] [vP [v’[vhuwwa][XP il-mas’ul]]]]]

The-boy he the-responsible
The boy is responsible.

The inclusive analysis accepts the copular status of all existing copular
elements in a given language as real copulas. Under this analysis, there are
again three different views. The first view associates the different copular
elements with different specifications of the IP (Doron 1983). Doron argues
that pronominal copulas are realizations of an unattached agreement feature.
According to her, the present tense in Hebrew which contains pronominal
copulas, as in (27)a, as opposed to the past which involves a verbal copulas,
as in (27)b, is specified only for agreement, and pronominal copulas are
realizations of this agreement feature.
(27) a. ha-yeled hu student
the-boy he student
The boy is a student.

b. ha-yeled haya student

the-boy was.M student
The boy was a student.
22 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

The second view, which is of course not exclusive of the first, associates the
presence of more than one copula to the semantically based taxonomy of
copular clauses. According to this taxonomy, copular clauses are classified
as predicational, specificational, identificational and equative (Higgins 1979,
Mikkelsen 2004, 2005, 2011 among others). The presence of more than one
copula is then assumed to be the result of presence of more than one BE
associated with each type of copular construction. For example, Rapoport
(1987), Carnie (1995), Zaring (1996) among others argue for the presence of
predicational BE and identity BE.
Such a proposal, however, is challenged by Citko (2008) based on
data from Polish which allows pronominal and verbal copulas to co-occur in
a single clause resulting in three types of copular constructions: verbal
copula, pronominal copula, and dual copula constructions. Citko argues that
if the two copular elements were realizations of identity and predicational
BE, the co-occurrence of the two copulas would have been impossible:
(28) a. jan to mój najlepszy pronominal copula clauses
Jan PRON my best
przyjaciel
friend.NOM
Jan is my best friend.

b. jan jest moim najlepszym przyjacielem verbal copula clauses

Jan is my best friend.INSTR
Jan is my best friend.

c. jan to jest moim najlepszym dual copula clause

Jan PRON is my best
przyjaciel
friend.NOM
Jan is my best friend.

Citko shows that the three types of Polish copular clause differ in terms of
(a) the type of predicate they allow, (b) case-marking of the predicate and (c)
interpretation. Based on these facts, she proposes a third view in the
inclusive analysis. She argues that presence of pronominal and verbal
copulas in Polish is related to the presence of two types of small clause
heads: one is defective and the other non-defective. The defective head is
non-eventive and has no Case feature. The non-defective head is eventive
and has a Case feature. A clause with a pronominal copula as in (28)a
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 23

contains a defective small clause head. Since the defective head is non-
eventive and has no Case feature, such clauses allow only nominal
predicates, have an individual level interpretation and the predicate does not
receive a different Case from the subject. In this case, the predicate receives
the same case as the subject through a mechanism known as multiple agree
(Hiraiwa 2005). Citko then proposes the structure in (29)a for such clauses.
For clauses which contain verbal copulas as in (28)b, on the other hand,
Citko argues that they contain the non-defective small clause head which is
eventive and has a Case feature. As a result, such clauses are acceptable with
all types of predicates, do not have an individual-level interpretation and
have their predicate assigned a different Case from the subject. For such
clauses, Citko claims the analysis in (29)b. Note that here the verbal copula
originates as the head of the eventive small clause head and raises to T. For
dual copula clauses, she claims that the two copulas originate in different
positions as in (29)c:
(29) a. [TP subjectj [T pronoun [SC tj predicate]]] pronominal copula
b. [TP subjectj [T verbi [SC tj ti predicate]]] verbal copula
c. [TP subjectj [T pronoun [SC tj verb predicate]]] dual copula
To sum up, the proposals, which have been provided to explain the presence
of more than one copula in a particular language can be classified as what I
call exclusive and inclusive. Under the exclusive analysis, one of the existing
copulas is argued not to be a copula. Under the inclusive analysis, all
existing copulas are considered as real copular elements. Under this view,
the presence of more than one copula is attributed to: (a) the difference in the
feature specification of the functional projection the copulas are inserted, or
(b) the presence of more than one BE associated with identity and
predicational clauses, or (c) the defective and non-defective nature of the
small clause head. In this thesis, I argue in favor of the claim that there are
more than one BE’s, though I argue that their distinction is not along the
predicational and identity line.

4.2.3. Case-marking

The first attempt to explain Case-marking variation in non-verbal predication

is made by Maling and Sprouse (1995) who observed that NP predicates in
some Germanic languages are marked accusative (30) and nominative in
others (31):
24 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(30) a. det er mig/*jeg Danish

it is me-ACC/*I.NOM
It is me.

b. hvis jeg var dig/*du,…

if I were you-ACC/*you.NOM
If I were you.

c. That is me/*I in the picture English

d. What would you do if you were me/*I
e. You can be me/*I in the play

(31) Hún er kennari/*kennara

she-NOM is teacher-NOM/*teacher-ACC Icelandic
She is a teacher

Maling and Sprouse examined four possible hypotheses of predicate Case-

assignment, namely Caselessness, default Case, Case agreement, and
structural Case hypotheses. They have ruled out the first three for different
reasons and argue for the structural Case assignment. They rule out the
hypothesis that predicates are Caseless due to the fact that they are
morphologically marked for Case in languages which exhibit overt case
morphology as in Finnish in (32). They reject the default Case hypothesis on
the basis of the fact that it does not account for Case alternations of
predicates in languages like Russian (33). Similarly, they discard Case-
agreement for the reason that it is less compatible with the well-studied
instances of agreement. They said that well studied instances of agreement
involve a head-specifier relationship. If we assume that the subject and the
predicate agree in Case, this would mean that two phrasal projections agree:
(32) a. toini on sairaa-na. Finnish (Matushansky 2008)
Toini.NOM be.3SG ill-ESS
Toini is ill.

b. toini tul-i sairaa-ksi.

Toini.NOM become PST.3SG ill-TRS
Toini became ill.

(33) a ja našel ego p’janym Russian (Bailyn 2001)

I.NOM found him.ACC drunk.INSTR
I found him drunk.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 25

b. ja našel ego p’janogo

I.NOM found him.ACC drunk.ACC
I found him drunk.

Maling and Sprouse propose that cross-linguistic variation in predicate case-

marking is the result of whether the predicate is assigned Case by the copula
or Io. In languages like Danish and English where the predicate is accusative,
they argue that the copula assigns accusative Case to the predicates in the
same way as a transitive verb assigns accusative Case to their objects. In
languages like Icelandic where both the subject and the predicate are
nominative, on the other hand, they claim that the copula does not assign
Case to the predicate. In this case, the predicate is assigned Case from the
next higher Case assigning head, namely Io, which also assigns nominative
Case to the subject. Their claim that Io assigns Case to the predicate is based
on Sigurðsson’s (1989, 1991) idea that the domain of a structural Case-
assigning head includes the head itself, the node immediately dominating the
head, and all nodes that the head c-commands, but are not c-commanded by
another intermediate Case-assigner. When the copula does not assign Case,
the predicate falls in the domain of the higher Case-assigning head which is
Io, and thus receives nominative Case.
One problem with Maling and Sprouse’s proposal is that it predicts
the subject to be assigned Case twice: by the copula and by Io. This means
that under the assumption that the copular verb selects small clauses as in
(34), the trace of the subject must be assigned accusative since it is in the
domain of the accusative Case assigning copula. They say that the accusative
Case of the trace of the subject is ‘simply ignored’:
(34) [TP NPi is [SC ti NP]]
Another proposal which is partially similar to Maling and Sprouse is that of
Comrie (1997) who argues that predicates are assigned Case either by the
copula through government or by Case-agreement with subjects. Comrie’s
argument is based on case-marking patterns of a wide range of languages,
which exhibit either same (35)-(36), or different (37) case-marking in their
subjects and predicates:
(35) a. verae amicitiae sempeternae sunt Latin
true.NOM friendships.NOM eternal.NOM are
True friendships are eternal.
26 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. kirja on volkoinen/heikko Finnish

book.NOM is white.NOM /weak.NOM
The book is white/weak.

(36) a. creditur Pythagorae auditorem fuisse Numam Latin

it.is.believed Pythagorae.GEN hearer.ACC to.have.been Numa.ACC
It is believed that Numa was a hearer of Pythagorae.

b. tòn gàr kalòn kāgathòn ándra eudaímona eîní phēmi Anc. Greek
the.ACC for noble.ACC and.good.ACC man.ACC happy.ACC to.be
I.say
For I maintain that the noble and good man is happy.

(37) a. ten chłopiec jest moim uczniem Polish

this.NOM boy.NOM is my.INSTR pupil.INSTR
This boy is my pupil.

b. hommiš-nii barana gaari Oromo

harvest-NOM this.year good.CIT
The harvest is good this year.

c. ano hito ga sensei da kara Japanese

that person NOM teacher.CIT be because
Since that person is a teacher.

d. the teacher was me English

e. jim kwaɸəʔide:-č Yuman
Jim.ACC doctor-NOM
Jim is a doctor.

For those languages which exhibit different case-marking on subjects and

predicates as in (37), Comrie claims, similar to Maling and Sprouse, that the
predicate must be assigned Case by the copula through government. On the
other hand, for languages which exhibit the same Case in the subject and the
predicate, despite the presence of the copula as in (36), Comrie claims that
the copula does not assign Case. He proposes that the predicate is assigned
Case through case-agreement with the subject. This means that the predicate
and the subject agree in case in the same way as they agree in number and
gender. For clauses like (35), Comrie argues that either of the above two
proposals work for them since the subject and the predicate fall under the
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 27

government of the copula and at the same time agree in case. Comrie does
not say anything about Maling and Sprouse’s objection to case-agreement.
Another proposal has been put forward by Bailyn (2001) and Citko
(2008). In essence this proposal is similar to Maling and Sprouse’s with
some modifications to make it in line with Bowers’ (1993) hypothesis that
small clauses are headed by Predo, a functional element which mediates the
predication relationship. The proposal is based on the two types of predicate
case-marking patterns in Slavic languages, which Bailyn calls instrumental
and ‘sameness of Case’:
(38) a. ja našel ego p’janym Russian
I.NOM found him-ACC drunk.INSTR
I found him drunk.

b. ja našel ego p’janogo

I.NOM found him-ACC drunk.ACC
I found him drunk.

Bailyn and Citko propose that instrumental Case is assigned to the predicate
by the head of the small clause, Predo. For the ‘sameness of Case’, on the
other hand, they claim that Predo does not assign Case to the predicate. In
this case both the subject and the predicate are assigned Case by the next
higher Case assigning heads, namely T or v through multiple feature
checking.
This proposal solves Maling and Sprouse’s problem of double Case
assignment to the subject we mentioned above. Since the subject originates
above Predo, it is not assigned Case twice. However, this analysis is
confronted with other problem. As pointed out by Matushansky (2008),
predication with instrumental is not allowed in Russian present tense
primary predication. If Predo were the source of instrumental Case, it
shouldn’t have been impossible in primary predication:
(39) a. vera assistent.
Vera assistant.NOM
Vera is an assistant.

b. *vera assistentom.
Vera assistant.INSTR
Intended meaning: Vera is an assistant.
28 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Pereltsvaig (2001) attributes predicate case-marking to the category of the

predicate and the dual nature of the copular verb (that it is a lexical and a
functional element). According to her, the predicate is assigned different
Case from the subject as in (40)b when it is an AP or an NP and the verb is a
functional element, and it is assigned the same Case as the subject (40)a
when it is a DP and the verb is lexical:

(40) a. čexov byl pisatel’.

Chekhov.NOM was writer.NOM
Chekhov was a writer.

b. čexov byl pisatelem.

Chekhov.NOM was writer.INSTR
Chekhov was a writer.

Richardson (2007) accounts for the instrumental vs. nominative case

alternation on predicates of Slavic copular constructions like (40) by
the presence and absence of an aspect projection (AspP). That is,
predicates are assigned instrumental by aspect (AspP), and they are
assigned nominative when there is no AspP.
Matushansky (2008) proposes a sixth account of predicate case-
marking under the nutshell of her new Case theory, which is stated as ‘Case
feature is assigned by a head to its complement’. As a result, T o assigns
nominative to its complement ( vP, AspP, ModP…) and vo assigns
accusative to VP. Consequently, any XP that can bear a morphological case
within the complement of a particular head is case-marked by that head
unless another Case-assigning head blocks the Case assignment. She then
proposes that predicates are marked with a different case from the subject
when there is an intervening Case assigner between the subject and the
predicate, and that they are assigned the same Case when there is no
intervening Case assignment between them.
To sum up, the proposals we saw above can be divided into four
groups in function of how they explain why predicates and subjects are
marked for the same or different Case. The first is Maling and Sprouse
(1995) and Comrie (1997) who claim that the case-marking on the predicate
is determined by whether the copula assigns Case or not. This means that the
predicate is marked for a different Case from the subject when the copula
assigns Case to it and the predicate is marked for the same Case as the
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 29

subject when the copula does not assign Case to it. The second is that of
Bailyn (2001), Matushansky (2008) and Citko (2008) who argue that it is
determined by whether or not there is a Case-assigning head in the small
clause: the predicate is marked for a different case if the small clause
contains a Case-assigning head and it is marked for the same case as the
subject if the small clause does not contain a Case-assigning head. The third
is Pereltsvaig (2001) who attributes predicate case-marking to the category
of the predicate and the dual nature of the copular verb (whether it is a
lexical and a functional element). According to her, the predicate is marked
with a different case from the subject when it is an AP or a NP and the verb
is a functional element, and it is marked with the same case as the subject
when it is a DP and the verb is lexical. The fourth is Richardson (2007) who
associates predicate Case with aspect. That is predicates are marked for a
different case from the subject when aspect assigns Case to it, and they are
marked with the same case as the subject when there is no aspect.
The four proposals also differ regarding how the predicate gets the
same Case as the subject. For Maling and Sprouse (1995), Bailyn (2001),
Matushansky (2008) and Citko (2008), the predicate receives the same Case
as the subject because is it assigned Case by the functional element which
also assigns Case to the subject. For Comrie (1997) and Richardson (2007)
the predicate agrees in Case with the subject while for Pereltsvaig (2001) the
predicate receives the default Case.
In this thesis, I argue following Bailyn (2001), Matushansky (2008),
and Citko(2008) that predicates are marked for a different case from the
subject when the small clause contains a Case-assigning functional head. In
the absence of this functional head, however, I argue following Pereltsvaig
(2001) that the predicate receives the default Case.

5. Summary

In this chapter, I introduced the research problem and the theoretical

framework adopted in this study. I also reviewed the different proposals put
forward to account for the variations in copular and case-marking systems of
the copular constructions of different languages. With regard to the absence
of a copula, we saw that there are two types of accounts: the small clause
account and the full clause account. With regard to the presence of more
than one copular element, we saw that there are inclusive and exclusive
analyses. The exclusive analysis rejects the copular status of one of the
existing copular element and considers them as subjects or as predicates. The
30 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

inclusive analysis on the other hand considers all the existing copular
elements as real copulas. Within this analysis again, we saw that there are
different views. One view argues that the different copulas are the result of
the fact that the IP is specified for different features. The second view argues
that the different copulas are realizations of two BE’s, namely identity BE
and predicational BE. The third view associates the presence of more than
one copula to the presence of defective and non-defective small clause
heads.
With regard to case-marking, we saw that most of the research is
geared towards explaining why subjects and predicates are marked with the
same or different cases. ‘Sameness’ of case-marking on the subject and the
predicate is argued to be the result of case-agreement between the subject
and the predicate (Comrie 1997), or Case assignment by the same Case-
assigning head (Maling and Sprouse 1995, Bailyn 2001, Matushansky 2008,
Citko 2008). Different case-marking of the subject and the predicate, on the
other hand, has been argued to be the result of the fact that the predicate is
assigned Case by the copula ( Maling and Sprouse 1995, Comrie 1997), by
Predo ( Bailyn 2001, Citko 2008), or due to the presence of another
intervening Case-assigner in the small clause ( Matushansky 2008).
In this thesis, I concur with many of the ideas introduced above.
With regard to copulaless clauses, I will argue in favor of the full clause
analysis. With regard to the presence of more than one copula, I will argue in
favor of the two BE analysis. As for case-marking, I argue following Bailyn
(2001), Matushansky (2008), and Citko(2008) that predicates are marked for
a different case from the subject when the small clause contains a Case-
assigning functional head. In the absence of this functional head, however, I
argue following Pereltsvaig (2001) that the predicate receives the default
Case.
 CHAPTER TWO

THE MORPHO-SYNTAX OF AGREEMENT,

ASPECT AND TENSE IN AMHARIC AND
GEEZ
1. Introduction

In order to understand the non-verbal predication system of Amharic and

Geez, some background about the morpho-syntax of the languages is
necessary. In this chapter, I will deal with this.
Amharic and Geez just like other Semitic languages have templatic
morphology (McCarthy 1981). Their verbs are built from consonantal roots
to which a vocalic melody is added to form the verb stem. The verb stem is
then marked with one or two agreement markers which are traditionally
known as subject and object agreement markers. The verb in (1), for
example, consists of the root s-b-r- to which the vocalic melody -ä-ä- is
inserted to form the perfective stem säbbär-. Then the subject agreement
marker is added to this stem, and gives the independent word säbbär-äčč in
(1)a. Finally the object agreement marker is added. Due to this rich
agreement marking, subjects and objects can be dropped, as in (1)b:
(1) a. saba bɨrc’ɨk’o-w-ɨn säbbär-äčč(-w) Amharic
Saba glass-DEF-ACC break.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO
Saba broke a glass.

b. säbbär-äččɨ (-w)
break.PERF-3FGS-3MSGO
She broke it.
32 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

In this chapter, I deal with two things, namely the aspect system (section 2)
and agreement (section 3). With regard to aspect, I restrict myself to the two
canonical verbal forms which differ in three properties: (a) their vocalic
melody, (b) their subject agreement, and (c) their co-occurrence with
auxiliary verbs. I will raise two issues about these verbs. Firstly, I will show
that they are perfective and imperfective following the widely accepted
analysis put forward by Dillmann (1907), Demeke (2003), Yimam (2006),
and many others) 14. Secondly, I will argue that, in syntactic derivations,
perfective verbs move up to To while imperfective verbs remain in lower
positions. With regard to agreement, I discuss subject, object and genitive
agreement. I will show that subject agreement is related to aspect and tense
while object agreement is related to affectedness. As for genitive agreement,
I will argue that it is the counterpart of subject and object agreement with
nominal heads. Finally, I will show that the phi-features of agreement in
these languages are realized in terms of (non-)speaker, proximity and
diminutive/augmentative features rather than person, number and gender.

2. Aspect

In this section, I discuss two canonical verbal forms which differ in terms of
their vocalic melody, their subject agreement and co-occurrence with
auxiliaries. In section 2.1, I show that these verbs are perfective and
imperfective. In section 2.1.3, I argue that, in syntactic derivation, the
perfective verb moves up to To while the imperfective remains in lower
positions.

2.1. Perfective and imperfective verbs

The two verbal forms which are known as perfective and imperfective
(Dillmann 1907, Demeke 2003, and Yimam 2006) are demonstrated below

14
Perfective and imperfective verbs are known as canonical because they are used
as a basis for the derivation of other verb forms (Yimam 2006). For example, in
Amharic the progressive is formed by adding the prefix ɨyyä- to the perfective stem
while prospective is formed by adding l- to the imperfective stem. The completive,
which is also known as the gerund (Demeke 2003) on the other hand is formed from
the imperfective stem by adding genitive agreement markers rather than the prefix-
suffix combination.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 33

for the verb roots k’-t-l- (Geez) and g-d-l- (Amharic) both of which mean
kill:
(2) Subj. Perfective Imperfectve Geez
1s k’ä’täl-ku I killed ɨ-k’ättɨl I (will) kill
2ms k’ä’täl-kä you killed tɨ-k’ättɨl you(will) kill
2fs k’ä’täl-ki’ you killed tɨ-k’ättɨl-I you (will) kill
3ms k’ä’täl-ä he killed yɨ-k’ättɨl he will kill/kills
3fs k’ä’täl-ät she killed tɨ-k’ättɨl she will kill/kills
1pl k’ätäl-nä we killed nɨ-k’ättɨl we (will) kill
2mpl k’ätäl-kɨmu you killed tɨ-k’ättɨl-u you (will) kill
2fpl k’ätal-kɨn you killed tɨ-k’ättɨl-a you (will) kill
3mpl k’ä’täl-omu they killed yɨ-k’ättɨl-u they (will) kill
3fpl kä’täl-a they killed yɨ-k’ättɨl-a they (will) kill

(3) Subj. Perfectvie Imperfectvie Amharic

1s gӓddӓl-ku I killed ɨ-gadl I (will) kill
2ms gӓddӓl-k you killed tɨ-gadl you (will) kill
2fs gӓddӓl-š you killed tɨ-gady15 you (will) kill
3ms gӓddӓl-ä he killed yɨ-gadl he will kill/kills
3fs gӓddӓl-äčč she killed tɨ-gadl she will kill/kills
1pl gӓddӓl-n we killed ɨn-gadl we(will) kill
2mpl gӓddӓl-aččɨhu you killed tɨ-gadl-u you (will) kill
3mpl gӓddӓl-u they killed yɨ-gadl-u they (will) kill
As can be seen from the examples, the two verbal forms differ in terms of
their vocalic melody, subject agreement and their temporal interpretation.
Two arguments taken from Demeke (2003) can be mentioned here to
indicate that they are marked for aspect, not tense. The first is their temporal
interpretation in embedded clauses. The other is the temporal interpretation
of stative verbs.

2.1.1. Interpretation in embedded clauses

In embedded environments, perfective and imperfective verbs can appear

with non-past and past readings respectively unlike in the normal pattern. (In

15
tɨgӓdy < tɨgӓdli. This is a regular palatalization process. Most dental consonants
in Amharic, except r, are palatalized when they are followed by a front vowel e and
i.
34 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

the normal pattern, perfective is past and imperfective is non-past.) Consider,

for example, the temporal interpretation of embedded clauses in (4)&(5)
adopted from Demeke (2003:100):
(4) a.[gänzäb indä-agäňň-ä] yɨ-mät’-all Amharic
money that-get.PERF-3MSGS 3MSGS-come.IMPERF-AUX.3MSGS
He comes/ will come when he has gotten money.

b. yɨ-mäs’s’ɨʔ [amä räkäb-ä nɨway-ä] Geez

3MSGS-come.IMPERF time get.PERF-3MSGS money-ACC
He comes/ will come when he has gotten money.

(5) a. [gänzäb si-y-agäň] mät’t’-a Amharic

money while-3MSGS.get.IMPERF come.PERF-3MSGS
He came when he had gotten money.

b. mäs’ʔ-a [ama yɨ-rakkɨb nɨway-ä] Geez

come.PERF-3MSGS time 3MSGS-get.IMPERF money-ACC
He came when he had gotten money.

The embedded clauses in (4) have perfective marked verbs, yet they do not
have a past tense interpretation. They are rather interpreted as non-past due
to the imperfective marking of the matrix verb. This kind of temporal
interpretation would be unexpected for verbs which are tense marked unless
one assumes that the perfective and imperfective indicate relative tense
(Ogihara 1994, Abusch 1997, von Stechow and Grønn 2009). That is,
perfective indicates precedence while imperfective indicates simultaniety.
The idea that the two verbal forms mark relative tense, however, is ruled out
for three reasons. Firstly, embedded imperfective verbs can also be
interpreted as preceding the perfective, as in (5). Secondly, even embedded
perfective verbs are not always interpreted as precedence. For example, in
(6), the embedded perfective verb indicates simultaneity. Thirdly, tense
marking involves the use of auxiliary verbs, as is shown in (7) for Amharic:
(6) ɨndä-täňňa-hu mät’t’-a Amharic
that-sleep.PERF-1SGS come.PERF-3MSGS
He came while I was asleep.
#He came after I had slept.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 35

(7) a. [gänzäb indä-agäňň-ä] yɨ-mät-all

money that-get.PERF-3MSGS 3MSGS-come.IMPERF-AUX.3MSGS
He comes/ will come when he has gotten money.

b. [gänzäb indä-agäňn-ä] yɨ-mäta nabbär16.

money that-get.PERF-3MSGS 3MSGS-come.IMPERF AUX.3MSGS
He used to /would come when he had gotten money.

2.1.2. Stative verbs

Another piece of evidence which indicates that the verbs in question are
perfective and imperfective is the temporal interpretation of stative verbs.
When stative verbs are marked perfective, they are interpreted as non-future
- i.e present or past (Dillman 1907:168, Leslau 1995 via Demeke 2003:102)
- unlike dynamic verbs which are interpreted as past when they are
perfective and non-past when they are imperfective. Compare the temporal
interpretation of stative verbs in (8)&(9) with that of the dynamic verbs in
(10)&(11):
(8) a. saba (ahun ) addäg-ӓčč Amharic
Saba (now) grow.PERF-3FSGS
Saba grew up/has grown up now.

b. saba tɨ-adg-all-äčč
Saba 3FSGS-grow.IMPERF-AUX-3FSGS.
Saba will grow up.

(9) a. (nahu) noɦ-at sӓba Geez

now be.tall.PERF-3FSGS Saba
Saba became/has(now) become tall.

16
Note that the relative temporal interpretation here is not related to the perfectivity
and the imperfectivity of the matrix verb. In fact the embedded clause can be
imperfective with the same interpretation:
(i). [gänzäb si-y-agäň] yɨ-mäta nabbär. Amharic
money while-3MSGS- get.PERF 3MSGS-come.IMPERF AUX.3MSGS
He used to /would come when he had gotten money.
36 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. tɨ-näwwɨɦ sӓba
3FSGS-be.tall.IMPERF Saba
Saba will be tall.

(10) a. däbdabbe s’af-n Amharic

letter write.PERF-1PLS
We wrote a letter.
#We write/ have written a letter.

b. däbdabbe ɨn-s’ɨf-all-än
letter 1PLS-write.IMPERF-AUX-1PLS
We (will) write a letter.

(11) a. s’ӓhaf-nӓ t’omar-ӓ Geez

write.PERF-1PLS letter-ACC
We wrote a letter.
# We write/ have written.

b. nɨ-s’hɨf t’omar-ӓ
1PLS-write.IMPERF letter-ACC
We write/will write a letter.
In (8)&(9) perfective stative verbs have a non-future (past and present)
interpretation while imperfective stative verbs are interpreted as future. In
(10)&(11) the perfective dynamic verbs have past tense interpretation and
their imperfective is interpreted as non-past ( present and future). If the verbs
were tense marked, this difference in temporal interpretation would be
inexplicable.
The difference in temporal interpretation of the perfective and
imperfective aspect of stative and dynamic verbs is the result of the
interaction between lexical aspect (stative vs. dynamic) and grammatical
aspect (perfective vs. imperfective) (Comrie 1976, Bary and Egg 2012). The
perfective of stative verbs indicates the end of transforming from one state
into another state. Since ‘to remain in a state does not require any effort’
(Comrie 1976: 49), individuals who are transformed into a particular state
remain in that state as long as no other change happens to them. This leads to
the effect of present or non-past tense interpretation. For example, the
perfective of the stative verb ‘be.tall’ in (8)&(9) indicates the end of
individuals’ transformation from the state of being non-tall to the state of
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 37

being tall. Once the individuals are in the state at which they are regarded as
tall, they remain in that state. As a result, such verbs have a present tense
interpretation. The perfective form of dynamic verbs on the other hand
indicates the completion of an action. For example, the perfective form of
the dynamic verb ‘write’ in (11) indicates the termination of the action of
writing. Thus, it has past interpretation.

2.1.3. The syntactic derivation of perfective and imperfective

clauses

As we saw from examples (2) and (3), perfective and imperfective verbs
differ in terms of their subject agreement. Perfective verbs take suffix
agreement markers and imperfective verbs take a combination of a prefix
(person) and a suffix (number and gender) marker. This triggers the question
why this difference should be there.
Benmamoun (2000) argues that in Arabic a similar phenomenon to
what we observe in Amharic and Geez is the result of whether the verb
overtly moves to TP or not17. His claim is based on the assumption that
subject agreement markers were originally pronominal subjects that had
occupied a syntactic position within the VP before they were incorporated
into the verb and became pure agreement markers. According to him, before
incorporation, the verb and the pronominal subjects had a configuration
which looked like the following:
(12) a. TP
T’
To+[V.PERF]i VP
Pron. subj. V’
Vo
ti

17
Similar proposals are also found in Banksira (2000), Julien (2002), Tourabi
(2002), Fassi Fehri (2003), and Linn and Rosen (2003).
38 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. TP
T’
o
T VP
Pronominal subj. V’
v.IMPERF
As can be seen from the trees, the perfective verb moved to the head position
of the TP while the pronominal subject remained in the VP. This gave rise to
a configuration where the pronominal subject follows the verb. On the other
hand, the imperfective verb did not raise to TP resulting in a configuration in
which the pronominal subject preceded the verb. Benmamoun argues that in
the current state of Arabic, although the pronominal arguments are
incorporated into the verb and have become pure agreement markers, the
position of the verb still remains the same. This means that the perfective
verb raises to TP while in the imperfective verb remains in VP. He then
analyzes the two Moroccan Arabic examples in (13) as in (14)18:
(13) a. näʕs-u lə-wlad Moroccan Arabic
sleep.PAST-PL the-children
The children slept.

b. lə-wlad ta-y-läʕb-u
the-children ASP-3M-play-PL
The children are playing.

(14) a. TP
T’
To VP
näʕs-ui lə-wlad V’
Vo

ti

18
Note that Benmamoun coupled this idea with word order preference. According
to him, in imperfective clauses the subject-verb order is preferred while with
perfective verbs verb-subject order is preferred.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 39

b. TP
lə-wladi T’
VP
o
V V’
ti ta-y-läʕb-u
Extending this line of argument to Geez and Amharic, the difference in
agreement marking can be argued to follow from similar historical
processes. This means that perfective verbs move to a higher position
whereas imperfective verbs remain in lower positions. If the verb does not
move, then the agreement markers attach to the verb by affix hopping.
Where do the perfective verbs move to? There are two possibilities: Aspo
and To. I claim that perfective verbs move to To for two reasons. Firstly, as
we saw from examples (2) and (3), gender and number markers are suffixes
in imperfective verbs. If we assume that only perfective verbs move to Asp o,
we don’t have any explanation for this. If we assume that perfective verbs
move to To, we can explain this by assuming that both perfective and
imperfective verbs move to Aspo as in (15)a and (16)a before the perfective
verbs move further to To. Note that I provide different trees for Amharic and
Geez due to the word order differences. Although Amharic and Geez have
free word order, Geez is basic VSO while Amharic has SOV (Demeke
2003):
(15) Geez a. Imperfective b. Perfective
TP TP
T’ T’
AspP To AspP
Asp’ [V.PERF]i Asp’
Aspo VP Aspo VP
[V.imperf]i ti ti ti
(16) Amharic
a. Imperfective b.Perfective
TP TP
T’ T’
AspP To AspP To
Asp’ Asp’ [V.PERF]i
VP Aspo VP Aspo
ti [V.IMPERF]i ti ti
Secondly and most importantly, the claim that perfective verbs move up to
To is evidenced by their interaction with auxiliary verbs, which indicate tense
40 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(Goldenberg 1964, Demeke 2003, Yimam 2006 for Amharic, and

Teklemariam, 1899, Kifle 1948 for Geez). The auxiliary verbs which are
always perfective19 show up only with the imperfective verbs:
(17) a. p’awlos dӓbdabbe yɨ-s’ɨf/*s’af-ӓ Amharic
Paul letter 3MSGS-write.IMPERF/*write.PERF-3MSGS
all
AUX..PERF-3MSGS
Paul writes/is writing//will write a letter.

b. p’awlos dӓbdabbe yɨ-s’ɨf/*s’af-ӓ

Paul letter 3MSGS-write.IMPERF/*write.PERF-3MSGS
nӓbbӓr
AUX.PERF-3MSGS
Paul was writing/used to write a letter.

(18) a. kon-ä [p’awlos yɨ-s’hɨf/ Geez

AUX-PERF-3MSGS Paul 3MSGS-write.IMPERF/
*s’ӓhaf-ӓ t’omar-ä]
*write.PERF- 3MSGS letter-ACC
Paul wrote/used to write/?has written a letter.

b. hälläw-ä [ p’awlos yɨ-s’hɨf/

AUX.PERF-3MSGS Paul 3MSGS-write.IMPERF/
*s’ӓhaf-ӓ t’omar-ä]
*write.PERF-3MSGS letter-ACC
Paul writes/has written a letter.

Given that the auxiliary verbs are merged at To, the most plausible
explanation for the incompatibility of perfective verbs and auxiliaries is that
they compete for a single syntactic position. This means that when the
auxiliaries are inserted, they are merged at the landing position of the
perfective verb blocking the movement as demonstrated in (19)a and (20)a.
Imperfective verbs, on the other hand, are compatible with auxiliaries since

19
In Amharic, the auxiliary verbs do not have an imperfective conjugation at all. In
Geez, although, the verbs have perfective and imperfective conjugation as we will
see in their copular function (cf. chapter five), only the perfectives are attested in the
auxiliary functions. Neither secondary sources nor my informants confirm
imperfective auxiliaries. This fact also provides support for the claim that only
perfective verbs move up to To.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 41

they (imperfective verbs) do not move to To, and there is no blocking of head
movement as can be seen in (19)b, and (20)b:
(19) Geez
a. Perfective clauses b. Imperfective clauses
TP TP
T’ T’
o
T AspP To AspP
V.AUX V.PERF V.AUX V.IMPERF
X
(20) Amharic
a. Perfective clauses b. Imperfective clauses
* TP TP
T’ T’
AspP To AspP To
V.PERF V.AUX V.IMPERF V.AUX
X

To sum up, although clauses which contain perfective and imperfective

verbs in Amharic and Geez show no word order difference in their
respective languages, the difference in agreement marking and the (in-
)compatibility of perfective and imperfective verbs with auxiliaries suggest
that they have different derivations. Perfective verbs move to To while
imperfective verbs remain in lower syntactic position.

3. Agreement

Amharic and Geez have three types of agreement which are traditionally
known as subject agreement, object agreement and genitive (possessive)
agreement. I discuss each of them in turn. I show that subject agreement is
related to aspect and tense (section 3.1) while object agreement is related to
affectedness (section 3.2). As for genitive agreement I will show that it is the
counterpart of subject and object agreement with nominal heads (section
3.3). Finally, I show that the Phi-features of agreement in Amharic and Geez
are realized in terms of proximity, (non-)speaker, and
diminutive/augmentative features, rather than person, number and gender
(section 3.4).
42 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

3.1. Subject agreement

As we mentioned in section 1, subject agreement varies depending on the

perfectivity and imperfectivity of the verb. See for example (2) and (3)
repeated below as (21) and (22). With perfective verbs, subject agreement
involves suffixes. With imperfective verbs, subject agreement is a
combination of a prefix (person) and a suffix (number and gender).
Moreover, it exhibits different morphemes with perfective and imperfective
verbs. Based on this, the subject agreement morphemes with lexical verbs
can easily be considered as realizations of uninterpretable phi-features on
Aspect.
(21) Subj. Perfective Imperfective Geez
1s k’ä’täl-ku I killed ɨ-k’ättɨl I (will) kill
2ms k’ä’täl-kä you killed tɨ-k’ättɨl you(will) kill
2fs k’ä’täl-ki’ you killed tɨ- k’ättɨl-i you (will) kill
3ms k’ä’täl-ä he killed yɨ- k’ättɨl he will kill/kills
3fs k’ä’täl-ät she killed tɨ- k’ättɨl she will kill/kills
1pl k’ätäl-nä we killed nɨ- k’ättɨl we (will) kill
2mpl k’ätäl-kɨmu you killed tɨ- k’ättɨl-u you (will) kill
2fpl k’ätal-kɨn you killed tɨ- k’ättɨl-a you (will) kill
3mpl k’ä’täl-omu they killed yɨ- k’ättɨl-u they (will) kill
3fpl kä’täl-a they killed yɨ- k’ättɨl-a they (will) kill

(22) Subj. Perfective Imperfective Amharic

1s gӓddӓl-ku I killed ɨ-gadl I (will) kill
2ms gӓddӓl-k you killed tɨ- gadl you (will) kill
2fs gӓddӓl -š you killed tɨ-gady you (will) kill
3ms gӓddӓl -ä he killed yɨ- gadl he will kill/kills
3fs gӓddӓl -äčč she killed tɨ- gadl she will kill/kills
1pl gӓddӓl -n we killed ɨn- gadl we(will) kill
2mpl gӓddӓl -aččɨhu you killed tɨ- gadl -u you (will) kill20
3mpl gӓddӓl l-u they killed yɨ- gadl-u they (will) kill
When auxiliary verbs are used, subject agreement appears twice: with the
lexical verb and with the auxiliary (cf. (17),(18),(23))21. In this case, the

20
Note that Amharic does not distinguish gender in the plural
21
Note that the subject agreement on the auxiliary is always a suffix since
auxiliaries have only perfective form.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 43

subject agreement associated with auxiliaries is related to tense while the

subject agreement associated with lexical verbs is related to aspect22.
(23) yɨ-s’ɨf all-u Amharic
3PLS-write.IMPERF aux.PERF-3PLS
They (will) write.

3.2. Object agreement

The marker traditionally known as object agreement is an issue of debate.

Although some consider it an object agreement (Engidashet 1998, Yimam
1998, Demeke 2003, and Baker 2012b), others argue that it is clitic doubling
(Mullen 1986, Halefom 1994, Yabe 2001, Kramer to appear). The debate is
due to the fact that it shows properties of both agreement markers and clitics.
Those who argue that it is object agreement mainly rely on the facts that (i) it
is attached to the lexical verb, not the auxiliary (24)a, (ii) only one object
agreement is allowed with one verb even though the verb has more than one
internal arguments (24)b, and (iii) it targets the structurally highest internal

22
How the subject agreement with the lexical verb and the auxiliary works out in a
simple clause needs further research. One point that needs to be mentioned here is
that each of the agreement processes involve checking different phi-features. This is
evidenced from the fact that multiple-agreement is observed only when the lexical
verb and the auxiliary exhibit different morphemes. Compare, for example (23) and
the examples below. In (23), the imperfective lexical verb and the auxiliary, which
has only perfective conjugation, exhibit different subject agreement morphemes. As
we will see in section 3.4, yɨ- indicates non-proximate feature while -u indicates
augmentative feature. In the examples below, on the other hand, the the auxiliary
and the gerundive lexical verb exhibit the same morphemes. In this case, multiple
agreement is not allowed:
(i). *mät’t-än all-än
come.GRND-1PLS aux-1PLS
Intended meaning: We have come.

(ii). mät’t-än all

come.GRND-1PLS aux
We have come.
44 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

argument (24)c23. These are properties of object agreement. This suggests

that Amharic object agreement is not a clitic:
(24) a. saba bɨrc’k’o-woččɨ-n tɨ-säbr-aččäw all-äčč Amharic
Saba glass-PL-ACC 3FGS-break.IMPERF-3PLO AUX-3FSGS
Saba breaks/will breake glasses.

b.*saba lä-yonas mäs’haf-oččɨ-n sät’t’-äčč-ɨw-aččäw

Saba to-Jonas book-PL-ACC give.PERF-3FGS-3MSO-3PLO
Intended meaning:Saba gave books to Jonas.

c. saba lä-yonas mäs’haf-oččɨ-n sät’t’-äčč-ɨw/*? sät’t’-äčč-aččäw

Saba to-Jonas book-PL-ACC give.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO/give.PERF-
3FSGS-3PLO
Saba gave books to Jonas.

In canonical clitic doubling languages like Greek, the clitic leans on the
auxiliary, not the main verb (25)a, and two doubled clitics are allowed if
there are two internal arguments (25)b. (The examples in (25) are from
Philippaki-Warburton et al. (2004: 969) via Kramer to appear):
(25) a. to echo ghrapsi to ghrama Greek
3MSG.ACC have.1SG written the letter
I have written the letter.

23
In my intuition, the object agreement can target both the lower and the higher
objects although targeting the higher one is more preferred. This means that (24)c is
acceptable with the verb agreeing with the direct or the indirect objects. As a result I
marked it with *? to indicate that the structure is accepted by some speakers. I am
not sure whether there is a dialectal variation in this regard. In addition, it also needs
to check the situation with the different orders and case-marking patterns of the two
objects. For example in (24)c if the goal argument is accusative, it has to be in the
higher position and the object agreement is possible only with it. The issue needs
further research:
(iii). saba yonas-ɨn mäs’haf-oččɨ-n sät’t’-äčč-ɨw/* sät’t’-äčč-aččäw
Saba Jonas-ACC book-PL-ACC give.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO/give.PERF-3FSGS-
3PLO
Saba gave books to Jonas
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 45

b. tu to edhosa to vivilio to jani

3MSG.GEN 3MSG.ACC gave.1SG the book.ACC the John.GEN
I gave the book to John.

On the other hand, those who argue that object agreement should be
analyzed as clitic doubling point out that: (i) it is optional and follows the
subject agreement (26)a; (ii) it is sensitive to definiteness/specificity of the
target NP (cf. (26) a&b)); (iii) it is not always related to accusative case
(26)c&d; and (iv) it has semantic effects (27) (Demeke 2003:66). For
proponents of the clitic doubling analysis, these are not canonical properties
of object agreement. Given that object agreement is a realization of phi-
features on v which is valued through agreement with the object which in
turn is assigned accusative Case (Chomsky 2000, 2001), it is not expected to
be optional and unrelated to accusative Case. It should not precede subject
agreement since objects agree with v before subjects agree with To/Aspo. It is
not expected to have anything to do with definiteness and specificity nor
should it have a semantic effect:
(26) a. saba mäs’haf-očč-u-n šät’-äčč(-aččäw) Amharic
Saba book-PL-DEF-ACC sell.PERF-3FGS-3PLO
Saba sold the books.

b. saba mäs’haf šät’-äčč(*-ɨw)

Saba.FEM book sell.PERF-3FGS(*-3MSO)
Saba sold a book.

c. saba fätäna-w k’älläl-ø-at24

Saba exam-DEF.NOM be.simple.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
The exam was simple to Saba.

d. saba däkkäm-ø-at
Saba be.tired.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is tired.

24
Note that when the object agreement appears, the form of the subject agreement
varies due the some phonological process. For example, if the object agreement
begins with a vowel, the 3MSG subject agreement disappears due to the
impermissible vowel cluster.
46 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(27) a. yonas anbässa-w-n gäddäl-ä Amharic

Jonas lion-DEF-ACC kill.PERF-3MSGS
Jonas killed the lion.

b. yonas anbässa-w-n gäddäl-ä-w

Jonas lion-DEF-ACC kill.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO
Jonas killed the lion. (emphasis on the lion)

In fact some of the properties which are listed above to argue against the
object agreement analysis can be eliminated once Amharic is considered as a
differential object marking language (Bossong 1985, 1991, Aissen 2003,
Kamper 2006, Amberber 2005, von Heusinger and Kaiser 2009, Lima 2006).
In differential object marking languages, since objects are morphologically
marked or trigger agreement only when they are animate (28) or definite/
specific (29)&(30), the facts that object agreement in Amharic is optional
and sensitive to definiteness or specificity do not suggest that it is a clitic
doubling25:
(28) a. avan kuʈʈiye aʈiccu Malayalam(via Kampler 2006)
he child.ACC beat.PAST
He beat the child.

b. ɲaan teeɲɲa vaaɲɲi.

I coconut buy.PAST
I bought some coconut.

(29) a. ali bir kitap aldi. Turkish(Enç 1991:5 via Lima 2006)
Ali one book bought
Ali bought some book or other.

25
Of course, the fact that objects agreement is related to definiteness or specificity
needs to be investigated well. There are some contexts where object agreement is
allowed with objects that are not specific. For example, tiger in the following
sentence is not specific, but has triggered object agreement:

(i) anbäsa näbr-ɨn y-aššännɨf-äw-all?

lion tiger-acc 3MSGS-beat.IMPERF-3MSGO-AUX
Is a lion more powerful than a tiger?/ Are lions more powerful than
tigers?
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 47

b. ali bir kitab-i aldi.

Ali one book-ACC bought
A book is such that Ali bought it.

(30) a. u-me-leta kitabu? Swahili(Croft 1988:161 via Lima 2006

2SG-P-bring book
Have you brought a book?

b. u-me-ki- leta kitabu?

2SG-P-3SG-bring book
Have you brought the book?

Of the properties which are listed above to argue against the analysis as
object agreement only three remain. First is the fact that the morpheme
follows the subject agreement. Secondly, it has a semantic effect and,
thirdly, it is not related to accusative Case. However, the fact that the
morphemes used in the object agreement are the same as those used in the
subject and genitive agreement, I take as an argument in favor of the
agreement position. In this thesis, I will therefore take the position that the
object agreement morphemes are agreement markers, rather than clitics
(section 3.4). Moreover, by looking closer into its semantic effect and
contexts in which it is optionally and obligatorily absent or present, I will
argue that it is related to affectedness. By affectedness, I mean whether or
not the NP is interpreted as being altered or changed by the event of the verb
(Anderson 1977, 1979, 2006, Fiengo 1980 among others), or that it delimits
the event of the verb (Tenny 1992,1994, Cornips and Hulk 1998). Consider,
for example, the following clauses adapted from Fiengo (1980) via Cornips
and Hulk (1998). In (31) the objects are changed by the action of the verb.
Thus they are affected objects. In (32), on the other hand, the objects are not
altered by the action denoted by the verbs, and hence they are unaffected
objects:
(31) a The Barbarians destroyed Rome.
b. The authorities executed the prisoners.

(32) a. John expressed great relief.

b. John gave some money to the library.
48 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

3.2.1. Object agreement as a realization of affectedness

Evidence which shows that object agreement is related to affectedness

comes from three sources: (a) its semantic effect in contexts where it is
optional, (b) its obligatory presence in contexts where objects are necessarily
affected, and (c) its unacceptability with objects which are necessarily
unaffected. I will discuss each of them in turn.

3.2.1.1. Semantic effects of object agreement

In contexts where object agreement is optional, the presence of object

agreement is said to bring about a focus or emphatic interpretation of the
target NP (Demeke 2003, Haile 1970). Closer observation of the
phenomenon, however, reveals that the semantic effect is affectedness. This
is clearly observed when the verb is imperfective as in the examples
(33)&(34):26 27

26
Note that the presence of the object agreement in Geez results in a definite
interpretation even in the absence of any definite marking on the NP. Geez does not
have articles specialized for marking definiteness and indefiniteness. Definiteness is
expressed by using pronouns as in wɨʔtu wäld ‘the boy’( lit. he boy), ɨmmantu
awald ‘the girls’ ( lit. they (fem) girls). In the examples (33)b&(34)b, the objects
are interpreted as definite in the absence of pronouns just due to the presence of the
object agreement.
27
Note that it may be difficult to imagine clothes not being affected by the repairing
events, or tigers not being affected by the killing event of which they are the theme.
The interpretation of affectedness I am referring to for the examples like
(33)b&(34)b is in the sense of delimiting the event of the verb as pointed out by
(Tenny 1992,1994, Cornips and Hulk 1998), rather than being altered or changed by
the event denoted by the verb. Mark Baker suggested me that the difference between
(34)a& (34)b and other similar discussions may be whether specific clothes/tiger is
involved or not. The object agreement, however, does not seem to be related
specificity as it can also be dropped with specific objects. For example, it is hard to
think of a non-specific interpretation of Saba and my hands in the sentences below
though the object agreement is optional. Besides, we can find object agreement with
non-specific objects. See for example footnote 12:

(i) saba-n yaz-u(-at)

Saba-acc catch.PERF-3MPLS-3FSGO
They caught up Saba
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 49

(33) a. aroge lɨbs-oččɨ-n ɨ-t’äggɨn all-ähu Amharic

old cloth-PL-ACC 1SGS-repair.IMPERF AUX.PERF-1SGS
I (will) repair old clothes.

b. aroge lɨbso-oččɨ-n ɨ-t’äggɨn-aččäw all-ähu

old cloth-PL-ACC 1SGS-repair.IMPERF-3PLO AUX.PERF-1SGS
I will repair old clothes.

(34) a. ɨ-k’ättɨl nämr-ä Geez

1SGS-kill.IMPERF tiger-ACC
I (will) kill a tiger.

b. ɨ-k’ättɨl-o lä-nämr
1SGS-kill.IMPERF-3MSGO to-tiger
I will kill a/the tiger.

Without object agreement, the clauses are interpreted as present or future

habitual clauses depicting the object as part of the event without singling it
out. Accordingly,(33)a means that I (will be/ am) engaged in repairing old
clothes while (34)a means that I (will be/am) engaged in tiger-killing. Here
no particular clothes or tiger is singled out. This means that the object does
not delimit the event of the verb. With the object agreement in (33)b &(34)b,
on the other hand, the clauses are interpreted as future actions to be
performed on particular clothes and a tiger. In this case, there are specific
clothes and a specific tiger which will be affected by or delimit the events
denoted by the verbs.

3.2.1.2. Obligatory occurrence of object agreement

The second piece of evidence which shows that object agreement is related
to affectedness comes from its obligatory occurrence when the object is
necessarily affected. Although object agreement is generally considered as
optional, it is obligatory in what are known as impersonal verbs which

(ii) ɨǰǰ-očč-e-n yaz-u(-aččäw)

hand-PL-1SGGEN-ACC catch.PERF-3MPLS-3PLO
They caught my hands.
50 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

express the notion of being hungry, thirsty, sick etc. (Leslau 1995, Amberber
2005). As can be seen from the examples below, such verbs usually take an
invariable 3MSG subject agreement which agrees with an expletive pro or a
cognate subject (35)a &(36), or the general causer (35)b-c as their subjects.
The person or thing which is affected by the event is introduced as an object
(see Amberber 2005 for detailed discussion of these verbs). Since one cannot
be hungry, thirsty or sick without being affected by the hunger, thirst or
disease, the objects of these verbs are necessarily affected. The obligatory
presence of the object agreement in these verbs, therefore, suggests that that
it is related to affectedness:
(35) a. (rähab) rab-ä*(-ň) Amharic
hunger make.hungry.PERF-3MSGS-1SGO
I am hungry. (Lit. it/ hunger hungered me)

b. lɨjo-čč-ɨn wuha t’ämma-ø*(-ččäw)

child-PL-ACC water make.thirsty.PERF-3MSGS(-3PLO)
The children are thirsty of water. (Lit. Water thirsted the children.)

c. wäba ammäm-ä*(-h)?
malaria make.sick.PERF-3MSGS(-2MSGO)
Are you sick due to Malaria. (Lit. Did Malaria make you sick?)

(36) yɨ-rhɨb-ä-ni Geez

3MSGS-make.hungry.IMPERF-3MSGS-1SGO
I am hungry. (Lit. it makes/will make me hungry.)

Note that cognate NPs are argued to play the role of non-subject arguments
(objects and adverbial adjuncts) (See Pereltsvaig 2002, 107-136 and the
reference cited there). This may cast some doubt on the role of the cognate
NPs as subjects. Baker (2012) for example, analyzed these verbs as taking
two internal arguments one of which is the congnate NPs. There are,
however, two pieces of evidence which indicate that they are real subjects in
Amharic and Geez. Firstly, cognate subjects are in complementary
distribution with non-cognate subjects. For example, the cognate subjects
cannot show up with non-cognate subjects as can be seen from the examples
in (37). If the cognate NPs were not subjects, there is nothing that prohibits
them to show up with non-cognate subjects:
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 51

(37) a. lɨj-očč-e (*rähab) rab-u-ň Amharic28

children-PL-1MSGS *hunger make.hungry.PERF-3PLS-1SGO
I missed my children. (I am hungry of my children.)

b. wäba (*hɨmäm) ammäm-ä*(-h)?

malaria (*sickness) make.sick.PERF-3MSGS*(-2MSGO)
Are you sick due to Malaria. (Lit. Did Malaria make you sick?)

Secondly, in some cases where cognate objects can be pluralized,they can

trigger plural subject agreement rather than object agreement agreement, as
in (38):
(38) bizu hɨmam-očč ammä-w-ɨň näbbär
many sickness-PL make.sick.PERF-3PLS-1SGO AUX.3MSGS
I was sick of many sicknesses. (Lit. Many sicknesses made me sick.)

3.2.1.3. Impossibility of object agreement

The third and most interesting piece of evidence again comes from the fact
that object agreement is impossible if the object cannot be interpreted as
affected. This is observed from transitive verbs like gälläs’ä ‘ explain’,
which do not take affected objects. As can be seen from (39), the unaffected
object of the verb gälläs’ä ‘explain’ cannot trigger object agreement:
(39) a. yonas hassab-u-n gälläs’-ä
Jonas idea-3MSG.GEN-ACC explain.PERF-3MSGS
Jonas explained his idea.

b.*yonas hassab-u-n gälläs’-ä-w

Jonas idea-3MSG.GEN-ACC explain.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning:Jonas explained his idea.

A similar phenomenon is observed in causativization of some transitive

verbs. In Amharic and Geez, verbs can be causativized by using the
morphemes as- and a-29. When transitive verbs are causativized, the subject

28
This is a metaphoric expression.
29
These two causativizing morphemes are used to derive two different types of
causative verbs. For example, when the Amharic verb bällä ‘eat’ is causativized by
a- , we get the meaning a-bällä ‘feed’. When it is causativized by as- we get as-
52 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

and the object of the non-causativized verb become objects of the

causativized verb and trigger object agreement. For example, when the
transitive verbs in (33)&(34) are causativized, their subjects and objects
become objects of the causativized verb. As a result either of the objects can
trigger object agreement as in (40)&(41):
(40) a. yonas ɨne-n aroge lɨbs-oččɨ-n as-t’äggän-ä-ň Amharic
Jonas I-ACC old cloth-PL-ACC CAUS-repair.PERF-3MSGS-
1SGO
Jonas made me repair old clothes.

b. yonas aroge lɨbs-oččɨ-n as-t’äggän-ø-aččäw

Jonas old cloth-PL-ACC CAUS-repair.PERF-3MSGS-3PLO
Jonas made the old clothes repaired.

(41) a. a-k’ätäl-ät-o saba lä-yonas nämr-ä Geez

CAUS-kill.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO Saba to-Jonas tiger-ACC
Saba made Jonas kill a tiger.

b. a-k’ätäl-ät-o saba lä-nämr

CAUS-kill.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO Saba to-tiger
Saba made the tiger killed.

This is, however, only possible if both the subject and the object of the non-
causativized verb are affected by the event. If either of them is unaffected,
object agreement with these NPs is impossible. Consider the causativization
of impersonal verbs as in (42)-(44). Causing one to be hungry, thirsty or sick
does not involve affecting the subjects of these impersonal verbs ( hunger,
water or malaria). This means that when impersonal verbs are causativized,
the subjects of non-causativized verbs become unaffected objects of the
causativized verb. As a result, they cannot trigger object agreement as is
shown in (42)b,(43)b, (44)b. In this case, only the objects of the non-
causativized verb trigger object agreement (42)a,(43)a, (44)a:

ballä ‘cause one to eat by himself’. For detailed discussion of these morphemes, I
refer the reader to Amberber (1996).
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 53

(42) a. yonas rähab as-rab-ä*(-ň) Amharic

Jonas hunger CAUS-make.hungry.PERF-3MSGS-1SGO
Jonas made me hungry.(Lit. Jonas made me hungry by hunger)

b.*yonas ɨne-n rähab-u-n as-rab-ä-w

Jonas I-ACC hunger-DEF-ACC CAUS-make.hungry.PERF-
3MSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning: Jonas cause the hunger made me hungry.

(43) a. saba lɨj-oččɨ-n wuha as-t’ämm-aččɨ-aččäw

Saba child-PL-ACC water CAUS-make.thirsty.PERF-3FSGS-
3PLO
Saba made children be thirsty of water.

b.*saba wuha-n lɨj-očč as-t’ämm-aččɨ-w

Saba water-ACC child-PL CAUS-make.thirsty.PERF-3FSGS-
3MSGO
Intended meaning: Saba cause water make children thirsty.

(44) a. yɨh agär wäba as-ammäm-ä*(-h)

this country malaria CAUS-make.sick.PERF-3MSGS-2MSGO
This country cause you be sick due to Malaria.

b.*yih ager wäba-w-n as-ammäm-ä*(-w)

this country malaria-DEF-ACC CAUS-make.sick.PERF-
3MSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning: This country cause the malaria to make sick.

Similarly, when the verbs hate and want are causativized only animate
(subjects becoming) objects which can be affected/altered in that they
hate/want or are hated/wanted, trigger object agreement(45)a, (46)a, (47)a,
(48)a). Inanimate objects which cannot hate/ want, or are not affected by
being hated/wanted cannot trigger object agreement (45)b, (46)b, (47)b,
(48)b):
54 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(45) a. yonas mɨgɨb as-t’älla-ø-ň Amharic

Jonas food CAUS-hate.PERF-3MSGS-1SGO
Jonas caused me to hate food.

b.*yonas mɨgb-u-n as-tälla-ø-w

Jonas food-DEF-ACC CAUS-hate.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO
Jonas caused the food to be hated.

(46) a. mɨgɨb as-fälläg-ä-ň

food CAUS-want.PERF-3MSGS-1SGO
It made me want food.

b.*mɨgb-u-n as-fälläg-ä-w
food-DEF-ACC CAUS-want.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO
It made the food to be wanted.

(47) a. a-s’lɨʔ-at-o Saba lä-yonas hɨbɨst-ä Geez

CAUS-hate.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO Saba to-Jonas food-ACC
Saba made Jonas hate food.

b.*a-s’lɨʔ-ät-o Saba lä-hɨbɨst

CAUS-hate.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO Saba to- food
She made the food be hated.

(48) a. i-y-a-ftu-kä sɨn-a (Kifle 1948: 336)

NEG-3MSGS-CAUS-want.PERF-2MSGO beauty-3FSG.GEN
lä-bɨʔsit-ä baʔd
to-woman stranger
Let it not make you want the beauty of a foreign woman.

b.*i-y-a-ftu-wo sɨn-a
NEG-3MSGS-CAUS-want.PERF-3MSGO beauty-3FSG.GEN
lä-bɨʔsit-ä baʔd
to-woman stranger
Intended meaning: Let it not make the beauty of a foreign woman be
wanted.
To sum up, its semantic effect in contexts where it is optional, its obligatory
presence in contexts where objects are necessarily affected, and its
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 55

unacceptability with objects which are necessarily unaffected suggests that

object agreement in Amharic and Geez is related to affectedness.

3.2.2. The syntax of affectedness

Syntactically, the affected vs. unaffected distinction has been given

numerous explanations (see Anderson 1977, 1979, 2006, Fiengo 1980,
Jaeggli 1986, Giorgi and Longobardi 1991, Sybesma 1992, Tenny 1992,
1994, Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994, Cornips and Hulk 1998, Travis
2010 among others). Here I adopt Travis’ (2010) proposal that affectedness
involves moving the object from its base position to a derived position below
vP, inner aspect in her terminology. I assume that object agreement in
Amharic and Geez indicates the presence of such a derived object position.
This means that object agreement is the realization of the phi-features of a
functional projection which is responsible for affectedness (AffP).
Accordingly, I analyze the clauses with object agreement like in (49)a as
containing AffP (50)a as opposed to those without object agreement like in
(49)b , which I analyze without AffP as in (50)b:
(49) a. saba mɨsa-wa-n bäll-aččɨ-w Amharic
Saba lunch-3FSG.GEN-ACC eat.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO
Saba ate her lunch.

b. saba mɨsa-wa-n bäll-ačč

Saba lunch-3FSG.GEN-ACC eat.PERF-3FSGS
Saba ate her lunch.

(50) a. TP b. TP
o
AspP T AspP To
DPk Asp’ bäll-äčč-ɨwi DPk Asp’ bäll-ačči
saba vP Aspo saba vP Aspo
tk v’ ti tk v’ ti
AffP vo VP vo
DPj Aff’ ti mɨsa-wa-n ti ti
mɨsa-wa-n VP Affo
tj ti ti
Such an analysis, however, does not explain why the object agreement
follows the subject agreement. As mentioned above, given that the object
agrees with the verb before the subject agrees with Asp/T, object agreement
is not expected to precede subject agreement. This fact would rather suggest
56 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

that it is a realization of a type of agreement which takes place after subject

agreement. It could, for instance, be considered a case of topic or focus
agreement. I do not, however, follow such an analysis for one basic reason:
object agreement is impossible with external arguments. If the type of
agreement we are discussing would be topic or focus agreement, there would
not be any reason why external arguments do not trigger it.30
The fact that the object agreement follows the subject agreement can
be rather accounted by the historical perspective which I discussed in
section 2.1.3. Recall that the subject agreement markers are suffixes with
perfective verbs and a combination of prefixes and suffixes with
imperfective verbs. I argued following Benmamoun (2000) that such a
phenomenon is the result of the fact that the agreement markers were
pronominal arguments before they were incorporated into the verb and
became pure agreement markers. Such historical account can explain why
object agreement follows subject agreement. Suppose that before
incorporation, pronominal objects, which have become object agreement
markers after incorporation, were base generated below pronominal subjects
like in (51). Later on, when the pronominal arguments are incorporated into
the verb, which had moved to the higher syntactic position, the pronominal
subject has become closer to the verb resulting in a linear morphological
order of VERB-AGRS-AGSO.

30
One could argue that such an agreement is impossible because these arguments
have already established subject agreement with Aspo or To, and that they do not
involve in another agreement. However, the restriction is not due to that. As we will
see in the chapters that follow, object agreement can also be triggered by possessors
of internal arguments, but not possessors of external arguments. Since possessors of
external arguments do not agree with any other element, the restriction why they do
not trigger object agreement cannot be due to the fact that they have already entered
in another agreement relation. The analysis which I provide above explains this
restriction. That is AffP is below vP, and it is not accessible to external arguments
and their possessors.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 57

(51) FP
F’
Fo VP
verbi pron.subj V’
pron. obj. Vo
ti
By this, I conclude the discussion of the object agreement. In the next
section, I will proceed to the third type of agreement.

3.3. Genitive agreement

In addition to subject and object agreement, Geez and Amharic also exhibit a
third type of agreement known as genitive agreement. This agreement is the
equivalent of subject and object agreement with nominal heads. This means
that while the external and internal arguments of a verb trigger subject and
object agreement, respectively, arguments of nominals trigger genitive
agreement on the head. As a result, possessors trigger genitive agreement on
their possessee (52), subjects trigger genitive agreement on infinitives and
gerunds (53). Moreover, in Geez, complements of prepositions trigger
genitive agreement on the preposition (54) 31:

31
Note that Geez prepositions can be regarded as having a nominal behavior since
they originate from nouns (Dillmann 1907: 388). This is in fact observed from their
analogy. Compare, for example, the NPs in (i) with the PPs in (ii). The NP in (i)a is
in what is known as the construct state. It is similar to the PP in (ii)a in that both the
preposition and the possessee end in –ä. Similarly, the possessive NP in (i)b and the
PP in (ii)b are similar. The preposition establishes genitive agreement with its
complement in the same way as the possesssee establishes agreement with the
possessor. This analogy is the result of the fact that the combination of a preposition
and its complement in (ii)a evolved from the construct state (i)a while the PP in (ii)b
evolved from (i)b.
(i) a. wäld-ä nɨgus
son-CS of-king
the king’s son

b. wäld-u lä-nɨgus
son-3MSG.GEN to-king
the king’s son
58 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(52) a. bet-e Amharic

house-1SG.GEN
my house

b. betɨ-yä Geez
house-1SG.GEN
my house

(53) a. mämt’at-e/ mätɨčč-e Amharic

come.INFNTV-1SG.GEN/come.GRND-1SG.GEN
my coming/ me having come.

b. hawwir-yä Geez
go.INFNTV-1SG.GEN
my going

(54) a. bɨ-ya in me Geez

b. bɨ-kä in you(m)
c. bɨ-ki in you(f)
d. b-o in him

3.4. The phi-features of agreement

It is generally assumed that the three types of agreement markers we

discussed above involve person, number and gender. However its is not clear
that that is the case. Note that the same affix is used to indicate more than
one person. For example, the prefix tɨ- is used to indicate second person and
third person feminine in imperfective verbs (55). Moreover, in several cases
two morphemes have the same person specification. For example, second

(ii) a. mɨsl-ä nɨgus

with-CS of-king
With a/the king

b. mɨsle-hu lä-nɨgus
with-3MSG.GEN to-king
With a/the king.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 59

person is represented by tɨ- in imperfective and by –k in perfective verbs (cf.

(55)&(56)).
(55) Imperfective verbs
Singular Plural
a. ɨ-k’ättɨl I (will) kill nɨ-kä’ttɨl we kill
b. tɨ-k’ättɨl you(m) (will) kill tɨ-kä’ttɨl-u you(m)kill
c. tɨ-k’ättɨl-i you(f) (will) kil l tɨ-kä’ttɨl-a you (f) kill
d. yɨ-k’ättɨl he (will) kill yɨ-k’ättɨl-u they(m) kill
e. tɨ-k’ ättɨl she (will) kill1 yɨ-k’ättɨl-ä they (f) kill

(56) Perfective verbs

Singular Plural
a. k’ätäl-k-u I killed k’täl-n-ä we killed
b. k’ätäl-k you(m) killed k’ätäl-kɨ-mu you(mpl) killed
c. k’ätäl-k-i you(f) killed k’ätäl-k-ɨn you(f) killed
d. k’ätäl-ä he killed k’ätäl-u they(mpl) killed
e. k’ä’täl-ät she killed kä’täl-a they (f) killed
I will argue that this is not a ‘mismatch’ but caused by the fact that the
agreement markers do not indicate person. We will, in stead, analyze
agreement in Amharic and Geez in terms of, (non-)speaker, (non-) proximate
and diminutive/augmentative features, rather than person, number and
gender32. In the following sections, I will give such an analysis based on
Geez. Geez exhibits the morphemes used in the agreement markers in its
independent pronoun system with clear morphological contrasts that show
their semantic role. Since Amharic shows a similar pattern despite some
superficial differences due to phonological change or simplification in its
pronoun system, its agreement system can be taken to be the same. In
section 3.4.1-3.4.3, I give a morphological analysis of the independent
pronouns of Geez in order to identify the specific features. In section 3.4.4, I
show how the three types of agreement we saw above can be analyzed
accordingly.

32
Note that decomposing pronominal elements into features which have more
general semantics has been proposed by many scholars. See Harbour (2006) and
the references cited there for detailed discussion. What I am proposing here is that
the morphemes which build the pronouns are realized as markers of these features.
60 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

3.4.1. Morphological analysis of Geez independent pronouns: the

speaker-non-speaker and the proximate-distal distinction

Geez has the following independent pronouns which are used in subject
position. Note that the notions proximate, intermediate and distant indicate
proximity of the referent from the point of view of the speaker:
(57) person/gender Number
Singular Plural
1st anä I nɨhnä we
2nd m. antä you antɨmu you
f anti you antɨn you
3rd m. prox. zɨntu this ɨllontu these
f zatti this ɨllantu those
m ɨmmuntu they
f. ɨmmantu they
m.intrmdt. zɨk(t)u that ɨlk(t)u those
f. ɨntakti that ɨllɨk(t)on those
m.dstnt wɨʔtu he wɨʔtomu they
f yɨʔti she wɨʔton they
Note that the consonantal affix -t is common to all 2nd and 3rd person
pronouns (those in the shaded part in (57), but absent in 1st person pronouns.
This suggests that -t indicates a feature shared by 2nd and 3rd person pronouns
against 1st person pronouns. The common feature that distinguishes 2nd and
3rd person pronouns from 1st person pronouns is that the former are non-
speakers whereas the latter are speakers. Thus, I conclude that -t is a non-
speaker marker. This means that based on the presence and absence of -t, we
can classify pronouns into non speaker and speaker.
Consider now the distribution of the morpheme -n. It is found in all
1st and 2nd person pronouns, and proximate 3rd person pronouns (see shaded
part below):
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 61

(58) person Number

Singular Plural
1st
anä I nɨhnä we
2nd m. an-t-ä you antɨmu you
f an-t-i you antɨn you
3rd m. prox. zɨn-t-u this ɨllontu these
f zat-t-i this ɨllanu these
m ɨmmuntu they
f ɨmmantu they
m.intrmdt zɨk-(t)-u that ɨlk(t)u those
f ɨntak-t-i that ɨllɨk(t)on those
dstnt wɨʔ-t-u he wɨʔtomu they
f yɨʔ-t-i she wɨʔton they
In third person pronouns, -n contrasts with -k as follows:
(59) a. zɨ-n-t-u this (msg)
zɨ-k-t-u that(msg)

b. ɨll-o-n-t-u these (msg)

ɨll-o-k-t-u those (msg)
Following traditional grammars of Geez (Kifle 1948), I attribute this contrast
to degree of proximity. Although native intuition is not available today to
prove this, I hypothesize that the –n indicates proximity to the speaker while
–k indicates proximity to the addressee. Evidence for this comes from the
cognates of these pronouns in Amharic. Amharic third person pronouns,
which are historical cognates of zɨktu/zɨsku indicate proximity to the
addressee (Haile 1967):33
(60) a. ɨssu lɨj Amharic
he child
That(m) boy (proximate to the addressee)

33
It has to be noted here that these pronouns are different from homophonous third
person pronouns which are used to refer to distant objects. It has been generally
accepted that the distant pronouns historically originate from the noun ɨrs ‘self,
head’. This means that Amharic has two sets of homophonous third person
pronouns. The first set refer to objects proximate to the hearer and are cognates of
similar pronouns of Geez. The second set refer to distant objects and evolve from
the word ɨrs.
62 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. ɨssuwa lɨj
she child
That(f) girl (proximate to the addressee)

c. ɨnnä-ssu34 lɨj-očč
they child-PL
Those children (proximate to the addressee)

The distribution of –n and –k suggests that that all 1st and 2nd person
pronouns and some third person pronouns are marked for proximate to the
speaker. While some other third person pronouns are marked for proximity
to the addressee.
In addition to -n and -k, other third person pronouns contain -ʔ.
These are pronouns that refer to objects which are neither proximate to the
speaker nor to the addressee. This means that -ʔ indicates the feature distal:
(61) a. wɨ-ʔ-tu he/that(m)
b. yɨ-ʔ-ti she/that(f)
Generally, based on the proximity feature, the pronouns in Geez are
classified in to three: proximate to the speaker, proximate to the addressee,
and remote as follows:
(62) Singular Plural
st
Prox. to speaker: 1 anä I nɨhnä we
(contain n) 2m. an-t-ä you an-t-ɨmu you
f an-t-i you an-t-ɨn you
3m zɨn-t- this ɨllon-t-u these
f zat-t-I this ɨllan-t-u those
m ɨmmun-t-u they
f. ɨmman-t-u they
Prox. to addr:3m. zɨk-(t)-u that ɨlk-(t)-u those
(contain k) f. ɨntak-t-i that ɨllɨk-(t)-on those
Remote 3m wɨʔ-t-u he wɨʔ-t-omu they
(contain ʔ) f yɨʔ-t-I she wɨʔ-t-on they

34
ɨnnä-ssu comes from ɨnnä-ɨssu
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 63

3.4.2. Proximity markers

In Geez the proximity markers (-k, -n and -ʔ) combine with a set of prefixes.
The prefixes that combine with -k and -n are different from those which
combine with -ʔ. This means that prefixes are also sensitive to the
proximate-distal distinction. Those which combine with -n and -k are
proximate. Those which combine with the distal/non-proximate marker -ʔ
are non-proximate. If we classify the pronouns in terms of being (non-)
proximate, we will get the following two groups:
(63) Singular Plural
proximate 1st anä I nɨhnä we
2m. an-t-ä you an-t-ɨmu you
f an-t-i you an-t-ɨn you
3m zɨn-t-u this ɨllon-t-u these
f zat-t-i this ɨllan-t-u those
m ɨmmun-t-u they
f. ɨmman-t-u they
m. zɨk-(t)-u that ɨlk-(t)-u those
f. ɨntak-t-i that ɨllɨk-(t)-on those
non-prox. 3m wɨʔ-t-u he wɨʔ-t-omu they
f yɨʔ-t-i she wɨʔ-t-on they
Proximate pronouns (those marked by -n and -k) are further classified
according to being (non-) participant. Participant pronouns refer to the
speaker and the hearer. That is 1st and 2nd person pronouns. These pronouns
take the prefix a-:
(64) a. a-nä I
b. a-nta you(m)
c. a-nti you(f)
The non-participant prefixes are three: z-, l- and -m. z- is used for the
singular and l- and m- are used for plural:
(65) a. zɨ-n-tu this(m) ( proximate to the speaker)
b. zɨ-k-tu that(m) ( proximate to the addressee)
c. za-t-ti35 this(f)( proximate to the speaker)

35
zatti originates from za-n-ti through phonologival assimilation.
64 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(66) a. ɨll-o-n-tu these (m) ( proximate to the speaker)

b. ɨll-a-n-tu these (f) ( proximate to the speaker)
c. ɨll-u-k-tu those(m) ( proximate to the addressee)

(67) a. ɨmm-u-n-tu they(m)/those

b. ɨmm-a-n-tu they(f)/those
Summarizing, the featural composition of the prefixes can be specified as
follows:
(68) -proximate (w-/y-)
-participant
Prefixes +proximate: (z-, l-, m- )
+Participant (a-)

3.4.3. Gender and number marking

In addition to the features we have seen so far, Geez pronouns also

distinguish number and gender. Gender distinction is available only in non-
speaker pronouns, and it is marked by vowel alternations which follow the
non-speaker marker -t or the prefixes as demonstrated below:
(69) Prefix-V-n/k/ʔ-t-V
The following vowel alternations are used in each case:
(70) a. Following t: -ä/-i as in ant-ä you (m) vs. ant-i you (f)
-u/ -i as in wɨʔt-u he vs. yɨʔt-i she

b. Following the prefixes:

u/-a as in ɨmmuntu they(m) vs. ɨmmantu they(f)
o/a as in ɨlloktu those(m) vs. ɨllaktu those (f)
As a result, gender is marked discontinuosusly:
(71) a. z-a-t-t-I this(f)
b. ɨmm-a-n-t-u they(f)
c. ɨll-o-k-t-u those(m)
Vowel alternation, however, does not only indicate a feminine/masculine
distinction. It also indicates size distinction. Feminine pronouns are used to
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 65

refer to small things (diminutives) and masculine pronouns refer to big

things (augmentatives), as in (72)36:
(72) a. ɨsmä ziʔakä yɨʔti mängɨst
for yours that.F kingdom
Thine is the kingdom.

b. bä-k’dmä zatti ɨmm-yä kɨddɨst betakɨrstiyan

in-infront this.F mother-1SG.GEN holy church
In the sight of the holly mother church

Which of the gender and size distinctions is primitive is difficult to decide

from the pronominal system alone. However, recent research by Leyew
(2012) has clearly indicated that vowel alternation in Amharic and other
Ethiopian languages is related to the diminutive vs. augmentative
distinction37. On the basis of this, I consider that -i and -a are diminutive
markers and -u(o) and -ä are augmentative markers.
Number marking involves affixation of n, which surfaces as m
before round vowels and labial consonants, and as l before glides:
(73) Singular Plural
a. anä I nɨ-h-nä we
b. anta you(m) an-tɨ-m-u you
c. anti you(f) an-t-ɨn you
d. wɨʔtu he wɨʔ-t-o-m-u they
e. yɨʔti she wɨʔ-to-n they
f. zɨntu this ɨl-l-o-n-t-u these
g. zatti this(f) ɨl-l-ä-n-t-u these
h. --------- ----- ɨm-m-u-n-t-u they/those
i. --------- ----- ɨl-l-u-k-t-u those
Recall that -n is also used to indicate proximity to the speaker. Whether this
similarity between number and proximity marking is a matter of homophony
36
The examples in (72) are taken from the daily prayer of the Ethiopian Orthodox
Church. In the prayer church and kingdom are stated as feminine/ demunitive.
37
The claim that vowel alternation is related to size rather than gender might also
be supported by the terms which stand for feminine and masculine in Geez. The
word for feminine is anɨst derived from the root of the verb nɨʔsa ‘be small’, and the
term for masculine täbaʕt derived from the root of the verb tabbäʔä ‘be strong,
huge’ (Kifle 1948).
66 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

or identity is an interesting issue. On the face of it, it looks that there is no

relationship between the notion of plurality and proximity for them to be
expressed by one affix. However, if the plural is understood as a ‘stuff
dividing’ function as proposed by Borer (2005), the similarity between the
plural marker and the proximity marker turns out to be identity. Borer argues
that the plural is not a function over individuals. In other words, plural
marker is not pluralizing singulars. Rather it divides a portion from the entire
denotation of the noun. For example, the plural marker –s in students does
not pluralize the singular student. It rather portions out a subset from the
entire denotation of student. If Borer’s analysis is correct, the identity
between plural and proximity to the speaker marker is straightforward. This
means that function of portioning of the denotation is made by proximity
marking. In other words, rather than employing a different morpheme to do
the portioning function, Geez uses the proximity marker. This is in fact
interesting in that the plural marking in lexical nouns also involves the
morpheme –t as in diyak’on ‘deacon’ diyak’on-at ‘deacons’. One can easily
say that in this case, portioning is made by the non-speaker marker.38
So, my claim is that gender and number marking in Geez
independent pronouns is not primitive. Gender is marked by diminutive and
augmentative markers. Number is marked by proximity to the speaker
markers.
To sum up, the morphological analysis of Geez independent
pronouns reveals that they are made up of affixes which indicate the
features non-speaker[-t] , proximity to the speaker [-n], proximity to the
addressee [-k], and distal [-ʔ] and prefixes which are characterized as (non-)
participant and (non-)proximate as well as vowels which indicate diminutive
and augmentative features. Based on the features we have identified so far,
the pronouns in Geez can be classified as follows:

38
This is not only restricted to Geez. Bryan (1959) and Bryan (1968) cited in Crass
and Meyer (2007) also noted that the morphemes n, t, and k are widely distributed in
North east African languages.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 67

Table 1: Reclassification of Geez pronouns

Demu Speak Non-Speaker [ t]

nition er
and Proximal to the speaker [n] Proxim Remote
numb al to [ʔ]
er address
ee [k]
Participant [a-] Non- participant [z, l, m w/y]

MSG anä antä - zɨntu zɨktu wɨʔtu

‘I” you this that he
FSG anti - zatti ɨntakti yɨʔti
you that that she
MPL nɨhnä antɨmu ɨmmun ɨllontu ɨlloktu wɨʔtomu
We you tu they these these they
FPL antin ɨmmant ɨllantu ɨllaktu wiʔton
you u they these these they

Accordingly, each pronoun can be defined in terms of the features

specified by the affixes. To demonstrate some of them, excluding
number and gender features:
(74) a. 1SG: anä = [participant], [proximate to the speaker]
b. 2MSG:anta = [participant], [proximate to the speaker],
[non-speaker]
c. 3MSG:zɨntu = [non-participant], [proximate to the
speaker],[non-speaker]
zɨktu = [-participant], [proximate to the addressee],
[ non-speaker]
wɨʔtu = [-participant], [- proximate],[ non-speaker]
With this in mind, I now proceed to the discussion of the agreement system,
which is realized by the same morphemes.
68 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

3.4.4. Reanalyzing the agreement system

With the exception of 1st singular (the speaker) which involves special
affixes in all cases, all the types of agreement which we discussed in section
3.1-3.3 involve the morphemes which are used to build the independent
pronouns. As a result, we can account the features of agreement marking
straightforwardly:
 1st plural is exclusively realized by -n which indicates the proximity
to the speaker
 2nd person agreement is realized by proximity to the addressee -k and
non-speaker -t along with the morphemes used to indicate number
and gender.
 3rd person agreement involves only morphemes which indicate
number and gender, except for 3FSG, which requires the non-speaker
marker -t.
We can see this, for example, in the genitive agreement found with nouns,
prepositions and gerundives/infinitives. As is illustrated by the examples
below, second person is marked by -k along with number and gender
markers. Third person agreement, on the other hand, consists of only gender
markers –ä/-i, -u(o)/-a and number markers -m/-n. In the first person,
however, we find n only in the plural. 1st singular is exceptional:
(75) Noun Preposition Gerund
(my, your house etc.) (in me, you etc.) (my, your killing etc.)
1SG betɨ-yä bɨ-yä k’ä’til-yä
2MSG betɨ-k-ä bɨ-k-ä k’ ä’til-kä
2FSG betɨ-k-i bɨ-k-i k’ ä’til-ki
3MSG bet-u b-o k’ ä’til-o
3FSG bet-a b-a k’ ä’til-a
1PL betɨ-n-ä bɨ-n-ä k’ätil-n-ä
2MPL betɨ-k-ɨm-u bɨ-k-ɨm-u k’ ä’til-k-ɨmu
2FPL betɨ-k-ɨn bɨ-k-ɨn k’ ä’til-k-ɨn
3MPL bet-o-mu b-o-mu k’ ä’til-o-mu
3FPL bet-o-n b-o-n k’ ä’til-o-n
The subject agreement in perfective and imperfective verbs shows a similar
pattern. In perfective verbs, as in the genitive agreement, 2nd person is
marked by -k along with number and gender markers. 3rd person agreement
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 69

also involves only gender and number markers except that 3FSG which has
the non-speaker marker -t. The same is true for 1st plural which involves n.
Once again 1st singular remains exceptional, which incidentally is
homophonous to the proximate to addressee marker -k:
(76) Singular Plural
a. k’ätäl-k-u I killed k’täl-n-ä we killed
b. k’ätäl-k you(m) killed k’ätäl-kɨ-mu you(mpl) killed
c. k’ätäl-k-i you(f) killed k’ätäl-k-ɨn you(f) killed
d. k’ätäl-ä he killed k’ätäl-u they(mpl) killed
e. k’ätäl-ät she killed k’ä’täl-a they(fpl) killed
In imperfective verbs which exhibit a combination of prefix-suffix
agreement markers, 2nd person and 3rd feminine involve the non-speaker
marker t- while 3MSG and 3PL involve y-, which is the variant of ʔ. Both t-
and ʔ- are accompanied by number and gender markers. 1st plural involves
the same morpheme n- except that it is a prefix here; the exceptional 1st
singular involves a vowel ɨ-:
(77) Singular Plural
a. ɨ-k’ättɨl I (will) kill nɨ-kä’ttɨl we kill
b. tɨ-k’ättɨly you(m) (will) kill tɨ-kä’ttɨl-u you(m) kill
c. tɨ-k’ättɨl-i you(f) (will) kill tɨ-kä’ttɨl-a you(f) kill
d. yɨ-k’ättɨl he(will) kill yɨ-k’ättɨl-u they(m) kill
e. tɨ-k’ ättɨl she(will) kill yɨ-k’ättɨl-ä they(f) kill
Object agreement also involves the same affixes. -n is used for 1st person, k
for 2nd person and only gender and number markers for 3rd persons:
(78) Singular Plural
a. k’ätäl-ä-ni he killed me k’ätäl-ä-nä he killed us
b. k’ätäl-ä-kä he killed you(ms) k’ätäl-ä-k-ɨmu he killed you(mpl)
c. k’ätäl-ä-kɨ he killed you(fpl) k’ätäl-ä-k-ɨn he killed you(mpl)
d. k’ätäl--ɸ-o39 he killed him k’ätäl-omu hekilled them(mpl)
e. k’ätäl-ɸ-a he killed her k’ätäl-on he killed them(fpl)
Summarizing, the three types of agreement markers in Geez involve
proximity, and non-speaker markers, along with number and gender
markers.40 For ease of presentation and familiarity, I will gloss the
39
From k’ätäl-ä-o
40
Except for the 1st person singular ( the speaker) which is exceptional in all cases.
70 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

agreement markers as indicating person, number and gender throughout this

thesis.

4. Summary

In this chapter, I discussed the morpho-syntax of aspect, tense and

agreement in Amharic and Geez. In section 2, I discussed aspect. In this
section, I showed that the two canonical verbal forms are perfective and
imperfective. Based on the morphological structure and (in-) compatibility
of perfective and imperfective verbs with auxiliaries, I argued that
perfective verbs move up to To while imperfective verbs remain in lower
positions. In Section 3, I discussed agreement. In this section, I showed that
subject agreement is related to aspect or tense while object agreement is
related to affectedness. I also showed that genitive agreement is the
counterpart of subject and object agreement with nominal heads. Moreover, I
showed, based on Geez that the phi-features of agreement must be defined in
terms of proximity, non-speaker and diminutive/augmentative features,
rather than person, number and gender features. I conclude this chapter here.
In the remaining chapters of this dissertation, I move on to discuss the non-
verbal predication system of the two languages.
PART TWO
72 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez
 CHAPTER THREE

NON-VERBAL PREDICATION IN AMHARIC

1. Introduction

In this part of the dissertation, I discuss the non-verbal predication system of

Amharic. As we mentioned in chapter one, non-verbal predication in
Amharic exhibits variation in two respects: the copular system and the case-
marking of NPs/APs in these copular constructions.
The language has three copular verbs: nӓw, allӓ and nӓbbӓr, which
indicate tense (Goldenberg 1964, Demeke and Meyer 2001, Demeke 2003,
Yimam 2006 among others). That is, näw and allä are present tense
predicational and existential copulas, respectively, and näbbär is the past
counterpart of näw and allä. The three copular verbs differ in two respects:
in terms of their agreement system and the type of predicate they show up
with. With regard to agreement, the present tense predicational copula näw is
always marked for an invariable 3MSG subject agreement and for object
agreement. For example in (1), the copula obligatorily appears with two
agreement markers: 3MSG subject agreement and 3FSG object agreement.
The subject of predication lɨj-očč-u ‘the children’ triggers the object
agreement not the subject agreement41. The subject agreement is the default
3MSG.

41
Note that by object agreement, I am referring to the agreement which is triggered
by the entity affected by the event denoted by the verb as I discussed in chapter two
in detail. I call it object agreement because it has been known by this name.
74 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(1) lɨj-očč-u mämhɨr-an/tɨlɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’ n-ä*(-aččäw)

child-PL-DEF teacher-PL/tall.PL/at-house inside be.PRES-
3MSGS-3PLO
The children are teachers/tall/at home.

The existential present tense copula allä and the past tense copula näbbär,
on the other hand, are marked only for subject agreement or for subject and
object agreement with a corresponding BE and HAVE alternation in
interpretation. In their BE interpretation, they are marked only for subject
agreement which tracks the subject, as in (2). In their HAVE interpretation,
they are marked for subject and object agreement which track the possessee
and the possessor respectively, as in (3):
(2) a. lɨj-očč-u ɨ-bet wɨst’ all-u
child-PL-DEF at-house inside be.PRES-3PLS
The children are at home.

b. lɨj-očč-u mämhɨr-an/tɨlɨllɨk’//ɨ-bet wɨst’ näbbär-u

child-PL-DEF teacher-PL/ tall.PL/at-house inside be.PST-
3PLS
The children were teachers/tall/at home.

(3) a. saba mämhɨr-očč all-u-at (cf. (2)a)

Saba teacher-PL be.PRES-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba has teachers.

b. saba mämhɨr-očč näbbär-u-at(cf. (2)b)

Saba teacher-PL be.PST-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba had teachers.
With regard to the type of predicate they show up with, the present tense
predicational copula näw appears with AP, NP and PP predicates (4). The
choice of verbs allä and näbbär varies depending on their interpretation,
either BE or HAVE. In their BE interpretation, näbbär appears with APs,
NPs and PPs (5)a to express predication, identity and location, while allä
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 75

appears only with PPs to express location (5)b42. In their HAVE

interpretation, both allä and näbbär show up only with NPs (6):
(4) saba mämhɨr(-wa)/tɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’ n-ä-at
Saba teacher (DEF.FEM)/tall/at-house inside be.PRES-3MSGS-
3FSGO
Saba is (a/the) teacher/tall/at home.

(5) a. saba mämhɨr(-wa)/tɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’ näbbär-äčč

Saba teacher (-DEF.FEM)/tall/at-house inside be.PST-3FSGS
Saba was (a/the) teacher/tall/at home.

b. saba ɨ-bet wɨst’/*mämhɨr(-wa)/*tɨllɨk’ all-äčč

Saba at-house inside/ teacher (-DEF.FEM)/tall be.PRES-3FSGS
Saba is at home.

(6) a. saba mäs’haf-očč all-u-at

Saba book-PL be.PRES-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba has books.

b. saba mäs’haf-očč näbbär-u-at

Saba book-PL be.PST-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba had books.

In addition to this, the copular clauses which contain the three copulas differ
in terms of the case-marking system of the NPs and APs. NP and AP
predicates with the copula näw and the BE interpretation of näbbär can be
nominative, which is the morphologically unmarked Case (7)a, or accusative
(7)b with a corresponding difference in interpretation as can be seen from
the examples (7)a&b while the subjects always remain nominative. With the
HAVE interpretation of allä and näbbär, on the other hand, only nominative
is allowed in both NPs (7)c:
(7) a. lɨj-occ-u tämari-wočč/etɨyop’yaw-yan n-ø-aččäw/näbbär-u
child-PL-DEF student-PL.NOM/Ethiopian-PL.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3PLO/be.PST-3PLS
The children are/were students/The children are/were Ethiopians.

42
I cannot find any interpretational difference between the locative clauses of (4)
& (5)b.
76 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. lɨj-occ-u tämari-wočč-ɨn/ etɨyopiyawi-yan-n n-ø-aččäw/näbbär-u

child-PL-DEF student-PL-ACC/Ethiopian-PL-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-
3PLO/be.PST-3MPLS
The children are/were just like students/the children are/were just like
Ethiopians.

c. saba mäs’haf-očč/*mäs’haf-oččɨ-n all-u-at/näbbär -u-at

Saba book-PL.NOM/*book-PL-ACC be.PRES-3PLS-3FSGO/be.PST-3PLS-
3FSGO
Saba has/had books.

To summarize, the copular and case-marking system of Amharic can be

represented as follows:
Table 2: summary of the copular and case-marking system of Amharic
Type of Agreement of the Type of Case-marking
copula copula predicate

näw Obligatory subject NP, AP, NOM-NOM

and object agreement PP NOM-ACC

allä Locative :
Obligatory subject NP, PP NOM-PP
agreement, optional
object agreement Possessive
NOM-NOM

näbbär Obligatory subject NP, NOM-NOM

agreement, optional AP,PP NOM-ACC
object agreement NOM-PP

In this and the next chapter, I discuss the syntactic analysis of Amharic
copular clauses. I will explain why the copular verbs differ in terms of their
agreement system and the type of predicate they show up with, as well as
give an explanation for the case-marking system. In this chapter, I will focus
on the copular verbs. I show that the difference between the copular verbs in
terms of agreement system and the type of predicate they show up with is
due to the fact that they are of different types, suggesting that the language
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 77

has more than one BE. That is, näw is an impersonal raising verb which
selects a small clause complement involving raising of the subject of the
small clause to the functional projection which is responsible for
affectedness (AffP). allä is a personal raising verb which selects an NP
complement, triggering possessor raising, while näbbär, which is the past
counterpart of allä and näw, is a personal raising verb which selects an NP
or a small clause complement involving both possessor and subject raising,
respectively.
The discussion will proceed as follows. In sections 3 and 4, I will
explain why the copular verbs differ in terms of their agreement system. I
will, subsequently, show that they are personal and impersonal verbs
(section 3), and that they belong to different types of raising verbs (section
4). In section 5, I will discuss that the difference between copular verbs, in
terms of the type of predicate they show up, follows from the fact that they
are different types of raising verbs. Before directly proceeding to the
discussion of their morpho-syntactic differences, however, I would make a
few points regarding the role of the copular verbs in 2.

2. The role of copular verbs in Amharic

As I mentioned earlier, the most widely accepted assumption about the role
of Amharic copular verbs is that they indicate tense (Goldenberg 1964,
Demeke and Meyer 2001, Demeke 2003, Yimam 2006 among others). That
is allä and näw are used to indicate non-past (present) tense (8)a&(9)a and
näbbär is their past counterpart (8)b&(9)b:
(8) a. ɨne tämari n-ä-ň
I student be.PRES-3MSGS-1SGO
I am a student.

b. ɨne tämari näbbär-ku

I student be.PST-1SGS
I was a student.

(9) a. ɨne ɨ-bet wɨst’ all-ähu

I at-house inside be.PRES-1SGS
I am at home.
78 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. ɨne ɨ-bet wɨst’ näbbär-ku

I at-house inside be.PST-1SGS
I was at home

There are, however, some contexts which would seem to challenge this
claim. One striking fact which seem to be against the tense account is the
use of the past tense copula in non-past contexts as in (10)a&b. The past
tense copula näbbär shows up with present (habitual) (10)a and future (10)b
temporal adverbs in addition to the past(10)c:

(10) a. hullem tämari näbbär-ku gɨn…

always student be.PST-1SGS but…
Nominally I am always a student, but…

b. b-ɨ-čɨl-ɨmma kärmo tämari näbbär-ku

if-1SGS-can.IMPERF-FOC next.year student be.PST-1SGS
If I were able to, I would be a student next year

c. amna tämari näbbär-ku

last.year student be.PST-1SGS
I was a student last year.

The use of the past tense copula in non-past contexts may lead one to suspect
that it does not indicate tense. However, such kind of usage is not unique to
Amharic. It is also observed in languages like English and Greek (Iatridou
2000). In these languages counterfactual wishes (11) and counterfactual
conditionals (12) which do not have past tense interpretation involve verbs
that are marked for past tense. Iatridou calls this type of past fake past:
(11) a. I wish I had a car. (Conveys I don’t have a car now’)
b. I wish I had had a car when I was a student. (I didn’t have a car then)
(12) a. If he were smart, he would be rich. (He is not smart and he is
not rich)
b. If he had been smart, he would have been rich. (He was not
smart and he was not rich)
(Iatridou 2000: 231)
Iatridou explains such a phenomenon by proposing that the past tense has a
skeletal meaning of (13):
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 79

(13) T(x) excludes C(x), where

T(x) stands for topic (x), (i.e., the x we are talking about)
C(x) stands for ‘the x that for all we know the x of the speaker’)
According to Iatridou, the variable x can range over times or worlds. When
it ranges over time, we get T(t): the set of times we are talking about (topic
time), and C(t): the set of times that for all we know is the time of the
speaker (utterance time). In this case (13) provides past tense interpretation
in which topic time excludes the utterance time. When x ranges over worlds,
T(w): worlds we are talking about (Topic worlds), and C(w): the worlds that
for all we know are the worlds of the speaker (Actual worlds). In this case,
(13) provides counterfactual wishes and conditionals in which the Topic
world excludes the Actual world.
Given Iatridou’s proposal, the use of Amharic past tense copula in (10)
can be explained accordingly. That is, it is used when the topic time/world
excludes the utterance time/world43.

3. Amharic copulas as personal and impersonal verbs

As we mentioned above, the present tense predicational copula nӓw is

always marked for an invariable 3MSG subject agreement and variable object
agreement, which tracks the subject of the predication. The past tense copula
nӓbbӓr and the present tense existential copula allӓ, on the other hand, are
marked either only for the subject agreement or for subject and object
agreement. In this section, I show that this is due to the fact that nӓw is an
impersonal verb as proposed by (Haile 1974) and allӓ and nӓbbӓr are
personal verbs.
By impersonal verbs, I mean verbs which take only grammatical
(expletive) subjects as opposed to personal verbs which take true subjects.
For example, the verbs like rain, snow are impersonal verbs in English.
These verbs do not represent an action or a state about a specific person,
43
Such analysis, though it explains why the past tense morphology/copula is used in
non-past tense contexts, raises another interesting question on the nature of tense.
Why do we insist on calling the morphemes or the copulas as indicating tense while
the variable which determines their choice is not only time. This means that if the
choice of the copular verbs is made not only based on the range of time, but also on
the range of worlds, calling them tense copulas would denote just part of their role.
I leave this topic for future research.
80 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

thing or place. Therefore they take only grammatical subjects: It rains, It

snows. Personal verbs, on the other hand, are those which take a true subject
of all persons. Most verbs are personal as they predicate some action or state
of a specific person or thing.
In Amharic, personal and impersonal verbs are distinguished by
their agreement system. Personal verbs are marked obligatorily for subject
agreement, and optionally for object agreement. For example in (14)a, the
unergative verb hedä ‘go’, the unaccusative verb addägä ‘grow up’ and the
passive verb täšällämä ‘is awarded’ are all personal verbs and take only the
subject agreement marker –u, which matches with the plural subject lɨj-očč
‘boys’. The same is true in (14)b where the transitive verb shows up only
with the subject agreement marker -hu which matches with the first person
singular subject pronoun.
(14) a. lɨj-očč hed*(-u)/ addäg*(-u)/ tä-šälläm*(-u)
boy-PL go.PERF-3PLS/ grow up.PERF-3PLS/PASS-.award.PERF-3PLS
The boys went/grew up/are awarded.

b. ɨne mäs’haf gäzza*(-hu)

I book buy.PERF-1SGS
I bought a book.
Personal verbs take object agreement only if the object is interpreted as
affected as we discussed in chapter two (section 2.3.2). For example, in (15)
we find object agreement only when the object is singled out and is
interpreted as being affected by the event, as in (15)b:
(15) a. saba mɨsa bälla-čč(*-ɨw)?44
Sara lunch eat.PERF-3FSGS
Did Saba eat lunch? (Did she perform lunch eating?)

44
Such structures should not be taken as a kind of noun incorporation observed in
different languages. For that matter, an independent word can be inserted between
the unmarked object and the verb as in (i):
(i). saba mɨsa ahun bälla-čč?
Saralunch now eat.PERF-3FSGS
Did Saba eat lunch now?
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 81

b. saba mɨsa-wa-n bälla-čč-ɨw?

Saba lunch-3FSG.GEN-ACC eat.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO
Did Saba eat her lunch? (Is the lunch eaten?)

Impersonal verbs, on the other hand, are obligatorily marked for subject and
object agreement (cf. (16)a&b)). As I mentioned in chapter 2 (section
3.2.1.2), the subject agreement in these verbs is always the default 3MSG.
The object agreement refers to the person/thing that is affected by the event
denoted by the verb (16)b&c:
(16) a.*lɨj-it-u rab-äčč
child-FEM-DEF be.hungry.PERF-3FSGO
Intended meaning: The girl is hungry

b. lɨj-it-u rab-ø-at
child-FEM-DEF be.hungry.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
The girl is hungry. lit. It hungered the girl.

c. lɨj-očč rab-ø-aččäw
chidren-PL-ACC be.hungry.PERF-3MSGS-3PLO
The children are hungry. lit. It hungered the children.
In short, the agreement pattern of personal and impersonal verbs in Amharic
can be represented as follows:
Table 3: Summary of agreement system of personal and impersonal verbs
Personal verbs Impersonal verbs

Subject agreement  Obligatory  default 3MSG

Object agreement  optional  Obligatory

Returning to the copular verbs, their agreement pattern is just a replica of

personal and impersonal verbs. The copular verbs näbbär ‘was’ and allä
behave like personal verbs. Just like other personal verbs, they are marked
82 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

only for subject agreement (17)a,b or for subject and object agreement
(17)c45:
(17) a. saba tämari/gobäz/ɨ-bet wɨst’ näbbär-äčč
Saba student/clever/at-house inside be.PRES-3FSGS
Saba was a student/clever/ at home.

b. saba ɨ-bet wɨst’ all-äčč

Saba at-house inside be.PRES-3FSGS
Saba is at home.

c. saba tämari-očč all-u-at/ näbbär-u-ӓt

Saba student-PL be.PRES-3PLS- 3FSGO/be.PST-3PLS- 3FSGO
Saba has/had a student.

The copula näw, on the other hand, is the same as impersonal verbs. Just like
impersonal lexical verbs, it is obligatorily marked for subject and object
agreement. The subject agreement is always the default 3MSG and the
subject of the predication is tracked by object agreement:
(18) saba tämari/gobäz n-ø-*(at )
Saba student/clever be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is a student/clever. Lit. It is Saba clever.

The personal and impersonal behavior of the copular verbs is not affected by
either the definiteness of the NPs that show up with the copulas or by

45
There is one an apparent difference between personal lexical verbs and the
copulas allä and näbbär: Object agreement with lexical verbs
is allowed when the object is definite/specific while with the copular verbs it is
possible regardless of the definiteness/ specificity of the possessor. I do not take this
as a difference because, as I have shown in footnote 12 in chapter two, object
agreement with lexical verbs is not always related to definiteness or specificity of
the target NP:

(i) anbäsa näbr-ɨn ya-ššännɨf-äw-all?

lion tiger-acc 3MSGS-beat.IMPERF-3MSGO-AUX
Is a lion more powerful than a tiger?/ Are lions more powerful than
tigers?
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 83

changes in word order. In identity clauses when näw and näbbär show up
with two definite NPs, the agreement patterns remain the same. That is, the
subject of predication triggers object agreement in näw and subject
agreement in näbbär. The subjects in (19)a and (19)b are personal pronouns
and the predicates are marked for definiteness. In both cases, the pronominal
subjects are tracked by the object agreement in näw and the subject
agreement in näbbär. The same is true in (19)c&d where the two NPs of the
copular clause are proper nouns. In (19)c the subject triggers object
agreement while in (19)d, it triggers subject agreement. Note that the
presence of two agreement markers in näw is not clearly seen in(19)a
and(19)c. This is because the 3MSG subject agreement is deleted due to the
fact that the object suffix begins with a vowel. The presence of two
agreement markers in näw is clearly seen when there is no phonological
process, as in (19)b.

(19) a. ɨnnantä tämari-wočč-u n-ø-aččɨhu/näbbär-aččɨhu

you.PL student-PL-DEF be.PRES-3MSGS-2PLO/be.PST-2PLS
You are/were the students.

b. ɨne lɨj-it-u n-ä-ň/ näbbär-ku

I child-FEM-DEF be.PRES-3MSGS-1SGO/be.PST-1SGS
I am/was the girl.

c. saba azeb n-ø-at

Saba Azeb be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is Azeb.

d. saba azeb näbbär-äčč

Saba Azeb be.PST-3FSGS
Saba was Azeb.

Similarly, in all possible word orders, the agreement pattern remains the
same:
(20) a. tämari-wočč(-u) ɨňňa n-ä-n/näbbär-n (cf. (19)a)
student-PL-DEF we be.PRES-3MSGS-1PLO/be.PST-1PLS
We are/were (the) students.
84 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. ɨ-bet wɨst’ saba all-äčč (cf. (17)a)

at-house inside Saba be.PRES-3FSGS
Saba is at home.

To summarize, the agreement system of personal and impersonal lexical

verbs and that of copular verbs can be represented as follows:
(21) a. Lexical verbs
Personal verbs:
Subject non-subject verb-AGRS-(AGRO)
Impersonal verbs:
Default 3MSG subject verb-AGRS-AGRO
b. Copular verbs
näbbär/allä:
Subject/possessee possessor copula-AGRS-(AGRO)
näw:
Default 3MSG Subject copula-AGRS-AGRO
The copular verbs allä and näbbär exhibit an agreement pattern which is the
same as that of personal verbs in that object agreement is not obligatory and
have a variable subject agreement. On the other hand, the agreement pattern
of the copula näw is the same as that of impersonal verbs in that both take
subject and object agreement are obligatory and that the subject agreement is
always 3MSG. Based on this, I conclude that the copula näw is an impersonal
verb while allä and näbbär are personal verbs.
The question that emerges from this generalization, then, is how
this is explained syntactically. I address this question in the next section.

4. Amharic copulas as raising verbs

As we mentioned in chapter one, in a widely accepted syntactic analysis of
copular clauses, the copula is assumed to take a small clause complement
which is inserted in order to provide information about tense, aspect and
mood (TAM) (Stowell 1981, Bowers 1993, den Dikken 2006 among others).
The syntactic derivation then proceeds in such a way that the copula at To
establishes agreement with the subject of the small clause in order to check
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 85

its uninterpretable phi-features. The subject, then, moves to spec, TP in order

to check the EPP feature of T, as in (22):
(22) TP
NPi T’
o
subject T PredP
copula ti Pred’
o
Pred NP
predicate
Recall that in Amharic the type of agreement is sensitive to tense and aspect
marking of the verb is subject agreement (cf. chapter two). But why does the
predicational present tense copula establish object agreement with the
subject of the small clause and the personal copulas establish object
agreement with the possessor in their HAVE interpretation? In this section, I
show that this is because the copular verbs are of different types of raising
verbs, which involve raising not only to Spec, TP, but also to another
functional position.
The discussion proceeds as follows. First, I describe the different types
of raising phenomena in Amharic in section 4.1. In section 4.2, I show that
the different agreement patterns of the copular verbs are the result of the fact
that they involve different types of raising. That is, the impersonal copula
näw selects small clause complements and involves raising the subject of its
complement to the affectedness projection (AffP). The existential present
tense copula allä selects NP complements and involves raising the possessor
of its NP complements to AffP, while näbbär, which is the past tense
counterpart of näw and allä, selects NP and small clause complements and
involves either possessor raising to AffP or subject raising to TP.

4.1. Raising in Amharic

Amharic has two types of raising: raising the subject of a complement clause
and raising the possessor of complement NPs. Since the term raising is
widely associated with raising the subject of complement clauses, I use
subject raising to refer to the former and possessor raising to refer to the
latter. I will describe subject raising in section 4.1.1 and possessor raising in
section 4.1.2.
86 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

4.1.1. Subject raising

Subject raising in Amharic is seen with canonical raising verbs and ECM
verbs which select clausal complements. The fact that these verbs involve
subject raising is evidenced from agreement, case-marking and
interpretation. In raising verbs, subject raising is evidenced by agreement.
That is, the subject of the complement clause triggers subject agreement on
the matrix verb and the auxiliary (23)b both of which would have taken the
default 3MSG subject agreement to license an expletive pro otherwise (23)a:
(23) a. [ [saba bunna yämmɨ-t-afäla] yɨ-mäsl-all-ø]
[Saba coffee C-3FSGS-boil.IMPERF] 3MSGS-seem.IMPERF-AUX-
3MSGS
It seems that Saba makes/will make coffee

b. [sabai [ti bunna yämmɨ-t-afäla] tɨ-mäsl-all-äčč]

Saba [ti coffee C-3FSG S-boil.IMPERF] 3FSGS-seem.IMPERF-AUX-
3FSGS
Saba seems to make coffee.

Note that the embedded clauses from which raising takes place in (23) is a
finite clause, which contain prepositional complementizers. In Chomiskian
Minimalist assumption, raising out of CP is impossible. However, Carstens
(2011) and Carstens and Diercks (2013) have reported a similar
phenomenon in Bantu languages and they they argue that this is possible
because Case and “activity”(being active for agreement and movement) are
parameterized across languages. How this works for Amharic, however,
need to be worked out.
In ECM verbs, subject-to-object raising is observed from agreement, case-
marking and interpretation. That is, a raised subject triggers object
agreement on the matrix verb; it is assigned accusative Case, and it is
interpreted as affected by the event of the matrix verb as in (24)a. This is
unlike the non-raised subject which does not trigger agreement on the matrix
verb, is assigned nominative and is not interpreted as affected (24)b:46

46
Note that the complementizers in (23) and (24) are different. This is due to the fact
that Amharic has prepositional-complementizers, words which are used both as
prepositions and complementizers and the choice of prepositional-complementizers
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 87

(24) a. yonas saba-ni [ ti ɨnd-t-mät’a] adärräg-ø-at

Jonas saba-ACC C-3FSGS-come.IMPERF make.PERF-3MSGS- 3FSGO
Jonas made Saba come. (He enforced her to come)

b. yonas [saba ɨnd-t-mät’a] adärräg-ä

Jonas saba-NOM C-3FSGS-come.IMPERF make.PERF-3MSGS
Jonas made Saba come. (He made the situation favorable for her to
come)
In fact in the literature, such kind of raising has been generally rejected for
theoretical reason. That is, the object position is assumed to be a theta-
position which is filled by merging, not by movement (Chomsky 1981). On
the other hand, Postal (1974), Lasnik and Saito (1991), Lasnik (2001), and
Hong and Lasnik (2010) argue in favor of raising to object position based on
languages which exhibit a clear difference between raised and non-raised
subjects. Amharic sides with these languages by exhibiting the three pieces
of evidence observed by Hong and Lasnik (2010) in support of the presence
of such kind of raising.
The first argument is case-marking and agreement as we saw above. If
the subject of the complement clause does not raise to the object position, it
is assigned nominative rather than accusative (cf. (24)a&(24)b), and it
cannot trigger object agreement on the matrix verb (cf. (24)a&(25):
(25) * yonas [saba ɨnd-t-mät’a] adärräg-ø-at
Jonas Saba.NOM C-3FSGS-come.IMPERF make.PERF-3MSGS- 3FSGO
Intended meaning: Jonas made Saba to come.

The second argument comes from word order. The accusative subject of the
complement clause can be found preceding a matrix adverb (26)a while
nominative subjects cannot (26)b. Assuming that the temporal adverb
tɨnantɨna ‘yesterday’ is merged at the same position, the reason why the
accusative subject can precede it (26)a while the nominative subject cannot
(26)b, but follows it (26)c clearly suggests that the accusative subject raises
to a higher position:

is made based on different factors such as finiteness/ infiniteness of the embedded

clauses, the aspectual form of the verb in the embedded clause, and thematic role of
the embedded clause etc. For the detailed discussion of the syntax of these
prepositional-complementizers in Amharic see Manahlot (1977), Yimam (1987),
Asratie (2005).
88 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(26) a. yonas saba-ni tɨnantɨna [ti zare ɨnd-t-mät’ta]

Jonas Saba-ACC yesterday today C-3FSGS-come.IMPERF
adärräg-ø-at
make.PERF-3MSGS- 3FSGO
Yesterday Jonas made Saba come today.

b. *yonas sabai tɨnantɨna[ti zare ɨnd-t-mät’ta]

Jonas Saba-NOM yesterday today C-3FSGS-come.IMPERF
adärräg-ä
make.PERF-3MSGS
Intended meaning: Yesterday Jonas made Saba come today

c. yonas tɨnantɨna [saba zare ɨnd-t-mät’ta]

Jonas yesterday [Saba-NOM today C-3FSGS-come.IMPERF
adärräg-ä
make.PERF-3MSGS
Yesterday Jonas made Saba come.

The third piece of evidence again comes from a Binding Theory. It is a well-
known fact that pronouns cannot be locally bound. That is clauses like (27)
are unacceptable because the antecedent of the object pronoun cannot be the
subject of the same clause. This predicts that when the subject of the
embedded clause is a pronoun whose antecedent is the subject of the matrix
clauses, raising must be impossible since, as Hong and Lasnik (2010) noted,
such raising causes the pronoun to be locally bound, violating condition B of
the Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981). This prediction is borne out in
Amharic, as can be seen from (28):
(27) *yonasi ɨssuni ayy-ä-w
Jonasi he-ACCi see.PERF-3MGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning: Jonas saw him.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 89

(28) a. yonasi [ɨssui ɨnd-ayɨ-ø-w-wäk’k’äs47] adärräg-ä

Jonas he.NOM C-NEG-3FSGS-PASS-criticize.IMPERF make.PERF-
3MSGS
Jonas made that he is not criticized.

b. *yonasi ɨssu-ni [ ɨnd-ayɨ-ø-w-wäk’k’äs]

Jonas he-ACC C-NEG-3FSG S-PASS-criticize.IMPERF
adärräg-ä
make.PERF-3MSGS
Intended meaning: Jonas made that he is not criticized.

These three pieces of evidence suggest that Amharic exhibits raising to

object in ECM verbs. The question then is where does the subject raise to?
Here we have two possible candidates. Given that the raised subject behaves
like an object in that it is assigned accusative Case, the possible candidates
for the landing position are spec, VP or spec, vP where objects are base-
generated or land respectively (Chomsky 1995, Bowers 1993, Larson 1988).
However, if raising to theta-position is not allowed, spec, vP and VP would
not be good candidates. We must assume that there is some functional
position which serves as the landing position of the raising object. Recall
that in chapter two, we saw that object agreement is related to affectedness
and I argued that object agreement is the realization of the phi-features of a
functional projection which is responsible for affectedness (AffP). Since the
raised subjects trigger object on matrix ECM verbs, we can claim that the
subject of the embedded clause raises to AffP. This means that in Amharic
ECM verbs, the subject of the complement clause raises to the AffP position
of the matrix clause.
In the examples we saw so far, raising took place from clausal
complements. In addition to clausal complements, subject raising also takes
place when raising and ECM verbs select small clause complements:
(29) a. sabai [SC ti tämari] mässäl-äčč
Saba student seem.PERF-3FSGS
Saba seems to be a student.

47
The morphological structure before the phonological change is:
ɨnd-al-yɨ-t-wäk’k’äs
C-NEG-2MSGS-PASS-criticize
90 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. yonas saba-ni [SC ti tämari] adärräg-ø-at

Jonas saba-ACC student make.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Jonas made/considered Saba a student.
The verbs in (29) select small clause complements. There are three pieces of
empirical evidence which suggest this. The first is that the predicate of the
small clause does not trigger agreement on the verb. Although these verbs
apparently seem to be mono- and ditransitive verbs by containing two or
three NPs, one of their NPs cannot trigger agreement, unlike canonical
arguments. Compare the transitive verb in (30) with ECM and raising verbs
in (31). In (30)a&b, either of the two objects of the di-transitive verb sät’t’ä
‘give’ can be tracked by the object agreement on the verb. But the NP
‘tämari’ which is the predicate of the small clause in the raising and ECM
verbs cannot trigger object agreement. Hence the ungrammaticality of
(31)b&d.
(30) a. yonas mas’haf-u-n lä-säw sät’t’-ä-w
Jonas book-DEF-ACC to-man give.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO
Jonas gave the book to somebody.

b. yonas lä-saba mäs’haf-u-n sät’t’-ø-at

Jonas to-saba book-DEF-ACC give.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Jonas gave Saba a book.

(31) a. Saba lä-ɨne tämari-w-n mässäl-äččɨ-ň

Saba to- I student-DEF-ACC seem.PERF-3FSGS-1SGO
Saba seems to me that she is the student.

b. *yonas lä-ɨne tämari-w-n mässäl-ä-w

Jonas to-I student-DEF-ACC seem-3MSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning: Saba seems to me that she is the student.

c. yonas ɨne-n tämari-w adärräg-ä-ň

Jonas I-ACC student-DEF consider/make.PERF-3MSGS-1SGO
Jonas considered/made me to be the student.

d.*yonas tämari-w-n ɨne adärräg-ä-w

Jonas student-DEF-ACC I consider.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning: Jonas considered/made me to be the student.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 91

Secondly, the predicate of the small clause cannot be promoted to the subject
position of the passive construction. As a result, ECM verbs have only one
type of passive form (32)a and raising verbs lack a passive form altogether
(33). This is also unlike other transitive verbs which have one or two passive
forms depending on the number of their objects (34):
(32) a. ɨne tämari tä-därräg-hu
I student PASS-consider/make PERF-1SGS
I was considered/made a student.

b. *tämari ɨne tä-därräg-ä

student I PASS-consider/make.PERF-3MSGS
Intended meaning:I was considered/made a student.

(33) a. *tämari ɨne tä-mässäl-ä

student I PASS-seem.PERF-3MSGS
Intended meaning:I seem to be student.

b. *ɨne tämari tä-mässäl-ku

I student PASS-seem.PERF-1SGS
Intended meaning:I seem to be a student.

(34) a. mäs’haf-u lä-saba tä-sät’t’-ä

book-DEF to-Saba PASS-give.PERF-3MSGS
The book is given to Saba.

b. saba mas’haf tä-sät’t-äčč

Saba book PASS-give.PERF-3FSGS
Saba is given a book.
Thirdly, the NP predicate of the small clause can be replaced by an AP or PP
(35) which is not the case in ditransitive verbs unless the clause is interpreted
as containing an elided NP (36):
(35) a. saba [mäs’haf-u-n tɨllɨk’/ ɨ-bet wɨst’] adärräg-äčč-ɨw
Saba book-DEF-ACC big/at-house inside consider/make.
PERF -3FSGS-3MSGO
Saba made/considered the book to be big/at home.
92 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. saba [tɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’] mässäl-äčč

Saba tall/at-house inside seem.PERF-3FSGS
Saba seems to be tall/at home.

(36) a. saba mäs’haf-u-n lä- tɨllɨk’ sät’t’t-äčč-ɨw

Saba book-DEF-ACC to-tall give.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO
Saba gave the book to the tall one.

b. *saba mäs’haf-u-n lä- ɨbet wɨst’ sät’t’t-äčč-ɨw

Saba book-DEF-ACC to-house inside give.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO
Saba gave the book to the insideof the house.

These facts suggest that the NP tämari ‘student’ in the examples in (29) is a
predicate. This means that the verbs mässälä ‘seem’ and the adärrägä
‘consider/make’ select small clauses, that the subjects of the clauses are
base-generated as subjects of the small clause predicate, and trigger
agreement on the matrix verbs by raising. As in full clause complements, the
subject of the small clause complement triggers subject agreement on the
raising verb mässälä and object agreement on the ECM verb adärrägä. That
is, the subjects of the small clause complement raise to spec TP/AspP in the
former and to spec, AffP in the latter.
There is, however, one difference between full clause and small clause
complements with regard to raising and case-marking. Raising the subject of
a full clause complement is optional (37)&(39), while raising the subject of
small clause complements is obligatory (38)&(40) (see Williams (1983) for
similar distinction in English).
(37) a. ahun [sabai bunna afälla-čč] mässäl-ø
now [Saba coffee boil.PERF-3FSGS] seem.PERF-3MSGS
It seems now that that Saba made coffee.

b. sabai ahun [ti bunna yä-afälla-čč] mässäl-äčč

Saba now [ti coffee C-boil.PERF-3FSGS] seem.PERF-3FSGS
Saba seems now that she made coffee.

(38) a. *[saba tämari] mässäl-ø

Saba student seem PERF-3MSGS
Intended meaning: Saba seems a student.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 93

b. saba [SC ti tämari] mässäl-äčč

Saba student seem PERF-3FSGS
Saba seems to be a student.

(39) a. yonas [saba ɨnd-t-mät’ta] adärräg-ä

Jonas saba C-3FSGS-come.IMPERF make.PERF-3MSGS
Jonas made Saba come.

b. yonas saba-ni [SC ti tämari] adarga-ä

Jonas saba-ACC student make.PERF-3MSGS
Jonas made/considered Saba a student.

(40) a.*yonas [SC saba tämari] adärräg-ø-at

Jonas saba student make.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Intended meaning: Jonas made/considered Saba a student.

b. yonas saba-ni [SC ti tämari] adarga-ø-at

Jonas saba-ACC student make.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Jonas made/considered Saba a student.
These differences are due to the fact that subjects of full clause complements
are assigned Case within the clause while the subjects of small clauses are
not. This means that since the subjects of full clauses are assigned Case
within the clause through agreement with the embedded verb, they need not
raise and be exceptionally case-marked. Raising the subject of full clause
must be motivated by checking the formal features of the landing position
To/Aspo or Affo48.
To sum up, subject raising in Amharic is seen in two sub-types. The
first sub-type takes place in canonical raising verbs where the subject of the
complement clause raises to the subject position of the matrix clause
triggering subject agreement on the matrix verb. The second sub-type takes
place in ECM verbs where the subject of the complement clause raises to
spec, AffP of the matrix clause triggering object agreement on the matrix

48
It could also be argued that the subject of full clauses receives the default case,
because optionality could be interpreted as ‘getting Case and not moving’, or
‘getting Case and move’. But the latter would result in double Case-assignment. So
the only reason that movement from a Case-position to a Case-position, is that the
first is default Case.
94 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

verb just like affected objects of that verb. Both types of raising appear when
the raising and ECM verbs select full clause or small clause complements.

4.1.2. Possessor raising

In addition to subject raising, Amharic has possessor raising, a phenomenon

in which the possessor NP moves out of its host (the possessee) (Szabolcsi
1983, Kayne 1993, Landau 1999, Nakamura 1999, Lee-Schoenfeld 2006,
Deal (2013) among others). The following examples illustrate this:
(41) a . [yä-saba zämäd] mot-ä No Poss. raising
of-Saba relative die.PERF-3MSGS
Saba’s relative died.

b. [ saba] [zämäd] mot-ø-at Possessor raising

Saba relative die.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba lost a relative.

(42) a. lɨj-očč-u [yä-saba-n sɨm] t’ärr-u No poss. raising

child-PL-DEF of-Saba-ACC name call.PERF-3PLS
The children called Saba’s name.

b. lɨj-očč-u [saba-n] [sɨm] tärr-u-at Possessor raising

child-PL-DEF saba-ACC name call.PERF-3PLS-3FSGO
The children took attendance of Saba (they called Saba’s name).
In the examples above, the NP Saba is marked genitive by the preposition
yä- and it is the possessor of the subject zämäd ‘relative’ in (41)a and that of
the object sɨm ‘name’ in (42)a49. In both cases the possessor and the
possessee form a constituent. In (41)b and (42)b, however, the possessor
Saba is marked nominative and accusative respectively, triggers object
agreement on the matrix verb as if it is the affected object of the verb, and it

49
Note that the accusative marker attached to Saba in (42)a is not related to it. It is
rather the marker of the entire object yä-saba sɨm ‘ Saba’s name’. In Amharic, if the
NP takes a modifier, the accusative and definite markers are usually attached to the
modifiers, not to the head noun as in:
(i) tɨllɨk’-u-n lɨǰ ayyä-hu-t
tall-DEF-ACC boy see.PERF-1SGS-3MSGO
I saw the tall boy.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 95

does not form a constituent with the possessee50. This is because Saba had
undergone possessor raising.
In fact one may argue that Saba is the possessor only in (41)a and (42)a,
but it is an argument of the verbs in (41)b and (42)b. This claim, however, is
ruled out for two reasons. Firstly, Saba cannot be core argument of the verbs
since both verbs are saturated in that they contain the arguments they
require. die requires only one core argument and call requires two core
arguments, and each of them contain the required number of core arguments
in the examples above. Thus Saba cannot be a core argument51. Secondly,

50
The fact that the possessor and the possessee in (41)b and (42)b do not form a
constituent is evidenced by the fact that another word can intervene between them as
can be seen in (i)b and (ii)b below, unlike in (41)a and (42)a as can be seen in
(i)a,(ii)a:
(i) a. *[yä-saba tɨnantɨna zämäd] mot-ä
of-Saba yesterday relative die.PERF-3MSGS
Intended meaning: Saba lost a relative.yesterday

b. [ saba] tɨnantɨna [zämäd] mot-ø-at

Saba yesterday ralative die.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba lost a relative. Lit. Saba yesterday relative died

(ii) a. *lɨj-očč-u [yä-saba-n tɨnantɨna sɨm] t’ärr-u

child-PL-DEF of-Saba-ACC yesterday name call.PERF-
3PLS
Intended meaning: The children called Saba’s name yesterday.

b. lɨj-očč-u [saba-n] tɨnantɨna [sɨm] t’ärr-u-at

child-PL-DEF saba-ACC yesterday name call.PERF-3PLS-3FSGO
Lit. children called Saba yesterday name
The children called Saba’s name yesterday.
51
Baker (2012a) argues that these verbs contain an optional goal/source argument
like the verbs k’ällälä ‘be simple’ and käbbädä ‘ be heavy, difficult’ as shown
below:
(i). a.fätäna-w k’älläl-ä
exam-DEF be.simple.PERF-3MSGS
The exam is simple
96 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Saba cannot be a benefactively or malefactively affected oblique argument

of the verbs. This is because, such arguments in Amharic trigger object
agreement accompanied by prepositional elements –ll for benefactive and –
bb for malefactive (Demeke 2003, Amberber 1996, 1997). Consider the
agreement triggered by the oblique argument Aster in (43). The object
agreement triggered by Aster is accompanied by –bb for malefactive (43)a
and -ll for benefactive (43)b:
(43) a. daňňa-w aster-n färräd-ä-bb-at
Judge-DEF Aster-ACC judge.PERF-3MSGS-P-3FSGO
The judge judged against Aster.

b. daňňa-w aster-n färräd-ä-ll-at

Judge-DEF Aster-ACC judge.PERF-3MSGS-P-3FSGO
The judge judged in favor of Aster.

b.fättänaw lä-saba k’älläl-ø-at

exam-DEF to-Saba be.simple.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
The exam is simple to Saba.

(ii). a.fätänaw käbbäd-ä

exam-DEF be.difficult.PERF-3MSGS
The exam is difficult to Saba

b.fätänaw lä-saba käbbäd-ø-at

exam-DEF to-Saba be.difficult.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
The exam is difficult to Saba.

I do not consider that motä \die’ and t’ärrä ‘call’ take optional goal/source argument
like these verbs for one reason. Unlike these verbs, such an argument cannot
be added to the motä and t’ärrä unless the verbs take an object agreement with a
P element:
(iii). *zämäd lä- saba mot-ø-at
ralative to-Saba die.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Intended meaning: Saba lost a relative.

(iv). *lɨj-očč-u lä-saba sɨm tärr-u-at

child-PL-DEF to-saba name call.PERF-3PLS-3FSGO
Intended meaning: The children took attendance of Saba
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 97

If Saba in (41)b and (42)b were a benefactively or malefactively affected

oblique argument, we should have such kind of agreement. Since the
benefactive and malefactive agreement is not found in raised possessors, as
is shown in (44) and (45), they cannot be taken as affected oblique
arguments:
(44) a. saba zämäd-očč mot-u-bb-at
Saba relative-PL die.PERF-3PLS-P-3FSGO
Saba’s relatives died. (to her disadvantage)

b. saba zämäd-očč mot-u-ll-at

Saba relative-PL die.PERF-3PLS-P-3FSGO
Saba’s relatives died. (to her advantage).

(45) a. lɨj-očč-u saba-n sɨm-wa-n

child-PL-DEF saba-ACC name-3FSG.GEN-ACC
särräz-u-ll-at -P-3FSG
S O
delete.
The PERF-3deleted
children PL Saba her name.(to her advantage).

b. lɨj-očč-u saba-n sɨm-wa-n

child-PL-DEF saba-ACC name-3FSG.GEN-ACC
särräz-u-bb-at
delete.PERF-3PLS-3FSGO
The children deleted Saba her name.( to her disadvantage).
Saba in (41)b and (42)b is therefore neither a core argument nor a
benefactively/malefactively affected oblique argument of the verbs. The
difference between (41)b and (42)b on the one hand and (41)a and (42)a on
the other hand is that Saba has undergone possessor raising.
Why does possessor raising take place? In the examples we saw so
far, raised possessors trigger object agreement and they are assigned the
same Case as the possessee. This is unlike the non-raised possessors which
are marked by the preposition yä- ‘of’. A reasonable hypothesis is that
possessor raising is Case-driven. This means that, unless the possessor is
marked by the preposition ‘yä-‘ DP-internally, it raises to spec, AffP and
gets nominative Case from Aspo/To or accusative Case from vo.
Possessor raising is not always possible. It is restricted to internal
arguments, namely subjects of unaccusative verbs and objects of transitive
98 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

verbs. It is not allowed from external arguments, namely subjects of

unergative and transitive verbs52:
(46) a. [yä-saba zämäd/wušša] hed-ø
of-Saba relative/dog go.PERF-3MSGS
Saba’s relative /dog left.

b. *[saba] [zämäd/ wušša] hed-ø-at

Saba relative/dog go.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Intended meaing:Saba’s relative /dog left.

(47) a. yä-saba lɨj-očč mäs’haf gäzz-u

of-Saba child-PL book buy.PERF-3PLS
Saba’s children bought a book/ books.

b. *saba lɨj-očč mäs’haf gäzz-u-at

Saba child-PL book buy.PERF-3PLS-3FSGO
Intended meaning: Saba’s children bought a book/ books.
Why is possessor raising allowed only from internal arguments, but not from
external arguments? I claim that it is because AffP, which serves as the
landing position for raised possessors, is available for possessors of the
former, but not of the latter. Adopting the standard assumption that the
subject of unaccusative verbs and the direct objects are base generated below
vP; AffP must be accessible to the possessors of these arguments as
demonstrated below:

52
Amharic unergative and unaccusative verbs are distinguished by their causative
formation. In Amharic there are two causativizing morphemes: a- and as.
unergatives are causativized only by as- while unaccusatives can be causativized by
both a- and as-. Consider for example, the verb t’äk’k’orä ‘be black’ and hed-ä ‘go’.
The former can be causativized in two ways as a-t’äk’k’orä ‘make black’ and as-
t’äk’k’orä ‘cause to be black’, while the latter can be causativized only in one way
as as-hedä ‘make/cause to go’.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 99

(48) AspP
Asp
vP Asp°

AffP vo verb
NP Aff’ ti
possessor VP Affo
NP V° ti
NP N’ ti
possessor N°
possessee
For external arguments of unergative and transitive verbs, however,
assuming that they are base-generated in spec vP, AffP is not available to
them, as demonstrated below for unergative structure (49). Thus possessor
raising is impossible:
(49) AspP
?? vP Aspo
NP v’ verbi
NP N’ AffP vo
possessor No Aff’ ti
possessee VP Affo
V’ ti
Vo
ti
To summarize the last two sections, I discussed two types of raising in
Amharic: subject raising and possessor raising. With regard to subject
raising, I showed that there are two sub-types: raising to the subject position
of the matrix clause and raising to the affected object position. The first is
seen in canonical raising verbs where the subject of the complement clause
triggers subject agreement on the matrix verb. The second is seen in ECM
verbs where the subject of the complement clause is assigned accusative and
triggers object agreement on the matrix verb. For possessor raising I have
shown that it is observed when the possessor of an internal argument is
assigned nominative or accusative Case, and triggers object agreement just
like an affected object of the matrix verb. Having discussed this intricate
system of raising, I now proceed to show that the copular verbs also involve
different types of raising.
100 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

4.2. Copulas as raising verbs

Comparing Amharic copular verbs with subject raising and possessor raising
verbs reveals that there is a striking similarity between them. näw behaves
like an ECM verb, which involves subject raising to AffP. Firstly, just like
an ECM verb, the copula näw establishes agreement with the subject, but not
with the predicate (cf. (50)&(51)). Secondly, the type of agreement that näw
establishes with the subject is object agreement, not subject agreement. The
subject agreement with näw is the default 3MSG which appears with
impersonal verbs as we saw in section 3:
(50) a. ɨne tämari n-ä-ň
I student be.PRES-3MSGS-1SGO
I am a student.

b. *ɨne tämari n-ä-w

I student be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning: I am a student.

(51) a. yonas ɨne-n tämari adärräg-ä-ň

Jonas I-ACC student consider.PERF-3MSGS-1SGO
Jonas considered/made me a student.

b.*yonas ɨne-n tämari adärräg-ä-w

Jonas I-ACC student consider.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning: Jonas considered me a student/tall/ at home.

The similarity between näw and ECM verbs suggests that näw involves
raising the subject of its small clause complement to AffP. Since the copula
carries both the subject and the object agreement markers, I propose that it is
inserted at Affo and raised to To. Accordingly, the syntactic structure of näw
clauses such as (50) would be like (52). Note that in this case, AffP is
selected by T. Recall that in our discussion of AffP in the last chapter, we
saw that AffP was merged under vP. In this case there is vo as we do not
have any lexical verb. As a result, AffP is merged just below T. One could
say that AffP can be selected by any category which has verbal feature:
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 101

(52) TP
Explpro T’
AffP To
ɨnei Aff’ n-ä-ňj
PredP Affo
ti Pred’ tj
o
NP Pred
tämari
However, unlike the object of an ECM verb, the subject of the small clause
in näw is not assigned accusative Case. Rather it gets nominative Case. I
explain this by Burzio’s (1986) generalization that verbs which lack an
external argument do not assign accusative Case. näw being an impersonal
verb, does not have an external argument, and thus does not assign
accusative Case to the subject of the small clause.

The copula allä, on the other hand, behaves like an unaccusative

possessor raising verb. In its HAVE interpretation the copula establishes
subject agreement with the possessee and object agreement with the
possessor. Compare, it with the possessor raising verb motä ‘die’:
(53) a. [saba]i [zämäd]j mot-øj-ati
Saba relative die.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba lost a relative.

b. [saba]i [zämäd]j all-øj-ati

Saba relative be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba has a relative.
The copula allä in its HAVE interpretation, therefore, can be analyzed as a
possessor raising copula base-generated at Affo and involving raising the
possessor of the complement NP to spec, AffP. Accordingly, (53b) has a
structure which looks like (54):
102 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(54) TP
T
AffP T°
NP Aff all-ä-ati
Saba NP Aff°
NP N’ ti
Saba No
zämäd
In its BE interpretation, allä does not involve possessor raising. In this case
it is base-generated at To, selects an NP complement and establishes subject
agreement with it:
(55) a. mäs’haf all-äčč
book be.PRES-3FSGS
There is a(little) book.53

b. TP
T’
NP To
mäs’hafi all-äčč
Of course, such an analysis raises the question of the status of the location
PP. The structure in (55)b forces us to a position that this PP is an adjunct
rather than a predicate. This is independently evidenced by two facts. Firstly,
it is optional unlike the predicate PP with näw (cf (56)a & (57)a). Secondly,
the PP with allä, unlike the predicate PP of näw, can trigger object
agreement with prepositional elements –ll and –bb just like other adjuncts
and oblique arguments as we saw in 4.1.2. Compare (56)b and (57)b:
(56) a. mäs’haf-wa (ɨ-wänbär-wa lay) all-äčč
book-DEF.FEM at-chair-DEF.FEM top be.PRES-3MSGS
There is a (little) book is on the chair.

53
Note that when inanimate nouns are marked feminine or trigger feminine
agreement, they have diminutive interpretation.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 103

b. ɨ-wänbär-wa lay mäs’haf-u all-ä-bb-at

at-chair-DEF.FEM top book-DEF be.PRES-3MSGS-P-3FSGO
The chair has the book on it.

(57) a. mäs’haf-wa *(ɨ-wänbär-u lay) n-ø-at

book-FEM.DEF at-chair-DEF top be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
The book is on the chair.

b. *i-wänbär-u lay mäs’haf-wa n-ä-bb-ät

at-chai-DEF top book- DEF.FEM be.PRES-3MSGS-P-3MSGO
Intended meaning: The chair has the book on it.

The copula näbbär, which is the past counterpart of allä and näw, on the
other hand, behaves like a subject raising verb in its BE interpretation and as
a possessor raising verb in its HAVE interpretation. Just like a subject
raising verb, näbbär in its BE interpretation establishes subject agreement
with the subject of the small clause, but not with the predicate. Compare the
raising verb mässälä and näbbär:
(58) a. sabai [SC ti tämari] mässäl-äčč
Saba student seem.PERF-3FSGO
Saba seems a student.

b. sabai [SC ti tämari] näbbär-äčč

Saba student be.PST-3FSGS
Saba was a student.
In its HAVE interpretation, on the other hand, näbbär establishes subject
agreement with the possessee and object agreement with the possessor just
like a possessor raising copula allä:

(59) saba tämari-wočč näbbär-u-at

Saba student-PL be.PST-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba had students.
The copular clauses with näbbär in (58)a and (59) are, therefore, analyzed as
a subject raising and possessor raising constructions as follows:
104 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(60) a. TP
NPi T’
Saba PredP To
ti Pred’ näbbär-ačč
NP Predo
tamari

b. TP
T
AffP T°
NPk Aff näbbär-u-ati
Saba NP Aff°
NPk N’ ti
Saba N
tämari-wočč

5. Predicate selection

Recall that in addition to their agreement system, Amharic copulas also

differ in terms of the type of the predicate they show up with. näw appears
with AP, NP/DP and PP predicates (61). allä shows up only with PPs in its
BE interpretation and with NPs in its HAVE interpretation (62). näbbär on
the other hand shows up with AP, NP/DP and PP in its BE interpretation and
with NPs in its HAVE interpretation (63):
(61) saba mämhɨr(-wa)/tɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’ n-ä-at
Saba teacher DEF.FEM/tall/at-house inside be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is (a/the) teacher/tall/at home.

(62) a. saba ɨbet wɨst’/*mämhɨr(-wa)/*tɨllɨk’ all-äčč

Saba at-house inside/teacher -DEF.FEM/tall be.PRES-3FSGS
Saba is at home.

b. saba mäs’haf-očč all-u-at

Saba book-PL be.PRES-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba has books’ Lit. ‘books exist to Saba.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 105

(63) a. saba mämhir(-wa)/tɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’ näbbär-äčč

Saba teacher -DEF.FEM/tall/at-house inside be.PST-3FSGS
Saba was (a/the) teacher/tall/at home.

b. saba mäs’haf-očč näbbär-u-at

Saba book-PL be.PST-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba had books’ Lit. books existed to Saba.
These differences are straightforwardly explained under the analysis of
copular verbs as subject and possessor raising verbs we discussed above.
The reason why näw shows up with all types of predicates is due to the fact
that it is a subject raising verb. That is, as a subject raising verb, näw selects
small clause complements and does not have any restriction on the type of
predicate it shows up. As a result, it appears with NP, AP and PP
predicates. The possessor raising copula allä, on the other hand, selects an
NP complement, being the only element that takes possessors. As a result, it
shows up with two NPs when it involves possessor raising. In its BE
interpretation, it appears only with an NP, although it also takes a location
PP which is just an adjunct. As for the copula näbbär, which involves
subject raising in its BE interpretation and possessor raising in its HAVE
interpretation, it selects both small clause and NP complements. Thus there
is no restriction to show up with NP, AP and PP predicates in its BE
interpretation. In its HAVE interpretation, on the other hand, since it is a
possessor raising verb, it shows up only with NPs just like allä.

6. Summary

In this chapter, I discussed the differences between Amharic copular verbs

with regard to their agreement system and the type of predicate they show up
with. I argued that their differences are the result of the fact that the copular
verbs are personal and impersonal verbs on the one hand and that they
involve different types of raising on the other hand. The copula näw is
obligatorily marked for subject and object agreement and shows up with all
types of predicates because it is an impersonal subject raising verb which
selects small clause complements and involves raising the subject of its
small clause complement to spec, AffP. The copula allä on the other hand is
marked only for subject agreement only or for both subject and object
agreement and shows up only with NPs, though it allows an adjuncts PP,
because it is a possessor raising verb which selects an NP complement.
The copula näbbär shows up with NPs, APs, and PPs in its BE interpretation
and
106 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

only with NPs in its HAVE interpretation because it is involves subject

raising and possessor raising by selecting small clause complements and NP
complements, respectively.
 CHAPTER FOUR

CASE-MARKING IN AMHARIC NON-

VERBAL PREDICATION
1. Introduction
In addition to the copular system, non-verbal predication in Amharic also
shows variation in case-marking of NPs/DPs and APs that show up with the
copulas54. The empirical generalization about case-marking is that with the
possessive interpretation of the copulas allӓ and nӓbbӓr, both the possessor
and the possessee are nominative (1)a, which is morphologically unmarked,
whereas with the copulas nӓw and the BE interpretation of nӓbbӓr, the
subject is nominative while the predicate alternates between nominative and
accusative with a corresponding difference in interpretation as in (1)b&c:
(1) a. saba mäs’haf-očč/*mäs’haf-očč-n
Saba.NOM book-PL/book-PL-ACC
all-u-at/ näbbär-u-at
be.PRES-3PLS-3FSGO/be.PST-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba has/had books.

b. lɨǰ-očč-u tämari-wočč/gobäz-očč
child-PL-DEF.NOM student-PL/clever-PL
n-ø-aččäw/nӓbbӓr-u
be.PRES-3MSGS-3PLO/be.PST-3PLS
The children are/were students/clever.

54
The ideas which are discussed in this chapter are also found in Asratie (2014).
Case-marking in Amharic copular constructions. In Ronny Meyer, Yvonne Treis
and Azeb Ameha (eds) Explorations in Ethiopian Linguistics: Complex Predicates,
Finiteness and Interrogativty. Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden, PP 259-281.
108 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

c. lɨǰ-očč-u tamari-wočč-n/gobäz-očč-n
child-PL-DEF.NOM student-PL-ACC/clever-PL-ACC
n-ø-aččäw/nӓbbӓr-u
be.PRES-3MSGS-3PLO/be.PST-3PLS
The children are/were just like students/clever ones.

The case-marking pattern in possession copulas can be accounted for in the

same way as other unaccusative possessor raising verbs we discussed in
chapter three (section 4.1.2.). As we saw in that section, a raised possessor is
marked for the same case as the possessee because it is assigned Case by the
same functional element that assigns Case to the possessee. The nominative
Case of the possessor and the possessee in possessor raising copular clauses
is therefore the result of the fact that both of them are assigned Case by T o.
Case-marking in subject raising copulas, however, cannot be
accounted for in the same way since such an account does not explain why
predicates alternate between nominative or accusative cases with the
corresponding interpretational difference. My focus in this chapter is to
explain what determines predicate case-marking in these clauses.
Variation in predicate case-marking is not unique to Amharic. As we
discussed in chapter one, in many languages, non-verbal (NP/DP and AP)
predicates are marked for cases that are the same as the subject (2)a or
different from the subject (2)b (Maling and Sprouse (1995), Comrie (1997),
Citko (2008), or they alternate between the same and different Cases as in
(3) (Bailyn (2001), Pereltsvaig(2001, 2008), Matushansky (2008) among
others:
(2) a. hún er kennari/*kennara Icelandic(Maling and Sprouse
she-NOM is teacher.NOM/teacher.ACC 1995:168)
She is a teacher.

b. det er mig/*jeg Danish

it.nom is me. ACC/*I.NOM
It is me.

(3) a. čexov byl pisatel'. Russian (Pereltsvaig 2001:1)

Chekhov.NOM was writer.NOM
Chekhov was a writer.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 109

b. čexov byl pisatelem.

Chekhov.NOM was writer.INSTR
Chekhov was a writer.
Why predicates show such case-marking difference or alternation, however,
remains an issue of debate. There are four syntactic proposals that address
this issue. The first is that of Maling and Sprouse (1995) and Comrie (1997)
who claim that the case-marking on the predicate is determined by whether
the copula assigns Case or not. This means that the predicate is marked for
different case from the subject when the copula assigns Case to it and the
predicate is marked for the same case as the subject (in a way to be discussed
below) when the copula does not assign Case to it. The second is that of
Bailyn (2001), Matushansky (2008), Citko (2008), who argue that it is
determined by whether or not there is a Case-assigning head in the small
clause: the predicate is marked for a different case if the small clause
contains a Case-assigning head and it is marked for the same case as the
subject if the small clause does not contain a Case-assigning head. The third
is Pereltsvaig (2001, 2008) who attributes the case-marking alternation to the
category of the predicate and the dual nature of the copular verb (that is, a
lexical or a functional element). According to Pereltsvaig, Russian copular
clauses with NOM-NOM case-marking as in (3)a are identity clauses which
contain two DPs that are merged together and the copula inserted as a pure
functional element as in (4)a. The nominative case-marking of the two DPs
is then the result of the fact that they receive the default Case. The copular
clauses with NOM-INSTR case-marking as in (3)b, on the other hand, are
predicative clauses which contain NP/AP predicates and the copula inserted
as a lexical light verb as in (4)b. In this case, instrumental Case is assigned to
the predicate by the verb:
(4) a. TP b. TP
DPi T’ DPi T’
o o
T FP T FP
ti F’ ti F’
o
F DP Fo vP
byt’ ti DP byt’j ti v’
o
v NP/AP
tj
110 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

The fourth is that of Richardson (2007). Richardson accounts for the

instrumental vs. nominative case alternation on predicates of Slavic copular
constructions like (3) by the presence and absence of an aspect projection
(AspP). According to Richardson, predicates are assigned instrumental by
aspect (Asp), and they are assigned nominative when there is no AspP.
The four proposals differ regarding how the predicate gets the same
Case as the subject. For Maling and Sprouse (1995), Bailyn (2001),
Matushansky (2008) and Citko (2008), the predicate receives the same Case
as the subject because it is assigned Case by the functional element which
also assigns Case to the subject. For Comrie (1997) and Richardson (2007),
the predicate agrees in Case with the subject while for Pereltsvaig (2001,
2008) the predicate receives the default Case, being nominative.
The question then emerges as to what determines case alternation in
Amharic: The copula (Comrie 1997, Maling and Sprouse 1995)? The
category of the predicate (that is, AP/NP vs. DP) (Pereltsvaig 2001, 2008)?
The presence and absence of aspect (Richardson 2007)? The presence and
absence of a Case-assigning small clause head (Bailyn 2001, Citko 2008,
Matushansky 2008)? Or something else?
Obviously, contra Maling and Sprouse (1995) and Comrie (1997),
the copula cannot be responsible for the case alternation in Amharic unless
one assumes that the copula is ambiguous between two types of verbs: one
which assigns accusative Case to the predicate and the other which does not,
as in Pereltsvaig (2001, 2008). An ambiguous copula, however, is unlikely
and non-explanatory since Case alternation is also possible not only with the
copula (5), but also with lexical verbs like addärrägä ‘make/consider’ (6).
Anyone who claims that the copula is ambiguous between a Case-assigning
verb and a non-Case assigning verb has to extend his/her proposal to these
verbs too:
(5) a. lɨj-očč-u tämari-wočč/gobäz-očč näbbär-u NOM
child-PL-DEF.NOM student-PL.NOM /clever-PL.NOM be.PST-3PLS
The children were students/The children were clever.

b. lɨj-očč-u tämari-woččɨ-n/ gobäz-oččɨ-n ACC

child-PL-DEF.NOM student-PL-ACC/clever-PL-ACC näbbär-u
be.PST-3PLS
The children were just like students/like clever ones.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 111

(6) a.yonas ɨňňa-n tämari-wočč adärräg-ä-n NOM

Jonas we-ACC student-PL.NOM consider.PERF-3MSGS-1PLO
Jonas considered/made us students. (We may/or not be students)

b. yonas ɨňňa-n tämari-woččɨ-n adärräg-ä-n ACC

Jonas we-ACC student-PL-ACC consider.PERF-3MSGS-1PLO
Jonas considered us to be students. (We cannot be students.)

Pereltsvaig’s (2001, 2008) claim that predicates which are marked for a
different case from the subject are APs/ NPs while those which are marked
for the same case as the subject are DPs will not work for Amharic since
predicates that are overtly marked as DPs can be nominative or accusative:
(7) a. saba tämari-wa/ etɨyop’ɨyawi-wa
Saba.NOM student-DEF.FEM.NOM /Ethiopian-DEF.FEM.NOM
n-ø-at
be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is the student/ the Ethiopian.

b. saba tämari-wa-n/ etɨyop’yawi-wa-n

Saba.NOM student-DEF.FEM-ACC/Ethiopian-DEF.FEM-ACC
n-ø-at
be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is just like the student/ the Ethiopian.
Similarly, Richardson’s (2007) claim that clauses with predicates marked for
different case from the subject contain an AspP while those with predicates
marked for the same Case as the subject do not contain an AspP is unlikely
for Amharic since accusative and nominative alternation of predicates is
allowed not only with perfective and imperfective verbs (8), but also with
infinitives, which are not marked for aspect (9):
(8) a. lɨj-očč-u tämari-wočč/tämari-wočč-n
child-PL-DEF. NOM student-PL.NOM/student-PL-ACC
mässäl-u
seem.PERF-3PLS
The children seemed to be students/seemed to be like students.

b. lɨj-očč-u tämari-wočč/tämari-wočč-n
child-PL-DEF. .NOM student-PL.NOM/student-PL-ACC
yɨ-mäsl-all-u
3PLS-seem.IMPERF-AUX-3PLS
The children seem to be students/seem to be like students.
112 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(9) lɨj-očč-u tämari-wočč/tämari-wočč-n

child-PL-DEF.NOM student-PL.NOM/student-PL-ACC
mämsäl-aččäw
seem.INFNTV-3PL.GEN
The children’s seeming to be (like) students

The claim that predicate case-marking is related to the presence and absence
of a Case-assigning head of a small clause has two versions. In the first
version advocated by Citko (2008), two types of small clause heads are
assumed: defective and non-defective. The defective head is non-eventive
and has no Case-feature. The non-defective head is eventive and has a Case-
feature. The predicate receives a different Case from the subject when the
non-defective small clause is used as in (10)a ( note that π is Citko’s notation
of the small clause head). The predicate receives the same Case as the
subject when the defective small clause head is used as in (10)b. In this case,
both the subject and the predicate receive Case from T o by the mechanism
known as multiple Agree (Hiraiwa 2005):
(10) a. TP
T’
o
T πP
DP.NOM π’
π.non.def. DP.INSTR
b. TP
T’
To πP
DP.NOM π’
π.def DP.NOM
In the second version (Matushansky 2008), a Case feature is assumed to be
assigned by a particular head to its complement with the consequence of (i)
one Case feature being assigned to more than one NP/DP or AP and (ii) one
NP/DP or AP being assigned more than one Case. Predicates are then
assumed to be marked different case from the subject when another Case
assigner interferes between the subject and the predicate. According to this
proposal, instrumental Case on Russian small clause predicates is the spell
out of a bundle of the Case features assigned by the head of the small clause
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 113

(Predo) and another functional vo that introduces the verb’s eventuality

argument as follows:
(11) vP
o
v vP
EVENT DP v’
vo VP
o
V PredP
DP Pred’
Predo. DP.INSTR
Both versions are equally interesting until compelling evidence is found to
choose one from the other. In this chapter, I show that nominative and
accusative alternation in Amharic is also related to the eventive and non-
eventive interpretations. That is, clauses with accusative predicates are
eventive while clauses with nominative predicates are non-eventive.
I will claim that an eventive interpretation is associated neither with
the small clause head, contra Citko(2008), nor with the matrix verb, contra
Matushansky (2008). I claim that accusative Case is assigned to predicates
by an independent functional projection which is responsible for an eventive
interpretation. Accordingly, I analyze the syntactic structure of clauses with
accusative predicates like (12) as containing an eventive functional head
(evP) as in (12)b. In the absence of an eventive small clause head, the
predicate receives the default Case, following Pereltsvaig.
(12) a. ɨňňa tamari-woččɨ-n n-ä-n
we.NOM student-PL-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-1PLO
We are just like students.
114 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. TP
Explpro T’
AffP To
ɨňňai Aff’ n-ä-nj
PredP Affo
ti Pred ‘ tj
evP Predo
NP ev
tamari-očč-n
My argument is based on the difference with regard to predicate selection,
interpretation, agreement and word order between clauses with nominative
and accusative predicates. In the following sections, I show how nominative
and accusative predicates behave differently with regard to these properties
suggesting that the latter contain an eventive functional head while the
former do not. In section 2, I show that clauses with nominative predicates
lack the eventive functional head. In section 3, I show that clauses with
accusative predicates contain an eventive functional head. Section 4, shows
how nominative Case is assigned to predicates. Section 5 concludes the
chapter.

2. Nominative predicates
As I mentioned earlier, evidence which indicates that nominative vs.
accusative alternation on predicate case-marking is related to an eventive or
non-eventive functional element comes from their difference with regard to
interpretation, agreement and word order. In this section, I show the
interpretation, agreement and word order properties of clauses with
nominative predicates which suggest that they do not contain an eventive
functional head.
The first piece of evidence which suggests that clauses with
nominative predicates do not contain an eventive head comes from the fact
that they are allowed only with NP and individual-level AP predicates
(13)a,b, but not with stage-level predicates (13)c. The reason why
nominative predicates are not allowed with stage level predicates is because
they are eventive. That is, SL predicates denote a temporary property which
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 115

is eventive. NP and IL adjectival predicates, on the other hand, denote a

lifelong property of the subject. For example, clauses with nominative NP
predicates have set a membership interpretation, and with nominative AP
predicates they have property ascription interpretation, both of which are
permanent properties suggesting the absence of an eventive element:
(13) a. saba tämari/gobäz’ n-ø-at
Saba.NOM student.NOM/clever.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3FSGO
Saba is a student/ clever.

b. lɨǰ-očč-u tämari-očč/gobäz-očč
child-PL-DEF.NOM student-PL.NOM /clever-PL.NOM
n-ø-aččäw
be.PRES-3MSGS-3PLO
The children are students/clever.

c. *lɨǰ-u rak’ut n-ä-w

child-def.NOM naked.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning ‘the boy is naked.’

Similarly, nominative marking in copular clauses which contain two DPs

gives rise to an identity interpretation which is also non-eventive:
(14) a. saba tämari-wa/ etyop’ɨyawi-wa
Saba.NOM student-DEF.NOM /Ethiopian-DEF.NOM
n-ø-at
be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is the student/ the Ethiopian.

b. cicero tully n-ä-w

Cicero.NOM Tully.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
Cicero is Tully.
The second piece of evidence is agreement. With regard to agreement,
nominative predicates can remain unmarked for number and gender (15) or
they exhibit the same phi-features as the subject (16)&(17):
116 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(15) a. saba tämari /gobäz n-ø-at

Saba.NOM student.NOM/clever.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3FSGO
Saba is a student/clever.

b. yonas tämari /gobäz n-ä-w

Jonas.NOM student.NOM/clever.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3MSGO
Jonas is a student/clever.

c. lɨǰ–očč-u tämari /gobäz n-ø-aččäw

child-PL-DEF.NOM student.NOM /clever.NOM be.PRES-
3MSGS-3PLO
The children are students/clever.

(16) a. lɨǰ–očč-u tämari-wočč n-ø-aččäw

child-PL-DEF.NOM student-PL.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3PLO
The children are students.

b. *yonas tämari-wočč n-ä-w

Jonas.NOM student-PL.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning: Joas is a student

(17) a. saba tämari-wa n-ø-at

Saba.NOM student-DEF.FEM.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is the student

b.*saba tämari-w n-ø-at

Saba.NOM student-DEF.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Intended meaning: Saba is the student

As a result, English sentences such as ‘The problem is your parents’, ‘The

Beatles are the best band’ cannot be translated into Amharic unless the two
DPs agree55:

55
The sentences are grammatical if the subject and the predicate agree, as in (i)
below:
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 117

(18) a. *čigir-u betäseb-očč-ɨh n-ä-w

problem-DEF.NOM parent-PL-2MSG.GEN.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3MSGO
Intended meaning: The problem is your parents.

b. *beatl-očč mɨrt’-u band n-ø-aččäw

Beatles-PL.NOM best-DEF.NOM band be.PRES-3MSGS-
3PLO
Intended meaning: The beatles are the best band.

Such an agreement phenomenon also suggests lack of an eventive head,

which would target the formal features of the predicate. That is, the small
clause does not contain an eventive head which targets the predicate in order
to check its uninterpretable phi-features. If such clauses had contained an
eventive functional head, which would target the formal features of the
predicate by establishing agreement with it, the predicate could have been
able to exhibit formal features which are different from that of subject as we
will see with accusative predicates below. In this case, the formal features of
the predicate are not checking the formal features of any functional head. As
a result, the predicate exhibits the same phi-features as the subject it is
predicated of.
The third piece of evidence which witnesses lack of an eventive
functional head with nominative predicates is word order. Clauses with
nominative predicates can show up in subject-predicate or predicate-subject
order. The subject-predicate order (19) has a predicational interpretation as
we saw above. The predicate-subject order (20), on the other hand, has what
is known as the specificational interpretation (Higgins 1979, Mikkelsen
2005, 2011):

(i). a. čigir-u betäseb(-ɨh) n-ä-w

problem-DEF.NOM parent-2MSG.GEN.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
The problem is your parents.

b. beatl-očč mɨrt’ band(-očč) n-ø-aččäw

Beatles-PL.NOM best band-pl.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3PLO
THE Beatles are the best band.
118 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(19) Q: innantä mindɨn n-ø-aččɨhu?

you.MPL.NOM what.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-2PLO
What are you?

A: ɨňňa tämari-wočč(-u) n-ä-n

we.NOM students-PL-DEF.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-1PLO
We are students.

(20) Q: tämari-wočč(-u) ɨnnä-mman n-ø-aččäw?

students-PL-DEF.NOM PL-who.NOM be.PRES- 3MSGS-3PLO
Who are (the) students.

A: tämari-wočč(-u) ɨňňa n-ä-n

students-PL-DEF.NOM we.NOM be.PRES- 3MSGS-1PLO
(The) students are us.
Such free word order can be accounted to the optional movement of the
subject or the predicate to spec, TP as argued by Moro (1997). Such a
movement would follow from the absence of any barrier that blocks the
movement. I will discuss this barrier in the next section.
To sum up, the facts that (i) nominative predicates are allowed only
with NP and individual-level AP predicates and identity clauses, (ii) have the
same features as the subject unless they remain unmarked, and (iii) are found
in subject-predicate or predicate-subject order indicate that they lack an
eventive functional head. Accordingly, the syntactic structure of clauses like
(21)a would be as in (21)b with the small clause containing only Predo:
(21) a. ɨne tämari n-ä-ň
I.NOM student.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-1SGO
I am a student.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 119

b. TP
Explpro T’
AffP To
ɨne.NOMi Aff’ n-ä-ňj
PredP Affo
ti Pred’ tj
NP Predo
tamari.NOM
How does the predicate get the nominative Case then? As we mentioned
above, there are three proposals for this. The first is that the predicate is
assigned Case by the same functional element that assigns Case to the
subject. The second is that the predicate is assigned Case through Case
agreement with the subject, and the third is that the predicate receives the
default Case. I assume the last option, to which I will return in section 4.

3. Accusative predicates
The properties of clauses with accusative predicates suggest that they
contain an eventive functional head if we look at their interpretation,
agreement and word order. To begin with interpretation, accusative
predicates are obligatory with stage-level AP predicates, which are
necessarily eventive:
(22) a. bunna-w tɨkus-u*(-n) n-ä-w56
coffee-DEF.NOM hot-3MSG.GEN-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
The coffee is hot.

b. ɨňňa rak’ut-aččɨn*(-n) n-ä-n

we.NOM naked-1PL.GEN-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-1PLO
We are naked.

c. ɨne bado-ye*(-n) n-ä-ň

I.NOM empty-1SG.GEN-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-1SGO
I am empty. (I don’t have anything at the moment)

56
Note that in addition to accusative case, SL predicates come up with a genitive
agreement which targets the subject. This will be discussed below.
120 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

NPs and individual-level AP predicates can also be marked accusative. In

this case, they have a stage-level ‘be just like’ interpretation, which is the
effect of the eventive small clause head as opposed to the absence of such a
head which results in set membership or property ascription interpretation
(cf. (23)a& (23)b, (24)a &(24)b):
(23) a. lɨǰ–očč-u tämari-očč-n n-ø-aččäw
child-PL-DEF.NOM student-PL-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-3PLO
The children are just like students. (They are not real students.)

b. lɨǰ–očč-u tämari-očč n-ø-aččäw

child-PL-DEF.NOM student-PL.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3PLO
The children are students. (They are real students.

(24) a. yohannɨs ɨnna Saba etɨyop’yiaw-yan-ɨn n-ø-aččäw

John.NOM and Saba.NOM Ethiopian-PL-ACC be.PRES-
3MSGS-3PLO
John and Saba are just like Ethiopians. (They are not real
Ethiopians)

b. yohannɨs ɨnna saba etɨyop’yaw-yan n-ø-aččäw

John.NOM and Saba.NOM Ethiopian-PL.NOM be.PRES-
3MSGS-3PLO
John and Saba are Ethiopians.

The difference between (23)a and (23)b is that while the children are real
students in the latter, they are not in the former. In (23)a, the children are
said to be students not because they are real students, but because they
accidentally show some properties associated with students. Similarly, (24)a
and (24)b are different in that John and Saba are not Ethiopian citizens in the
former, but in the latter. In (24)a, they are said to be Ethiopians because they
accidentally behave like Ethiopians.
Copular clauses with accusative DP predicates also give rise to a
‘behave like’ interpretation as opposed to the identity interpretation of
nominative DPs. Suppose someone says sentences like in (25) to a group of
children. (25)a means that the children and the students refer to the same
individuals. (25)b means that the children are behaving like the students.
This is true even if the children are not students at all. Similarly, (26)a is
false since Paris and Rome are different cities. (26)b on the other hand can
be true if the two cities behave the same way in some respects, say, their
architecture or beauty.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 121

(25) a. tämari-wočč-u n-ø-aččɨhu

student-PL-DEF.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-2PLO
You are the students.

b. tämari-wočč-u-n n-ø-aččɨhu
student-PL-DEF-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-2PLO
You are just like the students.

(26) a. paris rome n-ø-at false

Paris.NOM Rome.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Paris is Rome.

b. paris rome-n n-ø-at potentially true

Paris.NOM Rome-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Paris looks like Rome.

The fact that accusative marking is obligatory with stage-level AP predicates

and that accusative marked NP/DP and accusative marked individual level
predicates have a stage-level ‘behave like’ interpretation suggests that
clauses with accusative predicates contain an eventive element.
Of course, the interpretation simply suggests that accusative case-
marking and eventive interpretation are related. It does not show us whether
this eventive interpretation is not associated with the (small clause) heads
proposed by Citko (2008), or Matushansky (2008). An argument which
indicates that the eventive functional projection is not associated with Pred o
as opposed to Citko (2008), comes from the interaction of accusative case
and prepositions. Accusative case on predicates is omitted if a preposition
appears instead. Compare (27) with (23)a and (24)a:
(27) a. lɨǰ–očč-u ɨndä-tämari-očč n-ø-aččäw
child-PL-DEF.NOM like-student-PL.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3PLO
The children are just like students.

b. johannɨs ɨnna Saba ɨndä-etɨyop’yaw-yan n-ø-aččäw

John.NOM and Saba.NOM like-Ethiopian-PL be.PRES-
3MSGS-3PLO
John and Saba are just like Ethiopians.

This kind of alternation between accusative case and prepositions suggests

that a preposition can replace the accusative Case-assigning functional head.
This would be problematic if the Case assigner were Predo, which is
122 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

responsible for predication. This means that associating accusative Case with
the head of the small clause would mean that P, which appears instead of
accusative marking, is the small clause head. Such an assumption is
problematic unless one associates the preposition ɨndä with a small clause
head just like the English word as as proposed by Bailyn and Rubin (1991),
Aarts (1992), Bowers (1993), Bailyn (2001), 2002). But see Marelj and
Matushansky (2009) for arguments against this hypothesis. In fact, this
assumption is also ruled out for Amharic because the alternation between
prepositions and accusative Case is not restricted to copular clauses.
Prepositions and accusative marking alternate in other environments where
small clauses cannot be available as can be seen from the examples below.
In those examples, when the NP introduced by the preposition triggers an
object agreement (with or without a P element) on the verb, the preposition
can alternate with accusative case:

(28) a. bä-mäkina-w mät’a-hu-bb-ät

by-car-DEF.NOM come.PERF-1SGS-P-3MSGO
I came by the car.

b. mäkina-w-n mät’a-hu-bb-ät
car-DEF-ACC come.PERF-1SGS-P-3MSGO
I came by the car.

(29) a. lä-saba mäs’haf sät’tä-hu-at

to-Saba book give.PERF-1SGS-3FSGO
I gave a book to Saba.

b. saba-n mäs’haf sät’tä-hu-at

Saba-ACC book give.PERF-1SGS-3FSGO
I gave Saba a book.

I therefore propose that the eventive functional projection which is

responsible for accusative case-marking must be different from Predo, which
is required for predication. The alternation between accusative Case and
prepositions in Amharic is a general phenomenon which shows that the
eventive functional head and a preposition alternate. That is accusative
marking must involve an extra eventive functional head, which is different
from Predo.
Similarly, the eventive head is not associated with the matrix verb,
contra Matushansky (2008). If it were associated with the matrix verb, the
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 123

case-marking of the predicate would have been sensitive to the

eventivity/non-eventivity of the matrix verb. That is, we would not expect an
alternation unless the matrix verb is eventive. As can be seen from the
examples, however, predicates are marked accusative and nominative
irrespective of whether the matrix verb is eventive (30)a or stative (30)b:
(30) a. yonas ɨne-n tämari-w/tamari-w-n
Jonas I-ACC student-DEF.NOM /student-DEF-ACC
adärräg-ä-ň
consider.PERF-3MSGS-1PLO
Jonas considered me to be the student/to be like the student.

b. yonas ɨne-n tämari-w/tamari-w-n

Jonas I-ACC student-DEF.NOM /student-DEF-ACC
mässäl-ä-n
seem.PERF-3MSGS-1PLO
Jonas seems the student/like the student to me.

The claim that clauses with accusative predicates contain an extra functional
head is also supported by the agreement phenomenon in such clauses.
Firstly, accusative NP/DP predicates, unlike their nominative counterparts,
need not necessarily show the same formal features as their subject. As can
be seen from the examples below, in (31)a the subject is singular while the
predicate is plural. In (31)b, the subject is plural and the predicate is
singular. In (31)c the subject is feminine and the predicate is masculine.
Given that the predicate is Case-assigned through agreement with the
functional element which introduces eventivity, such an agreement is
straightforwardly accounted for. That is, the phi-features of the predicate
match with that of the Case-assigner, namely the eventive functional head,
and thus the predicate need not agree with the subject:
(31) a. yonas tämari–woččɨ -n n-ä-w
Jonas.NOM student-PL-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
Jonas is just like like students.

b. lɨǰ–očč-u tamari-w-n n-ø-aččäw

child-PL-DEF.NOM student-DEF.MASC-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-
3PLO
The children are just like the student.
124 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

c. saba tämari-w-n n-ø-at

Saba.NOM student-DEF.MASC-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is just like the student.

Secondly, stage-level AP predicates, which are always marked accusative

bear genitive (possessive) agreement, which indicates the number, gender
and person features of the subject (32):
(32) a. ɨňňa rak’ut-aččɨn-n n-ä-n
we.NOM naked-1PL.GEN-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-1PLO
We are naked.

b. ɨne bado-ye-n n-ä-ň

I.NOM empty-1SG.GEN-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-1SGO
I am empty. ( I don’t have anything at the moment)

How does the subject trigger double agreement: one with the predicate and
the other with the copula? In a straight agree phenomenon, we expect an
agreement relationship between the subject and the copula at T o. The
agreement relationship between the subject and the predicate therefore needs
further explanation. There are two possibilities to explain this: raising or
control. In the raising assumption, the subject has to originate from the lower
position and has to raise to agree with the copula. In the control assumption,
the subject controls another position in the stage-level adjective. In this case,
the genitive (possessive) agreement is a manifestation of the PRO subject of
the stage-level adjective.
The control assumption is unlikely for theta role reasons. If stage
level predicates assign a theta role to PRO, what assigns theta role to the
subject? The copula cannot be a theta role assigner since it is a functional
element. The genitive agreement in stage level predicates, therefore, must be
the result of raising. This means that the apparent genitive agreement
indicates that the subject of stage- level predicates is merged one step lower
than individual-level predicates.
An interesting piece of support for this comes from the fact that
subjects of stage-level predicates need not agree with the copula. The clauses
in (32) are also acceptable with the subject establishing only genitive
agreement with the adjective, as in (33)a, and both (33)b and (33)c are
acceptable. In this case, the impersonal copula takes two 3MSG agreement
markers indicating the presence of two expletive pros:
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 125

(33) a. ɨnnantä rak’ut-aččɨhu-n n-ä-w?

you.PL.NOM naked-1PL.GEN-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
Are you naked? Lit: it is the case that you are naked?

b. ɨssuwa bado-wa-n n-ä-w?

she.NOM empty-3FSG.GEN-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
Is she empty? Lit: it is the case that she is empty?

c. ɨssuwa bado-wa-n n-ø-at?

she.NOM empty-3FSG.GEN-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-3MSGO
Is she empty? Lit: it is the case that she is empty?

Recall that in clauses like (32), where the copula is impersonal, the subject
triggers object agreement because it raises to the position where affected
objects move to ( cf. chapter three). The fact that the both the subject and the
object agreement markers of such clauses are invariable 3MSG as in (33)
indicates that there are two expletive pro subjects: one the subject of the
matrix clause and the other the subject of the small clause. This suggests that
the overt subject of the clause in (33) is not base-generated as the subject of
the small clauses. It must be first merged in a lower position. If this is the
case, then stage level predicates must have an extra position to merge their
subjects. I claim that this extra functional position, from which the subject of
stage level predicates originates, is the specifier of a functional projection
which introduces eventivity and assigns accusative Case to the predicate.
Yet further evidence which indicates that clauses with accusative
predicates contain an extra functional projection comes from word order.
Unlike nominative predicates, accusative predicates cannot precede the
subject. This means that the predicate-subject-copula order, which provides a
specificational interpretation with nominative predicates, is not allowed with
accusative predicates:
(34) a. ɨňňa tämari-wočč(-u)-n n-ä-n
we.NOM student-PL-DEF-ACC be.PRES-3MSGS-1PLO
We are just like the students.

b. *tämari-wočč(-u)-n ɨňňa n-ä-n

student-PL-DEF-ACC we be.PRES- 3MSGS-1PLO
Intended meaning: We are just like the students.
126 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

c. *rak’ut-aččɨn-n ɨňňa n-ä-n

naked-1PLGEN-ACC we be.PRES-3MSGS-1PLO
We are naked.

This restriction, however, applies only if the copula stays clause finally. If
the copula is between the subject and the copula, the subject and the
predicate can exchange positions. In this case, the clauses have a cleft
interpretation:
(35) a. ɨňňa n-ä-n tämari-wočč(-u)-n
we.NOM be.PRES- 3MSGS-1PLO students-PL(-DEF)-ACC
It is us who are just like (the)students.

b. tämari-wočč-u-n n-ä-n ɨňňa

student- PL-DEF-ACC be.PRES- MSGS-1PLO we.NOM
It is like the students that we are.

Assuming that the specificational interpretation involves A-movement of the

predicate to the subject position of the clause (Moro 1997), the movement
restriction of accusative predicates in (34) clearly suggests the presence of
some barrier which blocks such a movement. It is the presence of such
barrier that supports the presence of an eventivity functional projection.
Recall that in clauses with nominative predicates we saw in the previous
section, either the subject or the predicate is involved in a feature checking
relationship with the copula at To, and the subject moves to spec,TP as
argued by Moro. Suppose that the predicate enters this kind of relation only
if it has not entered any other agreement relationship. In clauses with
accusative predicates, since the eventive functional projection is present, the
predicate enters in a feature checking relation with evP and receives
accusative Case. As a result, it does not involve in another feature checking
relationship and A-movement.
The clauses in (35), by contrast, are acceptable because they involve
A-bar movement. This means that the copula first moves to the CP layer and
the subject or the predicate move to the position preceding the copula.
To sum up, the properties of clauses with accusative predicates suggest
that they, unlike clauses with nominative predicates, contain an eventive
functional projection (evP). Accordingly, clauses like (32)a can be analyzed
as (36). Note that in such analysis, the double agreement goes straight
forward since the predicate agrees with evo and the subject agrees with Affo:
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 127

(36) a TP
Explpro T’
AffP To
ɨňňai Aff’ n-ä-nj
PredP Affo
ti Pred’ tj
evP predo
ti ev’
NP evo
rak’ut-aččɨn-n

4. How is nominative assigned to predicates?

Recall that predicates are marked nominative under two conditions: (i) when
they are unmarked for phi-features and unable to check the formal features
of the accusative assigning functional head as in (37), and (ii) when there is
no eventivity functional projection that assigns accusative Case as in (38)
(37) a. saba tämari /gobäz n-ø-at
Saba.NOM student .NOM /clever.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3FSGO
Saba is a student/clever.

b. yonas tämari /gobäz n-ä-w

Jonas.NOM student.NOM/clever.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3MSGO
Jonas is a student/clever.

c. lɨǰ–očč-u tämari /gobäz n-ø-aččäw

child-PL-DEF.NOM student.NOM/clever.NOM be.PRES-
3MSGS-3PLO
The children are students/clever.

(38) a. lɨǰ–očč-u tämari-wočč n-ø-aččäw

child-PL-DEF.NOM student -PL.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-
3PLO
The children are students.
128 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. saba tämari-wa n-ø-at

Saba.NOM student-DEF.F.NOM be.PRES-3MSGS-3FSGO
Saba is the student
The question then is how nominative is assigned to these predicates. As we
mentioned above, there are three proposals for this. The first is that the
predicate is assigned Case by the same functional element that assigns Case
to the subject. The second is that the predicate is assigned Case through case
agreement with the subject, and the third is that the predicate receives the
default Case. It is difficult to choose one from these three alternatives based
on the data from copular clauses. However, the distribution of accusative and
nominative predicates in non-copular small clauses (secondary predication),
suggests the last option. If predicates do not get accusative Case from evP,
they receive default Case.
The two types of predicate Cases we saw in primary predication are
also found in secondary predication. Nominative predicates are found in
ECM and raising constructions while accusative predicates are found in
ECM, raising and depictive constructions57:
(39) a.ECM: yonas ɨňňa-n tämari -wočč
Jonas.NOM we-ACC student-PL.NOM
adärräg-ä-n
consider.PERF-3MSGS-1PLO
Jonas considered us to be students. (We may /or not be
students)

b. yonas ɨňňa-n tämari-wočč-ɨn

Jonas.NOM we-ACC student-PL-ACC
adärräg-ä-n
consider.PERF-3MSGS-1PLO
Jonas considered us just like students. (We cannot be
students.)

(40) a. Raising: saba tamari-wa mässäl-äčč

Saba.NOM student -DEF. NOM seem.PERF-3FSGS
Saba seems to be the student. (She may /or not be a student.)

57
Resultative constructions in Amharic involve a complex clause:
(i) bunna-w-n ɨsk-yi-däk’k’ wäk’k’ät’-äččɨ-w
coffee-DEF-ACC until-3MSGS-be.fine.IMPERF pound.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO
She pounded the coffee fine.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 129

b. saba tämari-wa-n mässäl-äčč

Saba.NOM student -DEF.FEM-ACC seem.PERF-3FSGS
Saba seems to be the student. (She cannot be the student)

(41) a. yonas wättadär-u hon-ä

Jonas.NOM soldier-DEF.NOM become.PERF-
3MSGS
Jonas has become the soldier

b. yonas wättadär-u-n hon-ä

Jonas.NOM soldier-DEF-ACC become.PERF-
3MSGS
Jonas has become just like the soldier.

(42) a. Depictives: saba bunna-w-n tɨkkus-u-n

Saba.NOM coffee-DEF-ACC hot-3MSGGEN-ACC
t’ät’t’a-čč-ɨw
drink.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO
Saba drank the coffee hot.

b.*saba bunna-w-n tɨkkus-

Saba.NOM coffee-DEF-ACC hot-3MSGGEN.NOM
t’ät’t’a-čč-ɨw
drink.PERF-3FSGS-3MSGO
Intended meaning: Saba drank the coffee hot.

(43) a. bunna-w tɨkkus-u-n mät’t’a-ø

coffee-DEF.NOM hot-3MSG.GEN-ACC come.PERF-3MSGS
The coffee came hot.

b.*bunna-w tɨkkus-u mät’t’a-ø

coffee-DEF.NOM hot-3MSG.GEN..NOM come.PERF-3MSGS
Intended meaning: The coffee came hot.

The nominative predicates in these constructions would not follow if

nominative were assigned by the functional element which assigns Case to
the subject or by Case agreement with the subject. If the predicate were
assigned Case through either of these ways, the nominative Case in ECM
constructions would have been impossible since the embedded subject is
assigned accusative. For this reason, I propose that the nominative Case on
predicates is the default. This means that the predicate is assigned the default
130 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Case unless it is assigned Case by the functional head which introduces

eventivity.

5. Summary
In this chapter, I have shown that predicate Case alternation in Amharic is
not related to the copula as suggested by Maling and Sprouse (1995) and
Comrie (1997), nor to the category of the predicate as suggested by
Pereltsvaig(2001, 2008). I showed, following Matushansky (2008), and
Citko (2008), that it is rather related to the eventive vs. non-eventive
interpretations. However, I argued that this eventive interpretation is not
associated with the small clause head (Predo) contra Citko (2008), not with
the matrix verb contra Matushansky (2008). Rather I argue that it is
introduced by an independent functional head evP. Accordingly, I argue that
accusative case-marking of predicates is determined by the presence of this
functional head. In the absence of this functional projection, however, I
followed Pereltsvaig(2001, 2008) and claimed that the predicate receives the
default Case.
PART THREE
132 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez
 CHAPTER FIVE

NON-VERBAL PREDICATION IN GEEZ

1. Introduction
Non-verbal predication in Geez exhibits a more complex system than in
Amharic. Firstly, unlike Amharic, Geez allows simple juxtaposition of the
subject and the predicate (Teklemariam 1899:125, Dillmann 1907: 497):
(1) mämhɨr/näwwiha pawlos
teacher /tall Paul
Paul is/was a teacher/tall.

Secondly, Geez uses the verbs konä and halläwä, which have the lexical
semantics of ‘become, happen to be’ and ‘be.present, exist’ respectively, as
copulas (Teklemariam 1899:128, Dillmann 1907: 499). konä and halläwä
differ in terms of their agreement system and the type of predicate they show
up with just like Amharic copular verbs. konä shows up with all types of
predicates and agrees only with the subject (2). halläwä alternates between
the BE and HAVE interpretations. In its BE interpretation, halläwä is used
to express location and it agrees only with the subject (locatee) (3)a. In its
HAVE interpretation, it establishes subject agreement with the possessee and
object agreement with the possessor (3)b:
(2) kon-ä abel nolaw-e/sännay-ä/ laʔlä mänbär
be.PERF-3MSGS Abel shepherd-ACC/good-ACC/ top chair
Abel was shepherd/ good/on a chair.

(3) a. halläw-u wɨstä gädam

be.PERF-3MPLS inside field
They were in the field.
134 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. halläw-ø-a mäs’haf lä-saba

be.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO book to-Saba
Saba have/had a book.

Thirdly, Geez possesses non-verbal counterparts for the above verbal

copulas (Teklemariam 1899:123-128, Dillmann 1907: 498, Kifle 1948:79-
80, Fenta 1986: 73-76). The non-verbal copulas are pronouns and the
prepositions b- ‘in’ and l- ‘to’. Pronominal copulas are used with all types of
predicates to express predication and identity and agree with the subject just
like the verbal copula konä (4). Prepositional copulas are used to express
location (b- ‘in’) (5)a&b, and possession (both b- ‘in’ and l- ‘to’) (5)c&d just
like the verbal copula halläwä: In locative clauses, prepositional copulas
take the default 3MSG agreement(5)a&b. In possessive clauses, they
establish agreement with the possessor (5)c&d:
(4) a. anti yɨʔti rɨhrɨh-t/ mämhɨr-t/wɨstä bet-ki
you.FSG she compassionate-F/teacher-F/ inside house-2FSG.GEN
You are compassionate/ teacher/in your home.

b. antä wɨʔtu kristos

you he Christ
You are Christ.

c. anä ɦer anä58 (Matt 20,15)

I good I
I am good.

(5) a. b-o ɨgziabher mɨslӓ kull-ɨkɨmu

in-3MSG.GEN God with all-2MPL.GEN
There is God with all of you.

b. b-o s’adk’-an wɨstä bet-kä (Kifle 1948:250)

in-3MSG.GEN righteous-PL inside house-2MSG.GEN
There are righteous people in your house.

58
It is difficult to decide which of the two pronouns is the copula in this case.
Dillmann (1907:498) suggested that the first is the subject.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 135

c. b-a/b-atti wäld lä-saba

in-3FSG.GEN son to-Saba
Saba has a son.

d. l-atti wald lӓ-saba

to-3FSG.GEN son to-saba
Saba has a son.

Furthermore, Geez exhibits different patterns of case-marking of NPs and

APs within each type of copular clause. In copulaless clauses and with the
pronominal copulas, both the subject and the predicate are nominative (6)a,
which is morphologically unmarked. With konä, the predicate is accusative
(6)b while the subject is nominative (Teklemariam 1899:128). With
prepositional copulas and the verbal copula halläwä, on the other hand, the
case-marking varies depending on the BE (locative) and HAVE (possessive)
interpretations. In the locative interpretation, the locatee NP is nominative
while the location is a PP which can also be accusative (6)c&d (Fenta 1986:
95). In the possessive interpretation, the possessee is nominative while the
possessor is dative (6)e (Teklemariam 1899: 127):
(6) a. antɨmu (wɨʔtu) mämhɨr-an
you.MPL.NOM he teacher-MPL.NOM
You guys are teachers.

b. kon-ä abel nolaw-e (Gen 4:2)

be.PERF-3MSGS Abel.NOM shepherd-ACC
Abel was a shepherd.

c. b-o/ halläw-ä sabʔ laʔlä midr

in-3MSG.GEN/be.PERF-3MSGS human.NOM top land
There are human beings in the world.

d. b-o/halläw-ä gädam-ä
in-3MSG.GEN/be.PERF-3MSGS field-ACC
He is/was in the field.

e. b-atti/halläw-ø-a wald lä-saba

in-3FSG.GEN/ be.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO boy to-Saba
Saba has/had a son.
136 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

The copular and case-marking system of Geez non-verbal predication can be

summarized as follows:
Table 4: summary of the copular and case-marking system of Geez
non-verbal predication
Type of Type of copula Agreeme Type of Case-
clause nt of the predicate marking
copula
Copula- - - NP, AP NOM-
less NOM
Copular Predica- konä with NP, AP, PP NOM-
clauses tional subject ACC
copulas pronoun with NP, AP, PP NOM-
s subject NOM
Locative Locative :
and halläwä with NP, PP NOM-PP
possessi locatee, NOM-
ve ACC
copulas with both
the Possessiv
possessee e
and NOM-
possessor DATIVE
prep. b- default NP, PP
‘in’ and 3MSG,
l-‘to’ with
possessor

In this part of the dissertation, I show how such variation in the copular and
case-marking systems can be explained. With regard to copulaless clauses, I
will argue that they are full clauses. I will argue that the predicate selection
properties of copular verbs, agreement and case-marking are similar to
Amharic. Geez has two BE’s: one selecting small clause complements and
involving subject raising and the other selecting an NP complement and
involving possessor raising. I also argue that the ‘two type-copula’ analysis
can be extended to the non-verbal copulas (pronouns and prepositions).
These are used when the relationship between the subject and the predicate,
locatee and the location, and the possessee and the possessor - is inherent, as
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 137

opposed to the verbal copulas which are used when indicating tense, aspect
and mood (TAM) is required.
The discussion proceeds in the following order. In this chapter, I
concentrate on copulaless clauses and verbal copulas; non-verbal copulas
will be discussed in chapter six. In section 2, I discuss copulaless clauses
where I mainly raise two issues. Firstly, I show that despite the absence of
copular elements, copulaless clauses in Geez show properties of full clauses
and I argue that they should not be considered small-clauses. Secondly, I
argue that copulaless clauses are atemporal and that they should not be
analyzed as containing tense. In section 3, I discuss the copular verbs konä
and halläwä and show that the former selects small clause complements and
involves subject raising and the latter selects an NP complement and
involves possessor raising. Section 4 summarizes the chapter.

2. Copulaless clauses

Copulaless clauses juxtapose the subject and the predicate in either order:
(7) a. mämhɨr p’awlos
teacher Paul
Paul is a teacher.

b. p'awlos mämhɨr
Paul teacher
Paul is a teacher.

As we saw in chapter one, there are two approaches to an analyses of such

clauses. The first type considers them matrix small clauses which are devoid
of any tense/aspect marking (Mouchaweh 1986, Rapoport 1987). The second
analysis considers them full-fledged clauses which contain an abstract tense
or copula (Siegel 1976, Fassi-Fehri 1982, Heggie 1988, Déchaine 1993,
Benmamoun 2000, Hazout 2010 among others).
Each of these analyses is based on certain properties of copulaless
clauses. The small clause analysis is mainly based on the absence of an overt
copula. Since a copula is inserted in order to provide information about
TAM, clauses which are devoid of a copula must be small clauses. However,
such an analysis encounters some problems in explaining certain similarities
between copulaless clauses and full-fledged clauses on the one hand and
138 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

some differences between copulaless clauses and canonical small clauses on

the other hand. For example, as we saw in chapter one (section 4.2.1),
Benmamoun indicates that copulaless clauses in Arabic behave like full
clauses in that they (a) host the temporal adverb now, (b) can be embedded
under a complementizer which embeds only finite clauses, (c) can have a
present tense interpretation even when embedded under past tense, (d) have
nominative subjects, (e) can wh-move their subjects and predicates, and (f)
can have an expletive subject which is inserted at spec,TP. These properties,
according to Benmamoun, characterize full clauses, and they are not
expected if copulaless clauses were small clauses that do not contain tense.
Similarly Hazout (2010) shows that copulaless clauses and canonical
small clauses in Hebrew behave differently in providing what he calls
predicative and atmospheric interpretations. According to him the
predicative interpretation is found when the subject is a referential
NP/DP/PRO and the atmospheric interpretation is found when the subject is
an expletive pro. Hazout shows that copulaless clauses and small clauses
differ in terms of these interpretations. Firstly, copulaless clauses in Hebrew
allow the atmospheric interpretation while canonical small clauses do not.
Secondly, copulaless clauses do not allow the predicative interpretation with
a PRO subject, though PRO subjects are possible in canonical adjunct small
clauses. Hazout claims that these differences are due to the fact that
copulaless clauses contain finite tense which would license an expletive pro,
but not PRO while canonical small clauses do not contain finite tense which
would license an expletive pro.
The full clause analysis, on the other hand, is challenged by the
question of why such clauses do not contain an overt tense marker/copula. In
fact, proponents of this analysis provide various explanations for this. For
example, Benmamoun relies on Chomsky’s (1995) assumption that
functional categories are specified for the uninterpretable categorical [+V]
and [+D] features which need to be checked in the derivation. Benmamoun
then argues that T in Arabic is specified only for the [+D] feature in the
present tense and for both the [+V, +D] features in the past and future. The
verbal copula is required in order to check the [+V] feature of T. Since the
present in Arabic does not have the [+V] feature, a verbal copula is not
required. As a result, present tense clauses appear without a copula.
Copulaless clauses in Geez show three of the six properties listed by
Benmamoun which indicate that they are full clauses rather than small
clauses. Firstly, just like copulaless clauses in Arabic, they have their
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 139

subjects assigned nominative both in matrix (8) and in embedded

environments (9)a which suggests that they contain a functional projection
which assigns Case to their subjects provided that nominative Case is
assigned to subjects structurally. Secondly, they can be embedded under a
complementizer which embeds only finite clauses. For example, the
embedded copulaless clause in (9)a is selected by the complementizer kämä ,
which selects only finite clauses (9)b (Kifle 1948:130), but not infinitival
clauses (9)c. Thirdly, they can move their subjects to the position preceding
the complementizer which suggests that they involve movement to a CP
layer similar to full clauses. For example, the subject of the embedded
copulaless clause in (9)a can also be found as in (10) preceding the
complementizer59:
(8) mӓmhɨr p’aulos
teacher Paul.NOM
Paul is a teacher.

(9) a ʔa-ʔammɨr [kämӓ mämhɨr p’aulos zɨyä]

1SGS-know.IMPERF that teacher Paul.NOM here
I know that Paul is a teacher here.

b. ʔa-ʔammɨr [kämӓ yɨ-mӓs’iʔ p’aulos zɨyä]

1SGS-know.IMPERF that 3MSGS-come.IMPERF Paul here
I know that Paul comes here.

c. *ʔa-ʔammɨr [kämӓ mӓs’iʔ p’aulos zɨyä]

1SGS-know.IMPERF that come.INF Paul here
intended meaning: I know that Paul is to come ( coming) this year.

59
The examples from (8)-(10) are constructed based on the grammar books and
they are cross-checked by informants. (see chapter one section 3)
140 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(10) ʔa-ʔammɨr [p’aulosi kämӓ mämhɨr ti zɨyä]60

1SGS-know.IMPERF Paul-NOM that teacher here
I know that Paul is a teacher here.

These properties are not observed in canonical small clauses in Geez. The
subject of small clauses is not always assigned nominative. Rather it is
assigned a different case depending on whether the matrix verb is an ECM or
a raising verb (11). Secondly, embedding canonical small clauses under a
complementizer which dominates finite clauses (12) is unacceptable61:
(11) a.hwälläqw-ä bɨʔsi yohannɨs-ha yäwwah-a
count.PERF-3MSGS man John-ACC foolish-ACC
The man considered John a fool.

b. yɨ-mӓssɨl yohannɨs yӓwwah-a

3MSGS-seem.IMPERF John.NOM foolish-ACC
John seems a fool.

(12) a.*hwälläqw-ä bɨʔs kämӓ yohannɨs-ha yäwwah-a

count.PERF-3MSGS man that John-ACC foolish-ACC
Intended meaning: The man considered John a fool.

b.*yɨ-mӓssɨl kämӓ yohannɨs yӓwwah-a

3MSGS-seem.IMPERF that John foolish-ACC
Intended meaning: John seems a fool.

Geez copulaless clauses do not have the remaining three properties of their
Arabic and Hebrew counterparts. Firstly, whether they have an expletive
subject is difficult to prove. If the subject is an impersonal pronoun like the
English ‘it’, Geez clauses are always attested with a third person masculine

60
Note that Paul in this example is not the argument of the matrix verb. If it were
the argument of the matrix verb, it would have been marked accusative as in:

(i) ʔa-ʔamär paulos-ha

1SGS-know.IMPERF Paul-ACC
I know Paul.
61
Examples (11)&(12) are constructed based on the available grammar books and
are cross-checked with informants.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 141

singular pronoun (13), of which it is difficult to decide whether it is the

copula or an expletive subject62:
(13) a. qur wɨʔtu (cf.(6)a)
cold he
It is cold.

b. dɨllɨw wɨʔtu
neccessary he
It is necessary.

Secondly and most importantly, Geez copulaless clauses do not always host
the temporal adverb nähu ‘now’ and have a present tense interpretation
(Kifle 1948:77). Their temporal nterpretation is determined by pragmatics;
i.e. by what Musan (1995) calls TIME OF EXISTENCE as opposed to
PREDICATION TIME63.

62
One possible test that would help to identify whether the pronoun in (13) is a
subject or a copula is to embed the clauses under raising verbs. If the pronoun is a
copula, it would disappear. However, such a test does not help since expletive
subjects are 3MSG subject agreement markers, not overt pronoun as in (i). If an
overt pronouns is present, as in (ii), the embedded clause is interpreted as a full
clause:
i. yɨ-msɨl qur
3MSGS-seem.IMPERF cold
It seems cold.

ii. yɨ-msɨl qur wɨʔtu

3MSGS-seem.IMPERF cold he
It seems that he/it is cold.
63
The fact that the temporal location of the clauses can be determined by
EXISTENCE TIME or PREDICATION TIME is demonstrated by the past tense
examples in (i) below. In (i)a the subject exists and the predicate has an extension.
This means that George Bush is alive and president of the United States is not an
empty set. The clause is past because the predication relationship between George
Bush and presidency of United States has ceased at some point despite the fact that
George Bush is alive and president of the United States still has a member. In other
words, the sentence is past because of the PREDICATION TIME. The clauses in
(1)b and (1)c by contrast are past because of the EXISTENCE TIME of the subject
and the extension of the predicate respectively. (1)b is past because the subject
142 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

The temporal interpretation (past, present) of copulaless clauses is

determined by the TIME OF EXISTENCE of the subject and the extension
of the predicate. As a result, (14)a is past if Paul’s daughter is dead and
present if she is alive. Similarly, (14)b is obligatorily past since the subject
has ceased to exist:
(14) a.wӓllӓtӓ p’awlos sӓnnay-t
daughter Paul beautiful-F
Paul’s daughter is/was beautiful.

b. wä-säbʔa sodomɨ-ssä ɨkkuy-an wä-ɦat’ʔ-an (Gen. 13:13)

and-people Sodom-FOC wicked-PL and-sinner-PL
And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners.

These facts suggest that copulaless clauses in Geez do not contain tense.
Whether they have to be interpreted as past or present is determined by
EXISTENCE TIME. If they contained tense or aspect or a phonologically
null copula which indicates tense or aspect, we could not have different
temporal interpretations for them.
The question then is, if copulaless clauses behave like full clauses,
but do not behave as containing tense or aspect, what is their syntactic
status? I claim that Geez copulaless clauses contain a functional projection
which indicates whether the predication relationship between the subject and
the predicate is inherent or not. That is, in copulaless clauses, as opposed to
pronominal copular clauses, the relation between the subject and the
predicates is interpreted as non-inherent. Since inherent and non-inherent
relationships differ in terms of duration, I call this functional projection
duration projection (DurP). Accordingly, I analyze copulaless clauses in (14)
as follows:

Pushkin is no more alive, and (i)c is past because the predicate member of League
of Nations does not have an extension at present.
(i) a. George Bush was a president of the United States.
b. Pushkin was a poet.
c. Ethiopia was a member of the League of Nations.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 143

(15) DurP
DPi ur’
wälättä pawlos Duro PredP
ti Pred’
o
Pred AP
sännayt
For the ease of presentation, I postpone discussion of this functional
projection to the next chapter that deals with pronominal and prepositional
copulas. For now, I move on to the discussion of copular verbs.
3. Copular verbs
As we mentioned earlier, Geez has two copular verbs, konä and halläwä.
The copular verb konä appears with all types of predicates and agrees with
the subjects (16). The copular verb halläwä alternates between BE and
HAVE interpretations to express location and possession, and establishes
subject agreement only with the subject in the BE interpretation (17)a, and
both the subject and object agreement with the possessee and the possessor
respectively in the HAVE interpretation (17)b:
(16) a.kon-ä abel nolaw-e64/sänay-ä. (cf. (14)b)
be.PERF-3MSGS Abel shepherd-ACC/good-ACC
Abel was a shepherd/ handsome.

b. kon-ku anä laʔlä mänbär

be.PERF-1SGS I top chair
I was on the chair.

c. addis ababa kon-ät finfinne

Addis Ababa be.PERF-3FSGS Finfinne
Addis Ababa was Finfinne.

(17) a. halläw-ä ɨgziabher mɨsla kull-ɨkɨmu

be.PERF-3MSGS God with all-2MPL.GEN
There is God with all of you. lit. God is present with all of
you.
64
nolawi+ä > nolawe.
144 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. halläw-ø-a mäs’haf lä-saba

be.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGObook to-Saba
Saba has a book.

Furthermore, the copular clauses with halläwä and with konä show different
case-marking patterns. With konä, the predicate is accusative while the
subject is nominative (18)a.With halläwä, on the other hand, case-marking
varies depending on whether it is interpreted as BE (locative) or HAVE
(possessive). In the locative interpretation, the locatee NP is nominative
while the location is a PP or accusative (18)b&c65. In the possessive
interpretation, the possessee is nominative while the possessor is dative
(18)d:
(18) a. kon-ä sänay-ä
be.PERF-3MSGS good-ACC
It was good.

b. halläw-ä p’etros wɨstä gädam

be.PERF-3MSGS Peter.NOM inside field
Peter was in the field.

c. halläw-ä p‘etros gädam-ä

be.PERF-3MSGS Peter.NOM field-ACC
Peter was in the field.

d. halläw-ø-a mäs’haf lä-saba

be.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO book.NOM to-Saba
Saba had a book.

The differences between the copular verbs with regard to agreement, type of
predicate they show up with, and case-marking are the same as for Amharic
copulas. That is, there are two BE’s: one selecting a small clause
complement and the other selecting an NP/DP complement. The copular
verb konӓ selects a small clause complement and involves subject raising.
The copula, halläwä, on the other hand, selects an NP complement and
involve possessor raising.

65
The alternation between a PP and an accusative NP is in fact not restricted to the
copular clauses. It is a general phenomenon in the language as I will discuss in
section 3.3.6
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 145

The discussion proceeds as follows. In section 3.2, I will discuss

konä. In section 3.3 I will discuss halläwä. Before directly proceeding to the
discussion of each copular verb, however, I will make few points about the
role of the copular verbs in section 3.1.

3.1. The role of copular verbs

Recall that in chapter two, we saw that konä and halläwä are used as
auxiliaries in Geez. In their auxiliary function, they appear only in their
perfective form, and they indicate tense (Teklemariam 1989:128, 128, Kifle
1948:525):
(19) a. kon-ӓ yɨ-goyyɨy wӓtr-ӓ (Teklemariam1899:128)
be.PERF-3MGS 3MSGS -flee.IMPERF always-ACC
He used to flee always.

b. hallӓw-ku ɨ-sӓkkɨb
be.PERF-1SGS 1SGS-sleep.IMPERF
I was/asleep/used to sleep.

In their copular function, however, konä and halläwä are used both in their
perfective and imperfective aspect. In this case, their temporal interpretations
vary depending on the aspect. Their temporal interpretation is the same as
that of stative verbs which we saw in chapter two. As we saw in that chapter,
the temporal interpretations of the perfective and imperfective aspects of
stative and dynamic verbs differ due to the interaction of grammatical and
lexical aspect. Dynamic verbs are interpreted as past when they are
perfective (20)a and non-past (present and future) when they are
imperfective (20)b. Stative verbs, on the other hand, are interpreted as non-
future (past and present) when they are perfective (21)b and future when
they are imperfective (21)b:
(20) a. s’ӓhaf-nӓ t’omar-ӓ dynamic perfective: past
write.PERF-1PLS letter-ACC
We wrote a letter.

b. nɨ-s’hɨf t’omar-ӓ dynamic imperfective: non-past

1PLS-write.IMPERF letter-ACC
We write/will write a letter.
146 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(21) a. noɦ-at sӓba stative perfective: non-future

be.tall.PERF-3FSGS Saba
Saba became/is becoming tall.

b. tɨ-näwwɨɦ sӓba stative imperfectvie: future

3FSGS-be.tall.IMPERF Saba
Saba will be tall.

The temporal interpretation of konä and halläwä is the same as that of stative
verbs. They are interpreted as non-future (past or present) when they are
perfective (22)a,b & (23)a,b and future when they are imperfective (22)c &
(23)c.
(22) a. kon-ä abel nolaw-e (Gen 4: 2)
be.PERF-3MSGS Abel shepherd-ACC
Abel was a shepherd.

b. wä-anä-ssä i-kon-ku s’äguar-ä (Gen 27:11)

and-I-FOC NEG-be.PERF-1SGS hairy-ACC
And I am not hairy.

c. wä-yɨ-käwwɨn-u kullu wulud-ä säbʔ s’adk’an-ä66

and-3MS-be.IMPERF-PL all son-CS man righteous-ACC
And all the sons of men will be righteous.

(23) a. wä-halläw-ä ɨgziabher mɨslä yosef (Gen 39:2)

and-be.PERF-3MSGS God with Joseph
And God was with Joseph.

b. halläw-ä wäld zɨya (John 6:9)

be.PERF-3MSGS son here
There is a lad here.

c. ɨgziabher yi-hellu mɨslä kullɨ-kɨmu67

God 3MSGS-be.IMPERF with all-2MPL.GEN
God will be with all of you.

66
This example is constructed on the basis of grammar books and cross-checked by
informants.
67
This clause is taken from liturgy when the priest says goodbye to the people.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 147

This broader use of konä and halläwä suggests that they are required when
temporal marking is necessary. This means that the copular verbs are used
when indicating aspect or tense is required, as opposed to copulaless clauses
and pronominal copulas which are atemporal.
Before concluding this section, there is also one point that needs to
be made clear. Recall that in their auxiliary function, konä and halläwä show
up with imperfective verbs. Recall also that clauses with imperfective verbs
are full clauses. For example, the clauses in (19), can also be found as in (24)
without being accompanied by auxiliaries:
(24) a. yɨ-goyyɨy wӓtr-ӓ (Teklemariam1899:128)
3MSGS flee.IMPERF earlier.time-ACC
He flees always.

b. ɨ-sӓkkɨb
1SGS-sleep.IMPERF
I (will)sleep.

This suggests that when they show up with imperfective verbs as in (19),
konä and halläwä select full clauses. If this is the case, one may question
whether the use of konä and halläwä with non-verbal predicates is similar.
This means, given that Geez has copulaless clauses on the one hand and that
konä and halläwä show up with full clauses on the other hand, one may
think that in their occurrence with non-verbal predicates, these verbs select
copulaless clauses. I assume that this is not the case for two reasons. Firstly,
unlike copulaless clauses which have nominative predicates, verbal copular
clauses have accusative NP and AP predicates as can be seen in (16)a. If
copular verbs had taken copulaless clauses as their complement, such
difference in predicate case-marking would be unexpected.
Secondly, copular verbs are in complementary distribution with
pronominal and prepositional copulas. For example, clauses like (25) are not
attested in primary or secondary sources, and are considered ill-formed by
informants. Such a distribution would be unexpected if these verbs had taken
copulaless clauses as their complements. For these reasons, I assume that
konä and halläwä are not added to copulaless clauses. Rather I assume that
they are in complementary distribution with copulaless clauses:
148 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(25) a. *kon-ӓ yonas wɨʔtu mӓmhɨr(-ӓ)

be.PERF-3MSGS Jonas he teacher-ACC
ɨntended meaning: Jonas is/was a teacher

b.* halläw-ä b-o ɨgziabher

be.PERF-3MSGS in-3MSG.GEN God
Intended meaning: There is/was God.

Having said this, I now proceed to show that konä is a subject raising verb
which selects a small clause complement, and halläwä selects an NP
complement and involves possessor raising.

3.2. The copula konä

In this section, I describe the phenomenon of subject raising and show that
the properties of konä follow straightforwardly.

3.2.1. Subject raising in Geez

As in Amharic, subject raising in Geez involves the subject of a complement

clause triggering subject agreement on the matrix verb like a true argument
of that verb. Consider for example the following:
(26) a.yɨ-mässɨlä-kɨmmu zä-hassät-a ɨ-bɨl
3MGS-seem.IMPERF-2MPLO C-lie-ACC 1SGS-say.IMPERF
It seems to you that I tell lies. (Teklemariam 1899: 202)

b. ɨ-mässɨlä-kɨmmu zä-hassät-a ɨ-bɨl68

1SGS-seem.IMPERF-2MPLO C-lie-ACC 1SGS-say.IMPERF
I seem to you like I am a liar.

The verb mäsälä ‘seem’ in the above example lacks an external argument
just like its Amharic and English counterparts. As a result, it takes an
expletive pro subject which is licensed by the 3MSG subject agreement as in
(26)a. In addition to this, it can also agree with the subject of the
complement clause as in (26)b, which means that the subject of the

68
This example is based on (26)a and cross-checked by informants
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 149

embedded clause undergoes raising to the subject position of the matrix

clause.
In addition to the agreement, subject raising also affects word order
as in (27). In (27)a the matrix verb takes the default agreement marker to
license an expletive pro as the subject of the matrix clause, which means that
subject raising does not take place. In this case, moving the subject to a
clause-initial position preceding the matrix verb is considered ill-formed by
informants. If we assume that movement of the subject to a clause-initial
position is to spec, TP, we can explain this movement restriction because the
position is filled by an expletive pro. In (27)b, where the matrix verb agrees
with the subject of the complement clause, on the other hand, movement of
the subject of the complement clause to the clause-initial position is allowed.
This means that since an expletive pro is not inserted, nothing blocks
movement of the subject to this position:
(27) a. *wälätt-iyä yɨ-mässɨl-äni
daughter-1SG.GEN 3MSGS-seem.PERF-1SGO
ɨntä-tɨ-mäs’ɨʔ habe-yä69.
that-3FSGS-come.IMPERF to-1SG.GEN
Intended meaning: It seems that my daughter comes (will come)
to me.

b. wälättɨ-yä tɨ-mässɨil-äni
daughter-1SG.GEN 3MSGS-seem.PERF-1SGO
ɨntä-tɨ-mäs’ɨʔ habe-yä
that-3FSGS-come.IMPERF to-1SG.GEN
My daughter seems to me that she comes (will come) to me.

In the examples we saw above, subject raising takes place from full clause
complements. In addition to this subject raising takes place from small-
clause complements as in (28):
(28) ɨ-mӓssɨl anӓ rӓdʔ-a
1SGS-seem I student-ACC
I seem to be a student.

69
These examples are constructed based on grammar books and are cross-checked
by informants.
150 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Recall that in Amharic, we saw three properties of such clauses which

suggest that they contain small clauses. These properties are also observed in
Geez. Firstly, one of the NPs does not trigger agreement on the verb, unlike
canonical argument NPs, (cf. (29)a&(30)a). Secondly, such clauses cannot
be passivized by promoting one of the NPs (the predicate of the small
clause) in to the subject (cf. (29)b&(30)b). Thirdly, it can be replaced by
APs and PPs (cf.(29)c&(30)c)70. These differences between the verb mässäla
and other verbs which take canonical internal arguments suggest that the
one of the NPs with mässälä is a predicate and that it selects a small clause
complement:
(29) a. ɨ-s’hɨf-o anӓ lӓ-t’omar
1SGS-send.IMPERF-3MSGO I to-letter
I write a/the letter.

b. yɨ-t-s’ähaf t’omar
3MSGS-PASS-write.IMPERF letter
A letter is written.

c. *ɨ-s’ɨhf anӓ nӓwwih-a/wɨstӓ bet71

1SGS-write.IMPERF I tall-ACC/ inside house
Intended literal meaning: I write tall/ in the house

(30) a. *ɨ-mӓssɨl-o anӓ lä-rӓdʔ (cf. (28))

1SGS-seem.IMPERF-3MSGO I to-student
Intnded meaning: I seem to be a student.

b. *yɨ-t-mӓssӓl rӓdʔ
3MSGS-PASS-seem student
Intended literalt meaning: tall is seemed.

70
The judgments in all these examples are mainly based on informants. Moreover,
examples like these are not attested in secondary sources.
71
This clause is acceptable with the PP as an adjunct, not as a secondary predicate:
(ii) ɨ-s’ɨhf anӓ wɨstӓ bet71
1SGS-write.IMPERF I inside house
I write/will write at home.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 151

c. ɨ-mӓssɨl anӓ nӓwwih-a/ wɨstӓ bet

1SGS-seem.IMPERF I tall-ACC/inside home
I seem to be tall/ at home.

Unlike the subject of full clauses, the subject of small clauses raises
obligatorily as shown by the unacceptability of the default 3MSG subject
agreement (cf. (28)a and (31)). This is for the same reason we discussed in
Amharic. That is, subjects of full clauses are assigned Case within the
complement clause through agreement with the embedded verb while
subjects of small clause complements are not assigned Case. Raising the
subject of full clauses is motivated only by EPP. Thus subject raising is not
obligatory if the EPP requirement is fulfilled by inserting an expletive pro as
in (26)a. Raising the subject of small clauses, on the other hand, is motivated
not only by EPP, but also by Case assignment. As a result, inserting an
expletive pro as in (31) is not acceptable since the subject would not be
assigned Case:
(31) * yɨ-mӓssɨl anӓ rӓdʔ(-a)
3MSGS-seem I student-ACC
Intended meaning: I seem to be a student.

3.2.2. Predicate case-marking in subject-raising

constructions

With subject-raising verbs, the predicate of the small clause is always

marked accusative (28). It cannot be nominative by establishing subject
agreement (32)a nor dative by establishing object agreement with the verb
(32)b:
(32) a.* yɨ-mӓssɨl-u antɨmu ardʔɨt
3-seem-PLSi you.MPL student.PLi
Intended meaning: You seem to be a student.

b. *tɨ-mӓssɨl-u-omu antɨmu lä-ardʔɨt. (cf. (29)a)

2M-seem-PLSi-3MPLOj you.MPLi to-student.PLj.
Intended meaning:-You seem to be students.
In this regard Geez differs from Amharic, which allows nominative and
accusative alternation of predicates with a corresponding semantic difference
(cf. chapter four). Recall that in Amharic, we saw that the accusative and
152 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

nominative alternation is related to the eventive vs. non-eventive

interpretations. That is, accusative predicates are associated with an eventive
interpretation while nominative predicates are associated with a non-
eventive interpretation. Based on this, I considered the different proposals
about predicate case-marking and argued that accusative case is assigned to
predicates by a functional projection which introduces eventivity.
The obligatory accusative marking of the predicates of raising verbs
in Geez must be due to the fact that that they always select small clauses
which contain a functional projection that introduces eventivity. Although
this cannot be illustrated with a minimal contrast between accusative and
nominative predicates as in Amharic, there are some pieces of evidence
which support this. The first piece of evidence is that accusative marking is
impossible with pronominal copulas which, as I will show in chapter six,
indicate an inherent relationship between the subject and the predicate, and
thus, are necessarily non-eventive (cf. (33)a&b):
(33) a. antä wɨʔtu yawwah/*yäwwah-a
you.MPL he polite.NOM/polite-ACC
You are polite.

b. tɨ-mӓssɨl antӓ yäwwah-a/*yäwwah

2MSGS-seem you polite-ACC/polite.NOM
You seem to be polite.

Secondly, case-marking of the predicate is not dependent on the accusative

Case assigning ability of the matrix verb. For example, the predicates in the
following examples are marked accusative regardless of whether the verb is
active or passive:
(34) a. romaw-yan säk’äl-u p’etros-ha hat’ʔ-a
Roman-PL crucify.PERF-3MPLS Peter-ACC sinner-ACC
Romans crucified Peter as a sinner.

b. tä-säql-ä p’etros hat’ʔ-a

pass-crucify.PERF-3MSGS Peter sinner-ACC
Peter was crucified as a sinner.

(35) a. hwälläqw-ä bɨʔsi yohannɨs-ha yäwwah-a

count.PERF-3MSGS man John-ACC foolish-ACC
The man considered John a fool.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 153

b. tä-hwälqw-ä yohannɨs yäwwah-a.

PASS-count.PERF-3MSGS John foolish-ACC
John was considered a fool.

To sum up, just like in Amharic, subject raising in Geez involves the subject
of a complement clause triggering subject agreement on the matrix verb. If a
subject raising verb selects a full clause complement, raising is optional. If
the subject raising verb selects a small clause complement, raising is
obligatory. In such cases the predicate can be an NP, an AP or a PP. Unlike
in Amharic where the predicate alternates between nominative and
accusative, however, predicates in Geez are assigned accusative case
suggesting that the eventive functional projection is always available. With
this in mind now, I proceed to show that the copula konä involves subject
raising.

3.2.3. Konä as a subject raising verb

The properties of the copula konä can be straightforwardly explained with

the subject raising phenomena we saw so far. As we mentioned earlier, konä
establishes agreement with the subject which is assigned nominative Case
(36)a. Secondly, konä does not agree with the predicate(36)b. The predicate
is rather assigned accusative without triggering any agreement just like the
predicate of other subject raising lexical verbs:
(36) a. kon-kui anӓi rӓdʔ-a
be.PERF-1SGS I student-ACC
I used to be a student.

b. *kon-ӓi anӓ rӓdʔ-ai

be.PERF-3SGS I student-ACC
Furthermore, when konä takes a full clause complement as in (37), it shows
up with the default 3MSG subject agreement (37)a or it agrees with the
subject (37)b just like other subject raising lexical verbs. As we mentioned
above, this happens because the subject is assigned nominative Case through
agreement with the embedded lexical verb, and that raising in this case is
motivated only by fulfilling the EPP feature of the matrix clause.
154 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(37) a. i-kon-ä kämä tɨ-ʔammɨr-u azman-ä72

NEG-become.PERF-3MSGS that 2-know.IMPERF-PLS year.PL-ACC
You did not know the years.

b. i-kon-kɨmu kämä tɨ-ʔammɨr-u azman-ä

NEG-become.PERF-2PLS that 2-know.IMPERF-PLS year.PL-ACC
You did not know the years.
Based on this similarity, the copular clauses with konä can be
straightforwardly analyzed as subject raising constructions. Accordingly, the
syntactic structure of copular clauses with konӓ in (36)a can be as (38). Note
that by evP, I am referring to the functional projection which introduces
eventivity. Note also that, in Geez since the copular verbs can be perfective
and imperfective, they are inserted at AspP and only the perfective copulas
raise to TP (cf. Chapter two):
(38) TP
o
T AspP
kon-kui Aspo PredP
ti DP Pred’
anӓ Predo evP

evo NP
rӓdʔ-a

The fact that konä shows up with all types of predicates follows
straightforwardly from this analysis. This means that since konä selects
small clause complements, it does not have any restriction on the type of
predicate it shows up with. Thus, it appears with all types of predicates:
(39) kon-kui anӓi rӓdʔ-a/ näwwih-a/ wɨstä bet
be.PERF-1SGS I student-ACC/tall-ACC/inside home
I was a student/tall/at home.

72
The examples in (37) are adapted from Kifle (1948:525) and cross-checked by
informants.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 155

3.3. The copula halläwä

The properties of halläwä, on the other hand, cannot be explained in line

with the subject raising analysis we proposed for konä. As we saw earlier,
halläwä differs from konä not only in terms of the type of predicate it shows
up with, but also in terms of agreement and case-marking pattern. halläwä
agrees with the subject in only its BE interpretation (40)a, and in its HAVE
interpretation, it agrees with the possessee and the possessor (40)b73:
(40) a. halläw-ä ɨgziabher mɨsla kull-ɨkɨmu.
be.PERF-3MSGS God with all-2MPL.GEN
There is God with all of you. lit. God is with all of you.

b. halläw-ø-a mäs’haf lä-saba

be.PERF-3MSG S-3FSGO book to-Saba
Saba has a book.

In this regard, halläwä looks like the possessor raising copulas in Amharic
which we saw in chapter three. As we saw in that chapter, Amharic copulas
allä and näbbär alternate between the BE and HAVE interpretations, and
agree only with the subject in their BE interpretation, and with the possessor
and the possessee in their HAVE interpretation. However, halläwä differs
from Amharic possessor raising copulas in terms of case-marking. Firstly,
unlike raised possessors in Amharic which are marked for the same case as
their possessees, the possessor in halläwä is marked dative by lä- (40)b.
Secondly, the location with halläwä is not necessarily a PP (40)b. It can be
marked accusative (41):

73
Despite the difference in the agreement and information structure, there is no truth
conditional difference between the BE and HAVE interpretations of halläwä :

(i)a. halläw-ä mäs’haf zä-saba

be-3MSGS book of-Saba
There is a book of Saba.

b. halläw-ø-a mäs’haf lä-saba

be-3MSGS-3FSGO book to-Saba
Saba has a book.
156 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(41) halläw-ä gädam-ä

be.PERF-3MSGS field-ACC
He was in the field.

Recall that in Amharic, raised posseessors are marked for the same case as
their possessee. As a result, we argued that possessor raising is motivated by
Case assignment. This means that possessors raise in order to be accessible
to the Case-assigner of the possessee. Given that the possessor in Geez is
marked dative, a possessor raising analysis like Amharic would seem
unlikely. In languages like German (Lee-Schoenfeld 2006), Hebrew, French
and Spanish (Landau 1999) which exhibit dative possessors like Geez, a
possessor raising analysis has been criticized. Such an analysis would not
take into consideration whether the dative possessor receives an affected
theta role from the matrix verb (Deal 2013). According to Deal, clauses with
dative possessors are better analyzed as control structures rather than raising.
This means that the dative possessor is assumed to be base-generated in the
position where it receives an affected theta role and controls the possessor
position. In such an account, whether the copular verb halläwä in Geez
involves possessor raising or it involves control depends on whether the
dative possessor is interpreted as affected or not.
In the sections that follow, I will show that dative possessors which
trigger agreement in Geez are indeed interpreted as affected (section 3.3.1-
3.3.2). Despite this, however, I will show that a control analysis runs into
difficulties explaining the phenomenon of affectedness in Geez and I argue
that affected datives in Geez are assigned structural Case through agreement
(section 3.3.4). On the basis of this, I argue that the copula halläwä should
be analyzed as involving possessor raising just like its Amharic counterparts
(3.3.5). Furthermore, I will also argue that the accusative marking of the
location PP in the BE interpretation is the result of the fact that oblique
arguments and adjuncts in Geez can be introduced as applied objects (section
3.3.6).

3.3.1. Two types of datives in Geez

Geez has an element lä- which is used in several environments as a case-

marker and preposition74. The case-marker lä- is used to mark a wide range

74
Analysing the prepositions in Ethiopian semitic languages, namely Amharic,
as case-markers has also been proposed by Baker and Kramer (2014).
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 157

of NPs with different theta roles, and it is always associated with agreement.
For example in (42)a and (43)a, direct objects are marked by lä- and trigger
object agreement on the verb, in contrast to the accusative, which is not
associated with agreement as in (42)b,c and (43)b,c:75
(42) a. k’ätäl-ku-wo lä-nämr
kill.PERF-1SGS-3MSGO to-tiger
I killed a tiger.

b. k’ätäl-ku nämr-ä
kill.PERF-1SGS tiger-ACC
I killed a tiger.

c.*k’ätäl-ku-wo nämr-ä
kill.PERF-1SGS-3MSGO tiger-ACC
Intended meaning: I killed a tiger.

d. *k’ätäl-ku-wo lä-nämr-ä
kill.PERF-1SGS-3MSGO to-tiger-ACC
Intended meaning: I killed a tiger.

(43) a. fät’är-ø-o ɨgziabher lä-addam (Fenta 1986:40)

creat.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO God to-Adam
God created Adam.

b. fät’är-ä ɨgziabher addam-ha

creat.PERF-3MSGS God Adam-ACC
God created Adam.

c. *fät’är-ø-o ɨgziabher addam-ha

creat.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO God Adam-ACC
God created Adam.

d. *fät’är-ø-o ɨgziabher lä-addam-ha

creat.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO God to-Adam-ACC
God created Adam.

75
The examples are based on grammar books and cross-checked by informants.
158 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

In the examples (44)-(48), on the other hand, oblique arguments and adjuncts
introduced by prepositions alternate with a variant marked by lä-. In this
case, the NPs marked by lä- trigger genitive agreement on the prepositions
which introduce them (Kifle 1948:1967):
(44) a. amlak mot-ä bäɨntä hewan
God die-PERF.3MSGS for Eve
God died for Eve.

b. amlak mot-ä bäɨntiy-ha lä-hewan

God die-PERF.3MSGS for-3FSG.GEN to-Eve
God died for Eve.

(45) a. amlak tä-säk’l-ä bä-mäsk’äl

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS with-cross
God was crucified on a cross.

b. amlak tä-säk’l-ä b-ottu lӓ-mäsk’äl

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS with-3MSG.GEN to-cross
God was crucified on a cross.

(46) a. amlak tä-säql-ä mɨslä fäyat

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS with robber
God was crucified with robbers.

b. amlak tä-säql-ä mɨsle-homu lä- fäyat

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS with-3MPL.GEN to-robber
God was crucified with robbers.

(47) a. arg-ä habä hamär

ascend.PERF-3MSGS toward boat
He ascended to the boat.

b. arg-ä habe-ha lä-hamär

ascend.PERF-3MSGS toward-3FSG.GEN to- boat
He ascended to the boat.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 159

(48) a. hor-u ɨmnä eyyärusalem

ge.PERF-3MPLS from Jerusalem
They went out of Jerusalem.

b. hor-u ɨmne-ha lä-eyyärusalem

go.PERF-3MPLS from-3FSG.GEN to-Jerusalem
They went out of Jerusalem.

The case-marker lä- also marks possessor NPs which trigger genitive
agreement on their possessees (49)a. In this case, the possessor marked by
lä- contrasts with what is known as the construct state (Dillmann 1907:324)
(49)b and with genitive-marked possessors (49)c76:

76
Note that there is one interesting analogy between Geez PPs and possessive NPs.
Compare, for example, the NPs in (i) with the PPs in (ii). The construct state in (i)a
and the PP in (ii)a are similar in that both the preposition and the possessee end in –
ä. Similarly, the possessive NP in (i)b and the PP in (ii)b are similar. The
preposition establishes genitive agreement with its complement in the same way as
the possesssee establishes agreement with the possessor. This analogy is the result of
the fact that Geez prepositions, including lä-, originate from nominals (nouns and
pronominals) (Dillmann 1907:388). This means that the combination of a
preposition and its complement in (ii)a originally/ chronologically derived from the
construct state (i)a while the PP in (ii)b is derived from (i)b:
(i) a.wäld-ä nɨgus
son-CS king
the king’s son

b. wäld-u lä-nɨgus
son-3MSG.GEN to-king
the king’s son

(ii) a. mɨsl-ä nɨgus

with-CS king
With a/the king

b. mɨsle-hu lä-nɨgus
with-3MSG.GEN to-king
with a/the king
160 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(49) a. wäld-u lä-nɨgus k’ätäl-ä anbesa

son-3MSG.GEN to-king kill.PERF-3SGS lion.ACC
The king’s son killed a lion.

b. wäld-ä nɨgus k’ätäl-ä anbesa

son-CS king kill.PERF-3MSGS lion.ACC
The king’s son killed a lion.

c. wäld zä-nɨgus k’ätäl-ä anbesa

son of-king kill.PERF-3MSGS lion.ACC
The king’s son killed a lion.

Now consider the examples in (50) each of them containing two instances of
lä-: one marking the NPs just like the case-marker lä- we have been
studying, and the other marked by the genitive agreement just like the
prepositions in the ‘b’ examples in (44)-(48). The latter clearly demonstrates
lä- as a preposition. Just like other prepositions in the examples in (44)-(48),
the preposition lä- is doubled by the case-marker lä-:
(50) a.fannäw-ä l-ottu keram agbɨrti-hu
send.PERF-3MSGS to-3MSG.GEN Hiram servant.PL-3MSG.GEN
lä-solomon
to-Solomon
Hiram sent his servants to Solomon.

b. i-tɨ-s‘älli l-ottu lä-z hɨzb

NEG- 2MSGS-pray.IMPRTV to-3MSG.GEN to-this people
Do not pray for these people.

The preposition lä-, unlike the case-marker lä-, is restricted only to goal
arguments and it is not associated with agreement. For example, the
preposition lä- in (50)b is found without being associated with any
agreement as in (51):
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 161

(51) a. fannäw-ä keram agbɨrti-hu

send.PERF-3MSGS Hiramj servant.PL-3MSG.GENi/j
lä-solomon
to-Solomoni
Hiram sent his servants to Solomon.

b. i-tɨ-s‘älli lä-z hɨzb

NEG- 2MSGS-pray.IMPRTV to-this people
Do not pray for these people.

Moreover, the preposition lä-, just like other prepositions, alternates with
accusative case (cf. (52)&0) (see section 3.3.6.1 for details on this issue).
This is unlike the case-marker lä- which is always associated with agreement
as in (54):
(52) a.fannäw-ä keram agbɨrti-hu lä-solomon77
send.PERF-3MSGS Hiramj servant.PL-3MSG.GEN to-Solomon
Hiram sent his servants to Solomon.

b. fannäw-ä keram agbɨrti-hu solomon-ha

send.PERF-3MSGS Hiram servant.PL-3MSG.GEN Solomon-ACC
Hiram sent his servants to Solomon.

(53) a. hor-ä habä gadam78

go.PERF-3MSGS towards field
He went to field.

b. hor-ä gädam-ä
go.PERF-3MSGS field-ACC
He went to field.

(54) a. fannäw-ä l-ottu keram agbɨrti-hu

send.PERF-3MSGS to-3MSG.GEN Hiram servant.PL-3MSG.GEN
lä-solomon
to-Solomon
Hiram sent his servants to Solomon.

77
These examples are based on Fenta (1986:97).
78
The examples are based on Fenta (1986:94)
162 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b.*fannäw-ä l-ottu keram agbɨrti-hu

send.PERF-3MSGS to-3MSG.GEN Hiram servant.PL-3MSG.GEN
solomon-ha
Solomon-ACC
Intended meaning: Hiram sent his servants to Solomon.

To sum up, the morpheme lä- in Geez is a preposition in some environments

and a case-marker in others. In the former case, it introduces goal arguments
and behaves like all other prepositions. In the latter case, it is associated with
agreement on theta-assigning heads and is used to mark NPs with a wide
range of theta-roles. The two instances of lä- can be found within a single
clause being associated with different NPs. This can be clearly observed in
(55). In the first reading, the genitive agreement refers to the Apostles. In the
second reading, the genitive agreement is coreferent with a different
(phonologically null) NP. This means that in the second interpretation, the
preposition lä- and the case-marker lä- are associated with different NPs:
(55) a. wä-hab-ä l-omu lä-hawaryat sɨlt’an-ä79
and- give.PERF-3MSGS to-3MPL.GEN to-apostles power-ACC
a. He gave the Apostles power.
b.He gave power to (somebody (MPL)) to the benefit of the
Apostles.

What is of interest for our case is the case-marker lä-, which I call a dative
case-marker due to its formal identity with the preposition lä- that introduces
goal arguments. In the next section, I will discuss further properties of this
case-marker and I will provide an analysis for its distribution.

3.3.2. Further properties of the case-marker lä-

In the previous section, we saw that NPs which are marked by the case-
marker lä- trigger a different type of agreement. Direct objects trigger object
agreement on verbs, oblique arguments and adjuncts trigger genitive
agreement on the prepositions which introduce them, and possessor NPs
trigger genitive agreement on their possessee. In addition to this, there are
some instances in which dative-oblique arguments (including goal
arguments introduced by the preposition lä-) trigger object agreement on the

79
This example is constructed based on the grammar books and cross-checked by
informants.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 163

verb just like direct objects (Teklemariam 1899:283). For example, the
oblique arguments in (44), (45)&(46) agree with the verbs instead of the
prepositions as in (56)a,b&c respectively. Similarly, the goal arguments in
(55) can trigger object agreement on the verb as in (56)d. This is unlike the
oblique arguments in (47)&(48) which cannot do so (57)a&b, and oblique
arguments of transitive verbs (57)c. Whether a particular oblique argument
can agree with prepositions, or with prepositions and verbs is determined by
the type of the verb -whether it is unaccuative/ passive or unergative/
trnasitive. Oblique arguments of unergative and transitive verbs trigger
agreement only on prepositions. Oblique arguments of unaccusative and
passive verbs can trigger agreement on the verb or on the preposition80. As
we will see below, such a distinction is due to the fact that the apparent
oblique arguments which trigger object agreement are NPs which involve
raising:
(56) a. amlak mot-ø-a lä-hewan
God die.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO to-Eve
God died for Eve.

80
Unergative and unaccusative verbs in Geez are distinguished morphologically by
their deverbal noun formation. Geez verbs have agent-oriented and patient/goal-
oriented deverbal nouns which are traditionally known as salis qɨs’s’ɨl (third order
adjective) or sadis qɨs’s’ɨl (sixth order adjective), named after the last syllable of the
noun. For example, the verb k’ätälä ‘kill’ has the subject-oriented deverbal noun
k’ätali ‘one who kills/killed/is killing’ and a patient-oriented noun k’ɨtul ‘one who is
killed’. Unergative verbs do not have a patient-oriented deverbal noun. For example,
the verbs argä ‘ascend’ and horä ‘go’ have only agent-oriented participles aragi
‘one who ascends’ and hawari ‘one who goes’. They lack patient-oriented deverbal
nouns. Unaccusative verbs, on the other hand, have both agent-oriented and patient-
oriented deverbal nouns, but with the same meaning. For example, the verb motä
‘die’ has an agent-oriented deverbal noun mäwati ‘one who dies/is dying’ and mɨwut
‘one who is dead’. In this regard, passive verbs behave like unaccusatives. They
have two deverbal nouns with the same meaning. For example, tä-k’ätlä , which is
the passive form of k’ätälä ‘kill’ has täk’ätali ‘ one who kills/is killing’ and k’ɨtul
‘one who is killed’.
.
164 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. amlak tä-säk’l-ø-o lӓ-mäsk’äl

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO to-cross
God crucified on a cross.

c. amlak tä-säql-ø-omu lä- fäyat

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS-3MPLO to-robber
God was crucified with robbers.

d. wä-hab-ø-omu lä-hawaryat sɨlt’an-ä

and- give.PERF-3MSGS-3MPLS to-apostles power-ACC
He gave the Apostles power.

(57) a.*arg-ø-a lä-hamär

ascend.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO to- boat
Intended meaning: He ascended to the boat.

b. *hor-u-wa lä-eyyärusalem
go.PERF-3MPLS-3FSGO to-Jerusalem
Intended meaning: They went out of Jerusalem.

c. *romaw-yan säqäl-u-woi petros-ha

Roman-PL crucify.PERF-3MPLS-3MSGO Peter-ACC
lä-mäskäli
to-cross
Intended meaning: Romans crucified Peter on a cross.

Another important property of the case-marker lä- is that it does not change
constituency. This means that objects, oblique arguments/adjuncts and
possessors which are marked by lä- form a constituent with the elements
they agree with in the same way as their ‘non-lä-marked’ counterparts do.
This can be illustrated by using constituency tests such as coordination and
wh-substitution. For example, the dative possessors in (49) can be
coordinated with another NP as in (58) and they can be replaced by one wh-
form as in (59) and (60):
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 165

(58) a. hara-hu lä-nɨgus wä-yonas k’ätäl-u

soldier-3MSG.GEN to-king and-Jonas kill.PERF-3MPLS
81
anbesa
lion.ACC
The king’s soldier and Jonas killed a lion.

b. bɨʔsit-u lä-yonas wä-wälat-u lä-muse

wife-3MSG.GEN to-Jonas and-girl-3MSG.GEN to-Moses
sänayat ɨmmantu
beautiful.FPL they
Jonas’s wife and Moses’ daughter are beautiful.

(59) Q: ɨllä-männu k’ätäl-u anbesa?

PL-who kill.PERF-3MPLS lion.ACC
Who killed a lion?

A: hara-hu lä-nɨgus wä-yonas

soldier-3MSG.GEN to-king and-Jonas
The king’s soldier and Jonas

(60) Q. ɨllä-mannu sännäy-at ɨmmantu?

PL-who beautiful-PL they
Who are beautiful?

A: bɨʔsit-u lä-yonas wä-wälat-u lä-muse

wife-3MSG.GEN to-Jonas and-girl-3MSG.GEN to-Moses
Jonas’s wife and Moses’ daughter.

The same is true for dative oblique arguments which agree with prepositions.
As can be seen below, two dative oblique arguments which agree with
prepositions can be coordinated suggesting that each of them forms a
constituent (61)a. They can also be replaced by a single wh-word as in (62):
(61) amlak mot-ä bäɨntiya-ha lä-hewan
God die.PERF-3MSGS for-3FSG.GEN to-Eve
wä-bäɨnta-addam
and-for-Adam

81
The examples are constructed by my informants based on grammar books.
166 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

God died for Eve and for Adam.

(62) Q: bäɨntä mannu mot-ä amlak?

for who die.PERF-3MSGS God
For whom did God die?

A: bäɨntiya-ha lä-hewan wä-bäɨnta-addam

for-3FSG.GEN to-Eve and-for-Adam
For Eve and for Adam

3.3.3. Interpretation

Another property of the dative case-marker lä- is its semantic effect. NPs
marked by lä- differ from other forms of case-marking, namely accusative
and other oblique cases (including the preposition lä-) in terms of
affectedness. This means that the dative NPs which trigger agreement are
interpreted as affected as opposed to NPs which are marked accusative or
other oblique cases, which are interpreted as unaffected.
The fact that direct objects which trigger object agreement are
interpreted as affected is already discussed in chapter two. As we saw in that
chapter, dative and accusative objects with imperfective verbs as in (63) are
interpreted differently. With the accusative object, the clause is interpreted
as a habitual or future action depicting the object as part of the event without
singling it out. Accordingly, (63)a means that I (will be/am) engaged in
tiger-killing. Here no particular tiger is singled out. With the agreement
triggering dative object in (63)b, on the other hand, the clause is interpreted
as a future action to be performed on a particular tiger:
(63) a. ɨ-k’ättɨl nämr-ä
1SGS-kill.IMPERF tiger-ACC
I (will) kill a tiger.

b. ɨ-k’ätɨl-o lä-nämr
1SGS-kill.IMPERF-3MSGO to-tiger
I will kill a/the tiger.

The dative and non-dative oblique arguments are also interpreted as affected
and unaffected respectively. Affectedness in this case is manifested in terms
of benefactive and malefactive interpretations. This is clearly seen from the
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 167

examples in (64) and (65). In (64)a, the girl is necessarily interpreted as

being accompanied by someone. In (64)b, however, the girl is not only
accompanied: she also benefits from it. Similarly, (65)a depicts Jerusalem
simply as Paul’s destination while (65)b depicts Jerusalem not only as Paul’s
destination, but also as being benefactively or malefactively affected by
Paul’s visit82:
(64) a. männu hor-ä mɨslä wälätt
who go.PERF-3MSGS with girl
Who went with the girl?

b. männu hor-ä mɨsle-ha lä-wälätt

who go.PERF-3MSGS with-3FSG.GEN to-girl
Who accompanied the girl?

(65) a. pawlos yɨ-hawwɨr habä eyyerusalem

Paul 3MSGS- go.IMPERF toward Jerusalem
Paul goes(will go) to Jerusalem.

b. pawlos yɨ-hawwɨr habe-ha lä-eyyerusalem

Paul 3MSGS-go.IMPERF toward -3FSG.GEN to-Jerusalem
Paul will visit Jerusalem.

The same is true for dative possessors. Although native intuition is not
available to prove whether dative possessors in (49) as opposed to non-
dative possessors (the genitive and the construct-state possessors) are
affected, there are two pieces of evidence which suggest that dative marking
is related to affectedness. The first pice of evidence comes from derived
nominals like k’ɨtlät ‘killing, murder’ and s’ɨlʔat ‘hatred’, which are derived
from the verbs k’ätälä ‘kill’ and s’älɨʔa ‘hate’ respectively. When these
nouns take affected arguments, the affected arguments are obligatorily
marked dative and trigger genitive agreement as in (66). My informants do
not accept Abel in (66)a as an unaffected external argument (killer) and the
children in (66)b as unaffected internal argument.83

82
This judgment is provided by informants.
83
One may think at this point that the difference between dative and non-dative
NPs may be related to different theta roles. For example, in John’s book, John can
be interpreted as the writer, the possessor of the book or the subject of the book
(whom the book is written about). The information I got from my informants,
168 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(66) a. männu y-aʔammɨr k’ɨtlät-u lä-abel

who 3MSGS-know.IMPERF murder-3MSG.GEN to- Abel
Who knows Abel’s murder? (Abel is killed, # Abel killed)

b. männu y-aʔammɨr s’ɨlʔat-omu lä-hɨs’anat

who 3MSGS-konw.IMPERF hatred-3MPL.GEN to-child.PL
Who knows the hatred of children? (They hate, # they are hated).
The second piece of evidence comes from the fact that unaffected arguments
of NPs cannot be marked dative. This is observed when the argument NP
refers to the material the head noun is made up of as in (67)-(69). Such NPs
do not have a dative variant (Kifle 1948:112):
(67) a. täk’uam zä-wärk’
lace of-gold
golden chain

b.*täk’uam-u lä-wärk’
lace-3MSG.GEN to-gold
golden chain

(68) a. wälta-ø wärk’

shield-CS gold
golden shield

however, does not confirm this. All the three interpretations can be expressed by the
dative:

(i) kɨddus sɨm-u lä-ɨgziabher

blessed name-3MSG.GEN to-God
Blessed is God’s name ( God is the possessor)

(ii) hayyal gɨbr-u lä-ɨgziabher

powerful action-3MSGS to-God
Powerful is God’s action. ( God is the agent)

(iii) kɨddus wuddase-hu lä-ɨgziabher

blessed praise-3MSGS to-God
Blessed is God’s praise. (God is the subject)
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 169

b.*wälta-hu lä-wärk’
shield-3MSG.GEN to-gold
Intended meaning: golden shield

(69) a. säbko-ø ɨs’

idol-CS wood
wooden idol

b. *säbko-hu lä-ɨs’
idol-3MSG.GEN to-wood
Intended meaning: wooden idol

To summarize, in the last three sections we saw that Geez has a case-
marking element lä-, which is always associated with agreement and is used
to mark objects, oblique arguments and adjuncts as well as possessors. We
saw that this case-marking element does not change the constituency of the
NPs, and that, unlike accusative and oblique case marked NPs, NPs marked
by lä- are interpreted as affected. In the next section I will show how the
syntax of this case-marking element is to be analyzed.

3.3.4. Affected datives: control structures or structural dative

cases?

The pattern that we have observed with affected datives and their unaffected
counterparts can be summarized as follows:
Argument Unaffected Affected
direct object ACC dative+ V-AGRO
indirect object PP dative+V-AGRO or P-AGR.GEN
oblique (unaccusative, passive) PP dative+V-AGRO or P-AGR.GEN
oblique(unergative, transitives) PP dative+ P-AGR.GEN
possessors PP/CS dative+ N-AGR.GEN
How is the relationship between affected datives and agreement explained?
There are two possibilities for this. The first is that affected datives are
merged as affected arguments of the matrix verb at some higher syntactic
positions, say affected projection (AffP), which assigns inherent dative Case
and controls the object as in (70)a, the complement of the preposition as in
(70)b and the possessor as in (70)c. In this case, the obligatory presence of
170 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

agreement markers in association with affected datives would be in order to

license PRO or pro in the controlled positions:
(70) a. AffP
DPi Aff’

NP-dative Affo VP
V’
PROi/proi V
[verb-AGROi]
b. AffP
DPi Aff’

NP-dative Affo VP
PP V
P PROi/proi
[P-AGR.GENi]

c. AffP
DPi Aff’

NP-dative Affo VP
NP V
N PROi/proi
[N-AGR.GEN]
The second option is to assume a structural dative case. That is that affected
arguments are assigned dative Case structurally through agreement with the
functional head. In this case, the obligatory agreement markers which show
up with affected datives would be realizations of uninterpretable phi-features
on the dative assigning functional head. V, P and N show up with the
agreement markers because they raise to the head position of this projection:
(71) AffP
Affo VP/PP/NP

V/N/P NP

Dative
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 171

The choice between these analyses should be made on the basis of their
ability to explain the data at hand. The control analysis encounters three
serious problems. Firstly, if we assume that the affected dative is the
argument of the verb and controls/is co-indexed with the object as in (70)a,
it would mean that one argument of the verb (affected argument) controls/is
co-indexed with another argument(object) of the same verb. Such an
assumption encounters a problem since PRO is not in a place it would
normally be licensed and pro would have local antecedent, just like
anaphors, which is theoretically unacceptable. Secondly, the control analysis
is challenged by the constituency. As we saw in (58)&(61), affected
possessors and their possessees, and affected oblique arguments and the
prepositions which theta-mark them form a constituent, excluding the matrix
verb. If we assume that affected datives are arguments of a matrix verb, our
assumption would run against this fact. Thirdly, the control analysis does not
have any explanation for the different agreement patterns of
unaccusative/passive and unergative/transitive verbs. As we saw earlier, with
unaccusative and passive verbs, affected oblique arguments can trigger
object agreement on the verb as in (56)a-c repeated below (72) or genitive
agreement on the prepositions which introduce them as in the ‘b’ examples
of (44)-(46), repeated below as (73). This is unlike oblique arguments of
unergative and transitive verbs which trigger only genitive agreement on
prepositions as in (47)&(48), repeated below as (74), but not object
agreement on the verb as in (57), repeated below as (75):
(72) a. amlak mot-ø-a lä-hewan
God die.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO to-Eve
God died for Eve.

b. amlak tä-säk’l-ø-o lӓ-mäsk’äl

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS-3MSGO to-cross
God was crucified on a cross.

c. amlak tä-säql-ø-omu lä- fäyat

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS-3MPLO to-robber.PL
God was crucified with robbers.

(73) a. amlak mot-ä bäɨntiy-ha lä-hewan

God die-PERF.3MSGS for-3FSG.GEN to-Eve
God died for Eve.
172 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. amlak tä-säk’l-ä b-ottu lӓ-mäsk’äl

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS with-3MSG.GEN to-cross
God was crucified on a cross.

c. amlak tä-säql-ä mɨsle-homu lä- fäyat

God PASS-crucify.PERF-3MSGS with-3MPL.GEN to-robber
God was crucified with robbers.

(74) a. arg-ä habe-ha lä-hamär

ascend.PERF-3MSGS toward-3FSG.GEN to- boat
He ascended to the boat.

b. hor-u ɨmne-ha lä-eyyärusalem

go.PERF-3MPLS from-3FSG.GEN to-Jerusalem
They went out of Jerusalem.

(75) a.*arg-ø-a lä-hamär

ascend.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO to- boat
Intended meaning: He ascended to the boat.

b. *hor-u-wa lä-eyyärusalem
go.PERF-3MPLS- 3FSGO to-Jerusalem
Intended meaning: They went out of Jerusalem.

The control analysis is challenged by this fact in two ways. On the one hand,
it does not have any answer to the question why oblique arguments trigger
object agreement in the first place. If the agreement markers associated with
oblique arguments are inserted in order to license PRO/pro in oblique
argument positions which are governed by prepositions, we expect such
agreement markers to appear only with prepositions, not verbs. On the other
hand, the control analysis does not have any explanation for why such object
agreement with oblique arguments depends on the argument structure of the
matrix verb. For these reasons, I assume that the relationship between
affected datives and agreement is not that of control. Rather, I assume that it
is because dative is assigned structurally. This means that unlike in Amharic
the functional projection which is responsible for affectedness (AffP) in
Geez assigns structural dative Case to the NPs/DPs within its complement.
In minimalist assuption this can be the case if we assume that V, N and P
are not Phases in Geez. As a result, the NPs/DPs complements of V, N and P
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 173

remain Case unassigned until AffP is merged. The agreement markers which
show up in association with affected datives are, thus, realizations of
uninterpretable phi-features on the dative assigning functional head as in
(76). In such an analysis V, P and N show up with the agreement markers
because they raise to Affo84:

(76) a. AffP assigns Dative Case

Affo VP
Vi-AGRO V DP
ti DP-dative

b. AffP assigns Dative Case

Affo PP
o
Pi-AGR.GEN P DP
ti DP-dative

c. AffP assigns Dative Case

Affo NP
Ni-AGR.GEN No DP
ti DP-dative

This analysis provides a solution for the three problems encountered by the
control analysis above. The problem of a local antecedent of PRO would
disappear since we do not have a control structure at all. Secondly, the fact
that affected datives form a constituent with their theta-assigners follows
straightforwardly. This means that since AffP projects over P and N before
they are merged to the matrix verb, the affected datives and their theta
84
A question that could be raised here is if AffP can be generated above V,P and N,
why doesn’t it hide the lexical category so that something higher cannot select one
kind as opposed to another kind. For this, I do not have clear explanation. One thing
that could be said is that AffP, inherits the category of its complement.
174 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

assigners form a constituent. Thirdly, the affected datives which trigger

object agreement on unaccusative/passive verbs can be explained as
instantiating raising. That is, affected oblique arguments which trigger object
agreement on unaccusative/passive verbs can be analyzed as raised NPs
which are base-generated within the internal arguments of passive and
unaccusative verbs as in (77). Assuming that raising is motivated by Case,
the dative NPs in examples (72) can be assumed to have been raised in order
to get Dative Case and delete the uninterpretable features of Affo:
(77) AffP
Affo VP
[V-AGRO]i DP V’
DP-Datvej V NP
ti NP NP
tj

In fact such a claim raises other two questions85. Firstly, we need to prove
that complex NPs which contain modifying nouns with benefactive,
instrumental and associative relationships are attested in the languages,
which is of course the case. As Kifle (1948:112) states, a genitive
85
There is also a third point that needs to be answered in the possessor raising
analysis: whether possessor raising is sensitive to a definiteness effect. This means,
if DP is a phase (Gutiérrez-Bravo 2001, Svenonius 2004, Bošković 2005, Heck,
Müller and Trommer 2008, Kramer 2010 and Deal 2013) possessor raising must be
impossible from DP. Such a constraint is difficult to prove since Geez does not have
a definite article. One possible context where a definiteness effect is observed is
when the possessee is a proper name as in (i):

(i) giorgis zä-gasɨc’a

George of-Gasicha
George of Gasicha
Possessor raising from NPs like this is not attested in secondary sources and
informants. Consider clauses such as (ii) ill-formed.

(ii) *giorgis näbbär-ø-o lä-gasicha

George live-3MSGS-3MSGO to-Gasicha
Intended meaning: Gasicha is lived by George.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 175

relationship between two nominals in Geez denotes not only a typical

possessor-possessee relationship, but also a number of relationships like
instrumental, benefactive, associative, source and locative relationships. One
such example is the construct state in brackets in the following examples.
mask’äl ‘cross’ is an instrument in (78)a, hewan ‘Eve’ is benefactive in
(78)b, fäyat ‘robbers’ is associative in (78)c. In all cases, the NPs are merged
with the deverbal nominals sik’ul crucified’, mɨwt ‘dead’ forming a construct
state which is identical to possessive constructions. This suggests that that
the dative NPs in the examples in (72) can also be generated within nominal
projections:
(78) a. amlak [sɨk’ul-ä mäs’qäl]86 (Kifle 1948: 120-121)
God crucify-CS cross
God who is crucified on the cross

b. amlak [mɨwt-ä hewan]

God dead-CS Eve
God who died for robbers

c. amlak [mɨwt-ä fayat]

God dead-CS robbers
God who died with robbers

Other examples which indicate that associative, locative, benefactives

modify an NP are:
(79) a. mariam mɨslä fɨk’ur wäld-a
Mary with loved son-3FSG.GEN
Mary with her loved son

b. hawary-at ɨllä-eyyärusalem
apostle-PL of-Jerusalem
Apostles from/of Jerusalem

c. mäswaʔt bäɨntiya-nä
sacrifice for-1PL.GEN
Sacrifice for us

86
Such constructions are cognates of what are known as adjectival/ participial
constructs in Hebrew (Hazout 2000; Kremers 2003; Siloni 2002; Heller 2002 and
Kim 2002) and Arabic (Al Sharifi and Sadler 2009).
176 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Secondly, there is the issue of locality. That is, for Affo in (77) probing an
NP downward to check its uninterpretable features; the most local NP is the
big NP which contains the possessor and the possessee. So, we need to
explain why the possessor is targeted in this case. For this, a possible
explanation is to assume that the possessor, being caseless and active for
Case assignment, moves out of the NP by the time Affo is projected. If so,
the possessor may be more local to Affo than the big NP.
To sum up then, of the two possible analyses that would explain the
relationship between affected datives and agreement, the structural dative
analysis better explains the phenomenon in Geez. With this in mind now, I
move to the discussion of the copula halläwä.

3.3.5. halläwä as a possessor raising verb

Coming back to the copula halläwä, the fact that the possessor is dative
indicates that it is assigned structural dative Case by AffP. On the other
hand, the fact that it triggers object agreement on the verb rather than
genitive agreement on the possessee, suggests that it involves possessor
raising. Accordingly, the syntactic structure of the possessive clause in (40)b
repeated below as (80)a would be as in (80)b. Note that in the derivation, the
subject must have moved to spec, AspP since it precedes the raised
possessor.
(80) a. halläw-ø-a mäs’haf lä-saba
be.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO book to-Saba
Saba has a book.

b. TP
[halläw-ø-a]i AspP
NPk Asp’
o
mäs’haf Asp AffP
ti NPj Aff’
lä-saba Affo NP
ti NPj NP
mäs’haf
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 177

In its BE interpretation, on the other hand, halläwä does not involve

possessor raising. In this case, the copula is inserted at Aspo, selects an NP
and establishes subject agreement with it in the same way as other
unaccusative and passive verbs. The location PP in this case merges as an
adjunct to AspP. Accordingly, the syntactic structure of (40)a repeated
below as (81)a would be as in (81)b:
(81) a. halläw-ä ɨgziabher mɨsla kull-ɨkɨmu
be.PERF-3MSGS God with all-2MPL.GEN
There is God with all of you. lit. God is present with all of you.

b. TP

To AspP
[halläw-ä]i AspP PP
NPj Asp’ mɨslä kullɨkɨmu
ɨgziabher Asp o
NP
ti tj

3.3.6. Accusative location

Recall that in the BE interpretation of halläwä the location PP can also be

accusative rather than a PP, as in (41) repeated below as (82). In this section,
I show that the phenomenon is due to the fact that oblique arguments and
adjuncts in Geez can be introduced by prepositions or they can be merged as
applicative objects:
(82) halläw-ä gädam-ä
be.PERF-3MSGS field-ACC
He was in the field.

3.3.6.1. Applicatives in Geez

Just like dative Case, accusative Case in Geez is not always associated with
a particular thematic position. It can be assigned to direct and indirect
objects and oblique arguments. As we saw in section 3.3.1, objects are
178 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

assigned accusative when they are unaffected, in contrast to dative. In

oblique arguments, accusative marking contrasts with prepositions and
affected datives which trigger agreement on prepositions. This means that
oblique arguments in Geez can be introduced in three different ways as
follows:
(83) a. hor-ä habä gädam Preposition
go.PERF-3MSGS towards field
He went to a field.

b. hor-ä gädam-ä Accusative

go.PERF-3MSGS field-ACC
He went to a field.

c. hor-ä habe-ha lä-gädam Dative+ Preposition

go.PERF-3MSGS towards-3FSG.GEN to-field
He went to the field.

Accusative marking of oblique arguments, however, is not always possible.

Only some prepositions are reported to have an accusative counterpart for
the oblique arguments they introduce87. These are habä ‘to, towards’ (84) ,
bä- ‘by, with, in, at’ (85)&(86), ɨm- ‘from’ (87), mɨslä ‘with’ (88), and lä-
‘for, to’ (89) (Teklemariam 1899:270-274, Kifle 1948:162-163, Fenta
1986:94-98). Other prepositions like, for example, bäɨntä ‘for’, zä- ‘of’,
dɨhrä ‘after’, kɨdmä ‘before’, do not alternate with accusative (90):
(84) a. wäräd-ä mɨdr-ä/habä mɨdɨr
descend.PERF-3MSG S land-ACC/ towards land
He descended to the land.

b. goy-ä gɨbs’-ä/habä gɨbs’

flee.PERF-3MSGS Egypt-ACC/ towards Egypt
He fled to Egypt.

c. tä-mäyt’-ä nazret-ä/ habä nazret

PASS-return.PERF-3MSGS Nazareth-ACC/ to Nazareth
He returned to Nazareth.

87
Note that Geez has a large number of prepositions. I refer the reader to
Teklemariam (1899), Dillmann (1907), Kifle (1948) and Fenta(1986) for an
exhaustive list of the prepositions.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 179

d. sofiya nɨgɨst nägäd-ät rome/habä rome

Sofia queen travel.PERF-3FSGS Rome. ACC/ to Rome
Queen Sofia traveled to Rome.

(85) a. nɨʔs-ä kɨbr-ä /bä-kɨbr yɨhuda

be.small.PERF-3MSGS glory-ACC/in-glory Judas
Judas degraded in glory.

b. aʕaräy-nä hɨmam-ä/bä-hɨmam
be.equal.PERF-1PLS ailment-ACC/ in-ailment
We are equal in ailment.

c. käddäm-ä Asahel rus’ät-ä/bä-rus’ät

be.faster.PERF-3MSGS Asahel running-ACC/in-running
ɨm-abyas’i-hu
from-friend.PL-3MSG.GEN
Asahel is faster in running than his friends.

(86) a. habär-u k’al-ä/ bä-k’al näby-at

concur.PERF-3MPLS word-ACC/ in-word prophet-PL
Prophets concur in words (prophecies).

b. näbär-ä gädam-ä/ bä-gädam

live.PERF-3MSGS field-ACC/ in-field
He lived in a/the field.

c. boʔ-u lelit-ä/ bä-lelit

enter.PERF-3MPLS night-ACC/ at- night
They entered at night.

d. tä-säk’l-ä k’ätr-ä/bä- k’ätr

PASS-crucified.PERF-3MSGS noon-ACC/at- noon
He was crucified at noon.

(87) a. tä-ʕark’-ä lɨbs-ä /ɨm-libs

PASS-bare.PERF-3MSGS clothes-ACC/from-clothes
He is bared of clothes.
180 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. rɨhɨb-ä hɨbɨst-ä/ɨm-hɨbɨst
be.hungry.PERF-3MSGS food-ACC/ from food
He is hungry for food.

c. tä-kälʔ-a hamet-ä/ɨm-hamet
PASS-abstain.PERF-3MSGS gossip-ACC/from-Gossip
He is abstained from gossip.

(88) tä-makkär-ä säbʔ-a /mɨslä säbʔ

PASS-discuss.PERF-3MSGS man-ACC/with man
He discussed with someone.

(89) a. yɨ-mhak näday-ä wä-mɨskin-ä /lä-näday

3MSGS-be.pity.IMPERF poor-ACC and-weak-ACC/to-poor
wä-lä-mɨskin
and-to-weak
He is merciful to the poor and the weak people.

b. tä-harräy-ä simät-ä/ lä-simät

PASS-choose.PERF-3MSGS appointment-ACC/to-appointment
He is chosen for an appointment.

(90) a. mot-ä bäɨnta hewan/ *hewanɨh-ha

die.PERFE-3MSGS for Eve/ Eve-ACC
He died for Eve.

b. mot-ä dɨhrä hewan/ *hewanɨh-ha

die.PERFE-3MSGS after Eve/ Eve-ACC
He died afterEve.

c. mot-ä wäld zä-hewan/amlak *hewanɨh-ha

die.PERF-3MSGS son of-Eve/ God Eve-ACC
Eve’s Son died.

Note that the accusative marking of oblique arguments does not depend on
the transitivity of the verbs. In fact the verbs in (84)c, (86)d, (87)c (88)a,b
and (89)b are passives while the remaining are all intransitive. With
transitive verbs, since oblique arguments and indirect objects can be marked
accusative, two accusative NPs are allowed, as in (91)a,b. More than two
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 181

accusatives (91)c, however, are not attested in secondary sources and they
are considered as ‘not common’ by my informants:
(91) a. mähar-ä fidel-ä hɨs’anat-ä88
teach.PERF-MSGS alphabet-ACC child.PL-ACC
He taught alphabet to children.

b. yɨ-mehɨr hɨs’anat-ä wätr-ä

3SGS-teach.IMPERF child.PL-ACC always-ACC
He always teaches children.

c. ??yɨ-mehɨr fidel-ä hɨs’anat-ä wätr-ä

3SGS-teach.IMPERF alphabet-ACC child.PL-ACC always-
ACC
Intended meaning: He always teaches alphabet to children.

Whether there is a semantic distinction between accusative and non-

accusative oblique arguments is difficult to determine. However, my
informants correlate the situation to a similar phenomenon in Amharic where
a preposition can be dropped as follows:
(92) a. wädä agär-u hed-ä Amharic
to country-3MSG.GEN go.PERF-3MSGS
He went to his country.

b. agär-u hed-ä
country-3MSG.GEN go.PERF-3MSGS
He went to his country.

These expressions are usually synonymous. Nevertheless, there are some

contexts where they exhibit a semantic distinction which is similar to bare-
PP (P+noun)- he went to school)- and marked PP (P+ article +Noun)- he
went to the school- constructions in Indo-European languages (Le Bruyn et.
al. 2009, Klis, 2010). Consider for example (93) and (94). With the PPs in
the ‘a’ examples, the semantic interpretation is similar to marked PPs
expressing direction or location. In the absence of the preposition, on the
other hand, the interpretation is similar to bare-PPs. As can be seen from the

88
These examples are based on Teklemariam (1899:121)
182 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

‘b’ examples, the clauses express a professional activity of studying and

being arrested, not location or direction:
(93) a. wädä tɨmhɨrt.bet gäbba-hu Amharic
to school enter.PERF-1SGS
I entered a school.

b. tɨmhɨrt.bet gäbba-hu
school enter.PERF-1SGS
I became a student. Lit. I entered school

(94) a. ɨsɨr.bet wɨst’ gäbba-äčč

prison inside enter.PERF-3FSGS
She entered the prison.

b. ɨsɨr.bet gäbba-äčč
prison enter.PERF-3FSGS
She is arrested. Lit. She entered prison.

This contrast suggests that accusative oblique arguments are interpreted in

the same way as accusative objects. Recall that in 3.3.3, we saw that
accusative objects as opposed to their dative counterparts, are interpreted as
part of the event. For example, (63)a repeated below as (95) is interpreted in
such a way that I am/will be engaged in tiger-killing without singling out a
particular tiger. Similarly, the oblique arguments which are not accompanied
by prepositions in (93)b and (94)b are not singled out. For example, school
and prison are stated as part of the event described by the verb, not as a
singled out location or direction:
(95) ɨ-k’ättɨl nämr-ä
1SGS-kill.IMPERF tiger-ACC
I (will) kill a tiger.

To sum up, just like dative, accusative in Geez is assigned to direct and
indirect objects as well as some oblique arguments and adjuncts which are
introduced by the prepositions habä ‘to, towards’, bä ‘by, with, in, at’, ɨm
‘from’, mɨslä ‘with’, and lä ‘for, to’. Accusative marking of oblique
arguments is not sensitive to the transitivity of the verb. As a result, passive
and intransitive verbs can take accusative oblique arguments while transitive
verbs can be found with two accusative NPs. Unlike dative objects, which
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 183

are interpreted as affected, accusative and oblique arguments are interpreted

as unaffected.
The issue now is how this alternation can be explained. The most
plausible explanation is to assume that oblique arguments, including indirect
objects and adjuncts, in Geez can be introduced by prepositions or they can
be merged as applicative objects (McGinnis 2001, Pylkännen 2001, 2002,
2008). By Applicatives I mean the mechanisms by which non-core
arguments are introduced as objects. There are two types of applicatives:
high applicatives and low applicatives. High applicatives denote a thematic
relation between an individual and an event described by the verb as in (96)a
where 'the knife' bears an instrumental relation to the event of molding.
Low applicatives denote a relation between two individuals as in
(96)b where ‘Bill’ gets ‘the cake’ :
(96) a. mavuto a-na-umb-ir-a mpeni mtsuko Chicheŵa
Mavuto SP-PST-mold-APPL-ASP knife waterpot
Mavuto molded the waterpot with a knife.

b. Jane baked Bill a cake. English

Oblique arguments and indirect objects which are complements of verbs as
in (97)a are merged as low applicatives, as in (97)b. Adjuncts which are not
selected by verbs (98)a are merged as high applicative as in (98)b. Since
applicatives are assigned accusative regardless of the transitivity of the
verb (i.e, oblique arguments are assigned accusative with intransitive
and passive verbs (cf. (84)(90)) and double accusative is allowed with
transitive verbs (91), accusative case must be assigned by the applicative
head.

(97) a. VP
V’
o
V PP
verb P DP

b. VP
V’
Vo ApplP
verb Applo DP
184 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(98) a. VP
PP VP
P DP V’

b. ApplP
DP Appl’
o
Appl VP
verb ti

3.3.6.2. The location PP as a high applicative

Given this general phenomenon of accusative and PP alternation, the fact

that the location adjunct with the copula halläwä alternates between PP and
accusative is straightforward. This means that the location adjunct can be
introduced by a PP or it is moves to an applicative object. Accordingly, the
syntactic structure of (82) repeated as (99)a would be as (99)b:
(99) a. halläw-ä gädam-ä
be.PERF-3MSGS field-ACC
He was in the field.

b. TP
pro T’
To ApplP
halläw-a]i NPj Appl’
gädam-ä Applo AspP
ti Aspo NP
tj tj

4. Summary
In this chapter, I discussed copulaless clauses and the two verbal copulas in
Geez. I argued that copulaless clauses are full clauses. With regard to the
two copular verbs, I show that they are subject raising and possessor raising
verbs suggesting that Geez exhibits two types of BE’s: one selecting small
clause complements and involving subject raising and the other selecting NP
complements and involving possessor raising.
 CHAPTER SIX

PRONOMINAL AND
PREPOSITIONAL COPULAS

1. Introduction
In addition to the copulaless clauses and the verbal copulas which we
discussed in the last chapter, Geez also exhibits two types of non-verbal
copulas, namely pronominal copulas and prepositional copulas. Pronominal
copulas are used with all types of predicates to express predication, identity
and location, just like the predicational verbal copula konä (cf. chapter five
section 3.2.) (1). Prepositional copulas are used to express existence/location
and possession just like the existential verbal copula halläwä (cf. chapter
five section 3.3.) (5)89:
(1) a. anti yɨʔti rɨhrɨh-t/mämhɨr-t/ wɨstä bet-ki
you.FSG she compassionate-F/teacher-F/inside house-2FSG.GEN
You are compassionate/ teacher/in your home.

b. antä wɨʔtu kristos

you he Christ
You are Christ.

c. anä ɦer anä (Matt 20,15)

I good I
I am good.

89
Of the many prepositions in Geez, only bä and lä are used as copulas
186 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(2) a. b-o ɨgziabher mɨslӓ kull-ɨkɨmu

in-3MSG.GEN God with all-2MPL.GEN
There is God with all of you.

b. b-o s’adk’-an wɨstä bet-kä (Kifle 1948:250)

in-3MSG.GEN righteous-PL inside house-2MSG.GEN
There are righteous people in your house.

c. b-a/b-atti wäld lä-saba

in-3FSG.GEN son to-Saba
Saba has a son.

d. l-atti wäld lӓ-saba

to-3FSG.GEN son to-saba
Saba has a book.

In this chapter, I will discuss the role of these copulas and I provide a
syntactic analysis for the clauses which contain them. With regard to their
role, I claim that they are used to indicate that the predication, identity,
location and possession relationship is inherent. That is, pronominal copulas
are used when the predicational/identity relationship between the subject and
the predicate is inherent as opposed to contingent, while prepositional
copulas are used when the relationship between the locatee and the location
or the possessee and the possessor is inherent. Since the difference between
inherent and contingent relationship is duration, I will assume that these
elements syntactically encode ‘duration’ heading a DurP functional
projection. With regard to their syntax, I argue that pronoun copulas select
small clause complements and involve subject raising like the verbal copula
konä while prepositional copulas select NP complements and involve
possessor raising like the verbal copula halläwä.
Before proceeding to the discussion of pronominal and prepositional
copulas, I first demonstrate what I mean by an inherent and non-inherent
(contingent) relationship. To begin with consider the following English
clauses:
(3) a. John is a human being.
b. John is a man.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 187

The predication relationship in (3)a is inherent. The clause is interpreted in

such a way that the predicate human being is an inherent property of John.
That is, the property of being a human being is not acquired at some stage in
the life time of the subject. One is born being a human being. The clause in
(3)b, on the other hand, is non-inherent. John is not born being a man. Under
normal contexts, manhood is acquired in later stage of John’s life time90.
Predicates, however, do not always fall into inherent or contingent
classes. Some predicates can be interpreted either as inherent or contingent.
For example, individual-level adjectival predicates are of this sort. The size,
color, character of things and people can be either inherent or acquired. As a
result, such predicates are ambiguous between inherent and contingent
predicates.
The inherent and contingent distinction should not be confused with
the difference between individual-level and stage-level predicates of Carlson
(1977). Although it seems that stage level predicates are non-inherent while
individual-level predicates are inherent, this is not always the case. For
example, both human being and man in (3) are individual-level predicates.
However, the former is interpreted as inherent and the later as non-inherent.
Similarly, the bold printed predicates in (4) are stage-level. However, being
bright during the winter and dark during the summer can be interpreted as
the inherent property of my room:
(4) My room is bright during winter and dark during summer.
In the sections that follow, I show that pronominal and prepositional copulas
indicate inherent relationship as opposed to a contingent one. The discussion
proceeds in the following order. In section 2, I discuss pronominal copula. In
section 3, I discuss prepositional copulas. Section 4, concludes the chapter.

90
Here I am using the term ‘under normal context’ to exclude exceptional situations
in which inherent predicates can be interpreted as non-inherent and non-inherent
predicates are interpreted as inherent. For example, the clauses John is a human
being can be interpreted as non-inherent if one assumes an exceptional situation in
which John is some non-human creature which changes to a human being at some
point. Similarly, the sentence John is a man can be interpreted as inherent if one
assumes a mysterious situation in which John’s mother gives birth to an adult human
being. I do not include such special interpretations in here.
188 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

2. Pronominal copulas
Geez pronominal copulas show up with all types of predicates just like the
verbal copula konä and they appear in three varieties: an invariable 3MSG
(5)a, third person pronouns which agree in number and gender with the
subject (5)b, or all pronouns identical to the subjects (5)c:
(5) a. anti wɨʔtu mämhɨr-t/ sӓnnay-t/ kämä mälak
you.FSG he teacher-F/good-F/like angel
You are a teacher/ beautiful/ like an angel.

b. anti yɨʔti mämhɨr-t/ sӓnnay-t/ kämä mälak

you.FSG she teacher-F/good-F/ like angel
You are a teacher/beautiful/like angel.

c. anä ɦer anä (Matt 20,15)

I good I
I am good.

With regard to using pronouns as copulas, Geez behaves like Hebrew

(Doron 1983, Rapoport 1987, Rothstein 1995, Greenberg 2002) and Arabic
(Eid 1983, Edwards 2006) to which it is genetically related, as well as Polish
(Citko 2008) and Scottish Gaelic (Adger and Ramchand 2003) to which it is
unrelated. Geez pronoun copulas are in complementary distribution with
verbal copulas just like in Hebrew, Arabic and Scottish Gaelic, but unlike in
Polish. Clauses like (6) are not attested in secondary sources and they are
considered ill-formed by informants:
(6) *kon-ki anti yɨʔti mämhɨr-t/ sӓnnay-t
be.PERF-3FSGS you.FSG she teacher-F/good-F
You are/were a teacher/beautiful .

As we discussed in chapter one, given the definition of the copula as a

functional element inserted in order to support tense, aspect and mood, the
role of pronominal copulas has been an issue of debate. For some,
pronominal copulas are not real copulas. They are subjects (later reanalyzed
as copulas) (Edwards 2006) or predicates (Adger and Ramchand 2003). For
others, they are real copular elements (Doron 1983, Eid 1983 Rapoport
1987, Rothstein 1995, Citko 2008, and Greenberg 2002). Under the copular
analysis also, there have been different views. Doron (1983) claims that
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 189

pronoun copulas are realizations of unattached agreement features in the

present tense. Rapoport (1987) and Rothstein (1995) associate pronominal
copulas to a semantically based taxonomy of copular clauses, namely
predicational and equative/identity distinction (Higgins 1979, Mikkelsen
2005, 2011). Since pronominal copulas are obligatorily found in
equative/identity clauses as opposed to predicational clauses, they consider
them as equative/identity copulas. Greenberg (2002), on the other hand,
argues that the obligatory vs. optional presence of pronominal copulas in
Hebrew is correlated with generic and non-generic interpretations, and she
argues that pronominal copulas are manifestations of a generic copula.
Finally, Citko (2008) claims that pronominal copulas in Polish are the
realization of tense when the small clause head is phi-incomplete and non-
eventive. Citko assumes that there are two types of small clause heads: one
phi-complete and eventive, and the other phi-incomplete and non-eventive.
According to her, pronominal copulas are used with the incomplete and non-
eventive small clause head.
The question then emerges which of these analyses would account
for the syntactic and semantic properties of pronominal copulas in Geez. In
the sections that follow, I argue that pronouns in Geez non-verbal
predication are real copulas. However, unlike the previous analyses, I claim
that they are neither identity copulas, contra Rapoport (1987), nor generic
copulas, contra Greenberg (2002), nor realization of agreement features or
tense, contra Doron (1983) and Citko (2008). Rather I argue that they are
used to indicate that the predication/identity relationship is inherent as
opposed to contingent.
This means that Geez finite clauses are classified in to two types:
temporal and atemporal. Just as temporal clauses can have different TAM
values, atemporal clauses can be either inherent or contingent. Pronominal
copulas are inserted in order to indicate that the relationship between the
subject and the predicate is inherent. Since inherent and contingent
predications differ in duration, I argue that the functional projection that
introduces pronominal copulas is the duration phrase (DurP). I assume that,
just like TAM projections, DurP has the ability to check formal features and
trigger displacement.
In the sections that follow, I present supporting evidence for the
DurP analysis of pronominal copulas. These pieces of evidence are three: (1)
the atemporal interpretation of pronoun copular clauses which proves that
they do not contain tense, (2) optional vs. obligatory presence of pronominal
190 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

copulas, (3) the interpretational difference between copulaless clauses and

pronominal copula clauses. I discuss each of them in turn.

2.1. The atemporal interpretation of pronominal copulas

It is usually claimed that clauses with pronominal copulas in Hebrew and

Arabic are present tense (Doron 1983, Rapoport 1987, Rothstein 1995
among others). This, however, does not hold for Geez. Geez pronominal
copula clauses are rather atemporal. They are either interpreted as past or
non-past (Kifle 1948:77), given that their temporal location is determined
pragmatically by the temporal location of the subject and the predicate, just
like copulaless clauses:
(7) a. kɨlʔe-homu s’adk’-an ɨmmuntu (Luke 1:6)
two-3PL.GEN righteous-PL they
Both of them (Zacharias and Elisabeth) were righteous.

b. anä etiyop’iyawi wɨʔtu

I Ethiopian he
I am an Ethiopian.

Both clauses in the above examples contain pronominal copulas. However,

they have different temporal interpretations. (7)a is past because the subjects
Zacharias and Elisabeth do not exist (at the time of speech). (7)b is present
because I exist. These interpretations show that pronominal copulas do not
indicate tense. If the clauses were tense-marked, we could not have different
temporal interpretations. This excludes the present tense analysis of Geez
pronominal copula clauses. Unlike their counterparts in languages like
Hebrew and Arabic (Doron 1983, Rapoport 1987, Edwards 2006, Eid 1983
among others), Geez pronominal copula clauses are not necessarily present
tense.
With the DurP, analysis such a difference in temporal interpretation
is not a problem. The DurP indicates whether the predication relationship is
inherent or contingent, and this kind of a relationship can be established in
the past, present or future. What matters here is not the point of temporal
location; rather the fact that the relationship is/was/will be an inherent
property of the subject.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 191

2.2. Obligatory vs. optional presence and absence of pronominal

copulas

Strong evidence which shows that pronominal copulas in Geez indicate

inherent predication comes from the clauses where pronoun copulas are
either obligatory or optional.
In Hebrew, the obligatory and optional presence of pronominal
copulas has been attributed to the identity vs. predicational distinction
(Rapoport 1987, Rothstein 1995) and to the generic and non-generic
interpretation (Greenberg 2002). However, this distinction cannot account
for the obligatory/ optional distribution of pronominal copulas in Geez.
Although pronominal copulas are obligatory in identity (8)b and generic
clauses (8)c, they can also appear optionally (8)a or obligatorily (8)d in
clauses which cannot be interpreted as generic or identity:
(8) a. yonas (wɨʔtu) mämhɨr/näwwiha
Jonas he teacher/tall
Jonas is a teacher/tall.

b. addis ababa *(yɨʔti) finfinne91

Addis Ababa she Finfinne
Addis Ababa is Finfinne.

c. arwe *(wɨʔtu) nämr

wild he tiger
Tigers are wild

d. anӓ *(wɨʔtu) sӓbʔ

I he human.being
I am a human being

The obligatory and optional distribution of pronominal copulas in the above

Geez clauses is rather correlated with whether the predicate is necessarily
interpreted as inherent or not. That is, pronominal copulas are obligatory in
clauses where the predication/identity relationship is necessarily interpreted
as inherent. The identity relation between Addis Ababa and Finfinne in (8)b,
the generic relationship between tiger and wildness in (8)c and the
predicational relationship between I and human being in (8)d are necessarily

91
Finfinne is another name of Addis Ababa
192 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

interpreted as inherent. None of them can be interpreted as non-inherent. The

clause (8)a which contains pronominal copulas optionally on the other hand
is not necessarily interpreted as inherent. Jonas’ teacherhood or tallness can
be inherent or acquired. The obligatory and optional distribution of
pronominal copulas therefore witnesses the claim that they indicate inherent
relationship.
Although it needs further investigation, my proposal has a potential
to be extended to languages like Hebrew, Polish and Scotish Gaelic. As I
mentioned above the presence of pronominal copulas in these languages is
assumed to be associated with identity (Rapoport 1987), generic (Greenberg
2002) and individual level (Citko 2008, Adger and Ramchand 2003)
interpretations. What is common with all these clauses is that the
relationship between the subject and the predicate is inherent. If this is the
case, clauses which contain pronominal copulas in these languages can also
be analyzed accordingly.

2.3. Interpretational difference between pronominal copular

clauses and simple juxtaposed clauses

Greenberg (2002:269), citing Bendavid (1971), notes that there is a semantic

distinction in Hebrew depending on the presence and absence of the
pronominal copula. For example (9)a expresses the notion that the sky in
general is blue while (9)b is interpreted as the sky is blue now:
(9) a. ha-šamayim hem kxulim
the-sky they blue
The sky is generally blue/blue by its nature.

b. ha-šamayim kxulim
the-sky blue
The sky is blue now/today.

Although native intuition is not available to prove whether a similar

distinction holds in Geez, there are still some traces of evidence which
confirm that such is the case. The following examples are from Dillmann
(1907: 498):
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 193

(10) a. ɨsmӓ rӓɦab yɨʔti mɨdr k’ɨdme-homu

for empty she land before-3MPL.GEN
For the land before them is spacious. (The land is generally
spacious.)

b. ɨsmӓ rӓɦab mɨdr k’ɨdme-homu.

For empty land before-3MPL.GEN.
For the land is spacious before them.( The land is spacious
for them.)

The spaciousness of the land in (10)a is true irrespective of the number of

inhabitants. Spaciousness is inherent property of the land. The spaciousness
of the land in (10)b on the other hand is relative to the inhabitants. The land
which is said to be spacious relative to some inhabitants may be non-
spacious for others. This interpretational difference due to the presence and
absence of pronominal copulas also supports my claim that pronominal
copulas indicate inherent predication.
To summarize then, in the last three sections, I presented my
arguments for the claim that pronominal copulas indicate the inherent
predicational/identity relationship rather than tense. Based on the atemporal
interpretation of clauses which contain pronoun copulas, I argue that
pronominal copular clauses do not contain tense/aspect marking. Based on
the facts that pronominal copulas are obligatory in clauses which are
interpreted as necessarily inherent and they are optional in clauses which are
not necessarily inherent, and based on the interpretational effect of the
presence and absence pronouns, I argue that pronominal copulas are used to
indicate an inherent predication/identity relationship. From the syntactic
point of view, I hypothesize that they project a DurP.

2.4. Syntactic structure of pronominal copula clauses

Despite the difference in category, pronominal copulas behave like the

verbal copula konä with regard to agreement and predicate selection. That
means, they show up with all types of predicates and agree only with the
subject or show default 3MSG agreement. These properties suggest that
pronominal copulas can be analyzed as selecting a small clause complement
and involve subject raising, just like the verbal copula konä. Accordingly,
194 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

the syntactic structure of pronominal copula clauses in (11)a can be analyzed

as (11)b:
(11) a. anä wɨʔtu rädʔ
I he student
I am a student.

b. DurP
DPj ur’
anä Duro PredP
wɨʔtu tj Pred’

Predo NP
rädʔ

Before concluding this section, a few points about copulaless clauses are in
order. Recall that, despite the absence of an overt copula, we saw in chapter
five sections 2 that copulaless clauses show properties of full clauses and I
proposed that they should not be analyzed as small causes. I mentioned that
they should be analyzed as containing a functional projection which
indicates whether the predication relationship is inherent or contingent.
However, I postponed further discussion to this section. I now return to that
issue.
From the discussion of pronominal copulas so far, we have learned
that their presence and absence is due to whether the relationship between
the subject and the predicate is inherent or contingent. This means that just
as the presence of pronominal copulas indicates the predication relationship
is inherent; their absence also indicates that the predication relationship is
non-inherent or contingent. Copulaless clauses can, therefore, be analyzed as
containing the opposite value of pronominal copulas. This means that DurP
has two values: inherent and contingent. Of these, only the first is
lexicalized. The latter is expressed by the absence of the pronominal copula.
In this respect, the morphological expression of non-inherent property in
Geez resembles the expression of present tense in English verbal
morphology. As is known, except for third person singular subjects, present
tense of English lexical verbs is expressed by the absence of a tense suffix.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 195

Similarly, the expression of contingent predication in Geez DurP projection

is expressed by the absence of the pronominal copula.
3. Prepositional copulas
Just as pronominal copulas serve as non-verbal counterparts of the copular
verb konä, prepositional copulas serve as non-verbal counterparts of the
existential verbal copula halläwä. This means that, just like halläwä,
prepositional copulas are used only in locative and possessive clauses (cf.
(12) and (13)). The prepositional copula b- is used to express location and
possession (12) and the prepositional copula l- is used only in possession
(12)c:
(12) a. b-o may wɨstä baɦr
in-3MSG.GEN water inside sea
There is/was water in a sea.

b. b-o bɨʔsit ɨntä tɨ-senni (Kifle1948:250)

in-3MPLGEN woman that 3FSS-be.beautiful.IMPERF
ɨm-bɨʔsit
from-woman
There is a woman who is more beautiful than another woman.

c. la-tti ɨɦu lä-saba

to-3FSG.GEN brother to-Saba
Saba has/had a brother.

(13) a. hallӓw-ӓ mäs’haf läʔlä manbär

be.PERF-3MSGS book on chair
There is/was a book on the chair.

b. halläw-ø-omu mäs’haf lä-ardiʔt

be.PERF-3MSGS-3MPLO book to-student.PL
The students have/had a book.

Prepositional copulas also differ from the verbal copula halläwä in the same
way as pronominal copulas differ from the verbal copula konä. Firstly,
clauses with prepositional copulas are atemporal just like clause with
pronominal copulas (Procházka 2004:64). The temporal interpretation of
196 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

prepositional copula clauses is determined by pragmatics (14). (14)a is

present if the son still exists and past if it doesn’t. (14)b is past if the girl
does not exists; and present if it exists. (14)c is past since both the possessee
and the possessor do not exist, and (14)d&e are past since Adam, his sons
and his wife do not exist any more. This is unlike verbal copula clauses
whose temporal interpretation is past or present when the verb is perfective
(15)a&(16)a and future when the verb is imperfective(15)b&(16)b, similar to
other stative verbs as we saw in chapter five section 3.1:
(14) a. bɨ-kä wäld
in-2MSG.GEN son
You have/had a son.

b. b-o wälätt
in-3MSG.GEN girl
There is/was a girl.

c. wa-b-otu ʔɨɦt sännayt (2Sam: 1)

and-in-3MS.GEN-3MSG.GEN sister beautiful
lä-abselom
to-Absalom
And Absalom had a beautiful sister.

d. b-o addam mɨslä bɨʔsit-u

in-3MSG.GEN Adam with wife-3MSG.GEN
Adam was with his wife.

e. lo-ttu wulud lä-addam

to-3MSG.GEN son.PL to-Adam
Adam had sons.

(15) a. hallӓw-ӓ mäs’haf wɨstä bet

be.PERF-3MSGS book inside house
There is (was) a book in the house.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 197

b. yɨ-hellu mäs’haf wɨstä bet

3MSGS-be.IMPERF book inside house
There will be a book in the house.

(16) a. halläw-ø-wa mäs’haf lä-saba

be.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO book to-Saba
Saba has/had a book.

b. yɨ-hell-a mäs’haf lä-saba

3MSGS-be.IMPERF-3FSGO book to-Saba
Saba will have a book.

Secondly, prepositional copulas are used in inalienable possession (17) and

location (18) which are obligatory inherent relationships:
(17) a. b-omu ʔayn
in-3PL.GEN eye
They have eyes.

b. b-ɨna ʔɨzn
in-1PL.GEN ear
We have ears.

c. b-ɨkɨmu ʔid
in-2PL.GEN hand
You have arms.

(18) b-o arawɨt wɨstӓ gӓdam

in-3MS.GEN wild.animals inside forest
There are wild animals in forest. (They live in the forest)

This comparison between prepositional copulas and the verbal copula

halläwä suggests two points. Firstly, the fact that prepositional copulas are
used to express inherent location and possession indicates that their role is
the same us pronominal copulas. Secondly, the fact that they are used to
express location and possession indicates that they are possessor raising
copulas.
The syntactic structure of prepositional copula clauses, therefore, can
be straightforwardly analyzed in the same way as that proposed for the
198 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

copular verb halläwä . This means that prepositional copulas select an NP

complement and involve possessor raising. The possessor raising takes place
to AffP. The motivation for the possessor raising is the same as that of the
verbal copula halläwä. That is, the possessor raises in order to get dative
Case. Accordingly, the derivation of (19)a looks like (19)b. Note that in the
derivation, since the copula carries the gentive agreement, it must be inserted
at Affo and raises to Duro:
(19) a. b-omu lä-ardɨʔt mäs’ haf
in-3MPL.GEN to-student.PL book
The student have a book.

(20) DurP
ur’
o
Dur AffP
bomui NPj Aff’
lä-ardɨʔt Affo NP

ti NPj NP
lä-ardɨʔt mäs’haf

In locative clauses, there is no possessor raising, as there is none in verbal

copula halläwä. Thus AffP is not available in these clauses. The copula is
thus inserted at DurP with an expletive pro which is licensed by an
invariable 3MSG genitive agreement on the preposition, as in (18)a. The
expletive pro is inserted to satisfy the EPP, i.e., because the clause needs a
subject:
(21) DurP
DurP PP
pro ur’ wɨstä gädam
Duro NP
bo arawit
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 199

4. Summary
In this chapter, I dealt with the syntax of Geez copular clauses which contain
pronominal and prepositional copulas. I discussed the role of pronominal and
prepositional copulas in Geez and provided a syntactic analysis of
pronominal and prepositional copular clauses. I showed that pronominal and
prepositional copulas are used to indicate inherent relationships: pronominal
copulas are used to indicate an inherent predicational/ identity relationship
between the subject and the predicate/non-subject NP, while prepositional
copulas indicate an inherent relationship between the locatee and the
location or between the possessor and the possessee. Since inherent and non-
inherent relationships differ in terms of duration, I claim that the copulas
introduce a functional projection of duration (DurP). I also argue that
pronominal copulas take small clause complements and involve subject
raising while prepositional copulas select small clauses and involve
possessor raising.
200 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez
 CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUDING REMARKS
1. Introduction

In the preceding chapters, I provided a syntactic analysis of the copular

constructions of Amharic and Geez which explains:
a. why the copular elements in both languages differ in terms of
their agreement system and the type of predicate they show up
with
b. why the copular clauses in both languages exhibit different
case-marking patterns of NPs/APs
c. how one could account for the fact that Geez has copulaless
clauses, as well as verbal and non-verbal (pronoun and
prepositional) copulas
In this chapter, I summarize the major claims I made in the preceding
chapters, and I discuss some theoretical implications of my claims. The
discussion proceeds as follows. In section 2 I present the summary of the
major ideas raised in the preceding chapters. In section 3, I discuss some
theoretical issues my analysis sheds light on.

2. Summary of the major claims

The major points that I discussed in the last six chapters are summarized as
follows.
202 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

2.1. Chapter one

In this chapter, I introduced the research problem by showing that the non-
verbal predication systems in Amharic and Geez exhibit variations in two
respects: the copular system (presence and absence, agreement system,
category and predicate selection of the copular elements) and the case-
marking pattern of NPs/APs that are found within each type of copular
clause. I showed that such variation poses a challenge to the widely accepted
theoretical assumption that copular clauses have a uniform syntactic
structure which constitutes a predicational core known as small clause and a
copula inserted in order to support tense, aspect or mood.
Having mentioned that such kind of variation is not unique to
Amharic, I discussed the different theoretical proposals advanced to account
for similar variations in the copular and case-marking systems of different
languages. With regard to the absence of a copula, I showed that there are
two types of accounts: the small-clause account and the full-clause account,
the latter being the analysis I argued for Geez copulaless clauses. With
regard to the presence of more than one copular element, we saw that the
analyses can be inclusive (which reject the copular status of one of the
existing copular elements and consider it a subject or a predicate) or
exclusive (which consider all the existing copular elements as real copulas).
Within the inclusive analyses, again, we saw that there are different views;
one view arguing that the different copulas arise from the fact that the IP is
specified for different features; the second view associating the presence of
more than one copula to the presence of defective and non-defective small-
clause heads; and the third view, to which I also side with, arguing that the
different copulas are realizations of different BE’s.
With regard to case-marking, we saw that most of the research is
geared towards explaining why subjects and predicates are marked with the
same or different cases. ‘Sameness’ of case-marking on the subject and the
predicate is argued to be the result of case-agreement between the subject
and the predicate (Comrie 1997), or Case assignment by the same Case-
assigning head (Maling and Sprouse 1995, Bailyn 2001, Matushansky 2008,
Citko 2008). Different case-marking of the subject and the predicate, on the
other hand, has been argued to be the result of the fact that the predicate is
assigned Case by the copula (Maling and Sprouse 1995, Comrie 1997), by
Predo (Bailyn 2001, Citko 2008), or due to the presence of an intervening
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 203

Case-assigner in the small clause (Matushansky 2008), which I also argued

in favor of.

2.2. Chapter two

In chapter two, I discussed the morpho-syntax of aspect and agreement in

Amharic and Geez which serves as a basis for explaining a number of
phenomena in the non-verbal predication system of the languages. In the
section on aspect, I focus on the two canonical verbal forms: perfective and
imperfective. Based on the morphological structure and (in-)compatibility of
perfective and imperfective verbs with auxiliaries, I argued that perfective
verbs move up to To while imperfective verbs remain in lower syntactic
positions. In the section on agreement, I showed that subject agreement is
related to aspect and tense. Regarding object agreement, I argued that it is
related to affectedness based on three pieces of evidence: (1) the obligatory
occurrence of object agreement with affected objects, (2) the impossibility of
object agreement with unaffected objects and (3) the semantic effect of
object agreement in contexts where it is optional. I also showed that genitive
agreement is the counterpart of subject and object agreement with nominal
heads. Moreover, I showed, based on Geez that the phi-features of
agreement are realized in terms of proximity, non-speaker and
diminutive/augmentative features, rather than person, number and gender
features.

2.3. Chapter three

Chapter three focuses on Amharic copular verbs, which differ in terms of

their agreement system and the type of predicate they show up with. After
summarizing the different proposals forwarded to explain the presence of
more than one copula in a given language, I defended the position that there
are more than one BE in Amharic. In order to show this, I thoroughly
discussed the agreement patterns of personal and impersonal verbs and the
phenomenon of raising in the language. With regard to the agreement
system, I showed that Amharic personal verbs are marked only for subject
agreement or for subject and object agreement, while impersonal verbs are
obligatorily marked for both an invariable 3msg subject agreement and
object agreement. On the basis of this, I argued that the present tense
predicational copula näw which is necessarily marked for a 3msg subject
agreement and an object agreement is an impersonal copula while the
204 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

existential copula allä and the past tense copula näbbär which are marked
for subject agreement only or for both subject and object agreement with a
corresponding BE and HAVE interpretations are personal copulas.
Regarding the raising phenomena, I discussed that Amharic exhibits
two types of raising: subject raising and possessor raising. With regard to
subject raising, I showed that there are two sub-types: raising to the subject
position of the matrix clause and raising to the affected object position (Aff).
The first is seen in canonical raising verbs where the subject of the
complement clause triggers subject agreement on the matrix verb. The
second is seen in ECM verbs where the subject of the complement clause is
assigned accusative and triggers object agreement on the matrix verb. For
possessor raising, I have shown that it is observed when the possessor of an
internal argument is assigned nominative or accusative Case, and triggers
object agreement just like an affected object of the matrix verb.
Having discussed this intricate system of raising, I showed that
Amharic copular verbs are different types of raising verbs. I argued that the
present tense predicational copula näw, on which the subject of the small
clause triggers object agreement involves subject raising to the affected
object position (AffP) just like ECM verbs; the existential present tense
copula allä is a possessor raising verb which involves raising the possessor
of its complement NP to AffP; while näbbär, which is the past tense
counterpart of allä and näw involves possessor raising to AffP when it is
interpreted as HAVE and subject raising to TP when it is interpreted as BE.
I also showed that the difference between the copular verbs with
regard to the type of predicate they combine with follows from the fact that
they are of different types of verbs. näw shows up with all types of
predicates because it is subject raising verb which selects small clause
complements. allä shows up only with NPs, though it allows an adjunct PP,
because it is a possessor raising verb which selects an NP complement.
näbbär shows up with NPs, APs, and PPs in its BE interpretation and only
with NPs in its HAVE interpretation because it is involves subject raising
and possessor raising by selecting small clause complements and NP
complements, respectively.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 205

2.4. Chapter four

Chapter four deals with the accusative and nominative case-marking

alternation of predicates of subject raising copulas näw and näbbär in
Amharic. In this chapter, I defended the view that predicate case-marking is
determined by the presence and absence of a case-assigning functional head
within the small clause following Matushansky (2008). I support my
argument by three differences between copular clauses with accusative and
nominative predicates in Amharic: (1) the eventive and non-eventive
interpretation (2) the difference in word order (3) the subject predicate
agreement. That is clauses with accusative predicates have eventive
interpretation, allow predicates to have number and gender features different
from the subject and lack predicate-subject word order, while clauses with
nominative predicates have non-eventive interpretation, obligatorily require
the predicate to be marked for number and gender features identical to the
subject and can have a predicate-subject order. Based on this, I claim that
clauses with accusative predicates, unlike their nominative counterparts,
contain a functional element which introduces eventivity, controls the phi-
features of the predicate and blocks movement of the predicate to clause
initial position. Consequently, I argue that accusative case must be assigned
by the functional element which introduces the eventivity. However, I claim
that the eventivity is not associated with the head of the small clause which
is responsible for predication, contra Citko (2008), nor with the matrix verb
which selects the small clause contra Matushansky (2008). I argued that the
eventivity projection must be an independent functional projection below
Predo. The alternation in predicate case-marking is, thus, due to the presence
or absence of this functional head. That is, predicates are assigned accusative
when the eventive functional head is present. In the absence of this
functional head, however, I claim, following Pereltsvaig (2001), that the
predicate receives the default Case.

2.5. Chapter five

Chapter five discusses copulaless clauses and the verbal copulas of Geez,
namely konä and halläwä which are used in order to indicate tense, aspect
and mood. With regard to copulaless clauses, I defended the view that they
are full clauses based on the facts that; (1) their subjects are assigned
nominative, (2) they are embedded under a complementizer which embeds
206 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

only finite clauses, and (3) they move their subjects preceding the
complementizer
With regard to the copular verbs, I showed that they also differ in
terms of predicate selection, agreement and case-marking of NPs and APs. I
argued that this is due to the fact that Geez is similar to Amharic having
more than one BE: one (konä) selecting small clause complements and
involving subject raising and the other (halläwä) selecting an NP
complement and involving possessor raising. Regarding the case-marking,
however, I showed that Geez exhibits different pattern from Amharic. The
subject raising copula has nominative subjects and accusative predicates,
while possessor raising copula has nominative possessee and dative
possessor. I argued that such difference is due to the fact that the eventivity
functional projection is always present within small clause complements of
Geez subject raising verbal copula, and that Geez has a structural dative
Case.

2.6. Chapter six

In chapter six, I discussed pronoun and prepositional copular clauses of

Geez. I argued that these copulas are used to indicate that the predication,
identity, location and possession relationship is inherent as opposed to verbal
copulas which are used to indicate tense, aspect and mood. Pronoun copulas
are used when the predicational/identity relationship between the subject and
the predicate is inherent as opposed to contingent, while prepositional
copulas are used when the relationship between the locatee and the location
or the possessee and the possessor is inherent. Since the difference between
inherent and contingent relationship is duration, I consider that the functional
projection which they introduce as a duration projection (DurP). With regard
to their syntax, I argue that pronoun copulas, which appear with all types of
predicates just like the verbal copula konä, selects small-clause complements
and involve subject raising while prepositional copulas, which appear only
with PPs and NPs like the verbal copula halläwä., selects NP complements
and involve possessor raising.

3. Some theoretical implications

The analysis which I provided for Amharic and Geez copular clauses sheds
light on some theoretical assumptions, namely (a) on the syntactic structure
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 207

of copular constructions and the role of copular elements, and (b) on the
relationship between BE and HAVE . I will discuss each of them in turn.

3.1. Syntactic structure of copular clauses

As I mentioned above, since Stowell (1981), the widely accepted analysis of

copular constructions is that they involve a small clause and a copula
inserted in order to support To. The syntactic derivation of copular clauses
then proceeds in such a way that the copula at TP establishes agreement with
the subject of the small clause in order to check its uninterpretable phi-
features. The subject is assigned nominative Case as a byproduct of the
agreement it enters with the copula. The subject, then, moves to spec, TP in
order to fulfill the EPP feature of T. Since Bowers (1993), the small clause is
assumed to be headed by a functional head known as Predo. Accordingly,
copular clause are assumed to have a structure in (22):
(1) TP
NPi T’
subject To PredP
copula ti Pred’
o
Pred NP/AP/PP
Predicate
Whether the structure in (22) accommodates all types of copular clauses or
not, however, has been an issue of debate. Rapoport (1987), Rothstein (1995,
Perelsvaig (2001), for example, argue that identity clause do not contain
Predo, and claim that in this case the copula is a lexical verb which takes two
arguments. The analysis of copular clauses of Amharic and Geez as subject
and possessor raising constructions adds another argument that (22) is not
the only available structure of copular constructions. The analysis indicates
that the structure in (22) may vary along three dimensions. Firstly, the
syntactic analysis of copular clauses in Amharic and Geez suggests that
copular clauses do not necessarily involve small clauses. In addition to small
clauses, copular elements can also take NP complements (2)a, which may
also take a possessor as in (2)b that undergoes raising like (3), as I argued in
chapters three and five:
(2) a. halläw-ä mäs’haf Geez
be.perf-3MSGS book
There is a book.
208 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

b. halläw-ø-a mäs’haf lä-saba

be.perf-3MSGS-3FSGO book to-Saba
Saba has a book.

(3) TP
[halläw-ø-a]i AspP
NPk Asp’
mäs’haf Aspo AffP
ti NPj Aff’
lä-saba Affo NP
ti NPj NPk
mäs’haf

Secondly, as we saw with impersonal copulas in Amharic, the subject of the

small clause does not necessarily raises to spec, TP. It can also raise to an
intermediate functional projection. In other words, the copula is inserted to
support not only To, but also Affo, as I showed with the impersonal and the
possessor raising copulas in chapter four and five (cf. (3)&(4)):
(4) a. ɨne tämari n-ä-ň Amharic
I student be.PRES-3MSGS-1SGO
I am a student.

b. TP
Explpro T’
AffP To
ɨnei Aff’ n-ä-ňj
vP Affo
PredP vo tj
ti Pred’ tj
Predo NP
tämari
Thirdly, the contrast between non-verbal (pronoun and prepositional)
copulas and verbal copulas in Geez suggests that copular clauses may not be
marked for tense, aspect or mood. Instead, they may be atemporal and
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 209

contain a functional projection which is responsible for determining whether

the predication, identity, location or possession relationship is inherent or
contingent. In this case, the functional projection may be what I call duration
projection (DurP) since the two relationships differ in terms of duration.
Accordingly, as I showed in chapter six, clauses with non-verbal copulas
like(5)a are analyzed as in (5)b:
(5) a. anä wɨʔtu rädʔ
I he student
I am a student.

b. DurP
DPj ur’
anä Duro PredP
wɨʔtu DPj Pred’
anä Predo NP
rädʔ

3.2. On the relationship between BE and HAVE

Another important issue that copular constructions in Amharic and Geez

shed light on is the relationship between BE and HAVE. Theoretically
speaking there are two proposals with regard to the relation between BE and
HAVE. These are proposals of Freeze (1992) and Kayne (2000) on the one
hand and that of Moro (1997) on the other hand. Both proposals agree that
BE and HAVE have the same underlying structure. They propose two
different ideas regarding why they are spelled-out as BE and HAVE.
According to Freeze and Kayne, BE is a spelled-out as HAVE when a
preposition is incorporated to it. Moro (1997), on the other hand, claims that
the BE is spelled-out as HAVE when it takes an external argument. I will
show their arguments in detail in the sections that follow:

3.2.1. Have = be + P(reposition)

Freeze (1992) and Kayne (2000) consider HAVE as the spell-out of BE and
an incorporated P. This incorporated P originates as a head of the
complement of BE. The incorporation takes place after the P undergoes a
head-to-head movement to Infl where BE originates. Then the combination
210 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

of BE and the raised P is spelled-out as ‘HAVE’. Schematically the

simplified version of their proposal can be represented as follows:
(6) [BE[PP[P’[Po][NP]]]] [BE+Poi[PP[P’[ti][NP]]]] [HAVE[PP[P’[ti]
[NP]]]]
(7) is derivation of the English sentences ‘Tom has a book’ by Freeze
(1992:588), and (8) is the analysis of ‘John has three sisters’ by Kayne based
on his discussion:
(7) a. IP
XP I’
. I PP
NP P’
P NP
e be theme p Location
a book Փ Tom

b. Tomj [ be+Pi] a book ti tj

Toma has a book’

(8) TP
DPi T’
John BE+D/Pj DP
ti /P’
DO/PO AGROP
Spelled out as HAVE tj ti AGRO’
AGRO QP/NP
three sisters
Both Freeze and Kayne assume that there is an abstract P, which originates
in the complement of BE. Freeze supports his assumption by the presence of
BE and overt P sentences which may also have a ‘have’ alternative in other
languages. See for example, the following Portuguese example he
mentioned:
(9) a. o menino tem fome. Freeze (1992:587)
The child has hunger
The child is hungry.
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 211

b. o menino esta com fome.

The child is with hunger
The child is hungry.

According to Freeze, the account of an abstract P in languages like English

in (7) is parallel to the visible lexical expressions of BE and P in the
Portuguese case. The reason why P is not overtly seen adjacent to BE in
English, unlike in the Portuguese, is because it moves to INFL before spell
out. In this case, what is spelled-out as HAVE is the combination of BE and
the incorporated P. Kayne, on the other hand, assumes an abstract P on the
basis of two more general assumptions that English allows empty
prepositional complementizers (Kayne 1981) and that DPs are similar to
CPs92 ( Szabolcsi 1987).
Generally, according to Freeze and Kayne, whether BE is spelled-
out as HAVE is determined by whether the preposition is incorporated to it
or not. If there is no incorporated preposition, it is spelled out as BE. If the
preposition from the complement position is incorporated, it is spelled out as
HAVE.

3.2.2. HAVE= BE+ external argument

Moro (1997) argues that HAVE (Italian avere) and BE (Italian essere) have
the same underlying structure. The BE and HAVE alternation is the result of
whether there is an external argument or not. If there is an external
argument, the verb is spelled-out as HAVE. If there is no external argument,
it is spelled-out as BE. The following is the structure Moro (1997: 237)
proposed for them:
(10) a. Structure of HAVE b. Structure of BE
VP VP
DP V’ [e] V’
V SC V SC
HAVE DP ci BE DP ci
Moro’s argument is based on the presence of the clitic ci ‘there’, which he
considers a propredicate, with both essere and avere clauses as follows:

92
Note that according to Kayne’s analysis, ‘BE” selects the possessive P
complement. In this regard Kayne’s analysis of BE is similar to my analysis of
existential BE which involves possessor raising.
212 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

(11) a. ci-sono molti libri (Moro 1997: 236)

there-are many book.PL
there-are many books.

b. i ragazzi ci hanno molti libri

the boy.PL there-have many book.PL
the boys there-have many books

According to Moro, the propredicate clitic ci ‘there’ is base generated as the

predicate of the small clause complement as in (10) before it raises to the
prominent position of the clause. Accordingly, the derivation of (11)a is like
(12), with the clitic originating as predicate of the small clause and raising to
the copula:
(12) [IP cii sono] [SC[DP molti libri] ti]
Since ci is present with avere as in (11)b, Moro claims that avere also takes
a small clause complement, suggesting that both avere and essere have the
same underlying structure, except that avere contains one additional DP, i
ragazzi, which Moro claims to be an external argument.

3.2.3. The relation between BE and HAVE in Amharic and

Geez

The analysis which I provided for Amharic and Geez copular clauses
provides another dimension on the relation between BE and HAVE. That is,
Amharic and Geez also witness that BE and HAVE have the same
underlying structure. However, their difference is not due to preposition
incorporation (contra Freeze 1992, Kayne 2000) nor due to the
presence/absence of an external argument (contra Moro 1997). It is rather
due to whether possessor raising has taken place or not: HAVE is an
existential BE which involves possessor raising.
As we saw from chapter three, five and six, the existential BE and
HAVE are expressed by the same copular elements. The existential BE is
interpreted as BE when it is marked only for subject agreement (cf. (13) &
(15)a), and it is interpreted as HAVE when it is marked for subject and
object agreement (cf. (3) & (15)b). As I argued in those chapters, the
existential BE shows this kind of agreement depending on whether it
involves possessor raising or not. This means that when there is possessor
raising, the existential BE takes two agreement markers and is interpreted as
 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 213

HAVE. When there is no possessor raising, the existential BE is marked

only for subject agreement and it is interpreted as BE. This suggests that
HAVE and existential BE have the same underlying structure, and that their
difference originates from their derivational history: whether the derivation
involves possessor raising or not.
(13) a. saba ɨ-bet wɨst’ all-äčč Amharic
Saba at-house inside be.PRES-3FSGS
Saba is at the home.

b. saba mämhɨr/tɨllɨk’/ɨ-bet wɨst’ näbbär-äčč

Saba teacher/ tall/at-house inside be.PST-3FSGS
Saba was a teacher/tall/at home.

(14) a. saba mämhɨr-očč all-u-at

Saba teacher-PL be.PRES-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba has teachers.

b. saba mämhɨr-očč näbbär-u-at

Saba teacher-PL be.PST-3PLS-3FSGO
Saba had teachers.

(15) a. halläw-u wɨstä gädam Geez

be.PERF-3MPLS inside field
They were in the field.

b. halläw-ø-a mäs’ha f lä-saba

be.PERF-3MSGS-3FSGO book to-Saba
Saba have/had a book.

4. Summary

In this chapter, I summarize the major points and claims I made in the
preceding chapters. In section 2, I discussed the major focal points of each
chapter of the dissertation and showed the major claims I made in order to
explain the variation between the copular clauses in Amharic and Geez. In
section 3, I discussed two theoretical implications of the analysis I made. I
showed that the analysis of the copular clauses in Amharic and Geez sheds
light on two major issues: on the internal syntactic structure of copular
clauses and on the relationship between BE and HAVE. regarding the
214 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

internal structure of copular clauses, I showed that the analysis which I

proposed for Amharic and Geez copular constructions sheds light on three
aspects: (a) not all copular constructions involve small clause, (b) the copula
is inserted to support not only To, but also Affo and (c) copular clauses may
not be marked for tense, aspect or mood. Regarding the relationship between
BE and HAVE, I showed that Amharic and Geez copular clauses provide
another dimension of relation: HAVE is an existential BE which involves
possessor raising.
References

Aarts, B. (1992). Small Clauses in English: The Non-verbal Types. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Abusch, D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and

Philosophy 20: 150.

Ackema, P. and M. Schoorlemmer (1994). The middle construction and the

syntax-semantics interface. Lingua 93, 59-90.

Adger, D. and G. Ramchand (2003). Predication and equation. Linguistic

Inquiry 34(3), 325-359.

Ahland, C.A. (2012). A Grammar of Northern and Southern Gumuz. Doctoral

dissertation, University of Oregon.

Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural

Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 435-483.

Al Sherifi, B. and L. Sadler (2009). Adjectival construct in Arabic. In M. Butt

and T.H. King (eds.) Proceedings of LFG 09 Conference, 26-43. CSLI
Publications.

Amberber, M. (1996). Transitive Alternations, Event-types and Light Verbs.

Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.

Amberber, M. (1997). The unergative-unaccusative distinction and the

benefactive applicative in Amharic. In A. Bailey, K.E. Moore, and J.L.
Moxley (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Syntax and Semantics
in Africa, 1-13.
216 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Amberber, M. (2005). Differential subject marking in Amharic, in M. Amberber

and H. de Hoop (eds.) Competition and Variation in Natural
Languages: the Case for Case, 295-319. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Anderson, M. (1977). NP pre-posing in noun phrases. In M. Stein (ed.)

Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 8, 12-21.
Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.

Anderson, M. (1979). Noun Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation, University

of Connecticut.

Anderson, M. (2006). Affectedness. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.)

Blackwell Companion to Syntax 1, 122-141. Blackwell, Oxford.

Asratie, M. (2005). Cliticization in Amharic: The Syntax of Prepositional-

Complementizers. MA thesis, Addis Ababa University.

Asratie, M. (2014). Case-marking in Amharic copular constructions. In R.

Meyer, Y. Treis and A. Ameha (eds) Explorations in Ethiopian
Linguistics: Complex Predicates, Finiteness and Interrogativty, 259-
281. Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden.

Bailyn, J. (2001). The syntax of Slavic predicate case. In A. E. Strigin (ed.) ZAS
Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1-26. Berlin: Zentrum für
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.

Bailyn, J. (2002). Overt predicators. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10, 23-52.

Bailyn, J. and E. J. Rubin (1991). The unification of instrumental case

assignment in Russian. In A. J. Toribio and W.E. Harbert (eds.)
Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 99-126. New York:
Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University.
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 217

Baker, M. (2012a). “Obliqueness” as a component of argument structure in

Amharic”. In Cristina Cuervo and Yves Roberge (eds.) The End of
Argument Structure? Emerald Press, pp. 43-74. (manuscript version)

Baker, M. (2012b). On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case:

evidence from Amharic. Lingusitic Inquiry 43, 255-274.

Baker, M and R. Kramer (2014). Rethinking Amharic prepositions as case

markers inserted at PF. Lingua 145, 141-172.
Banksira, D. (2000). Sound mutations: The morphophonology of Chaha.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bary, C. and M. Egg (2012). Varieties in Ancient Greek aspect interpretation.

Linguistics and Philosophy 35(2), 11-134.

Ben David, A. (1962). Leshon ha-mikra ve-leshon xaxamim. Tel-Aviv: Dvir.

Benmamoun, E. (2000). The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A

Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects. New York, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Borer, H. (2005). In Name Only: Structuring Sense, volume 2. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Borer, H. and Y. Grodzinsky. (1986). Syntactic cliticization and lexical

cliticization: the case of Hebrew dative clitics. In H. Borer (ed.) The
Syntax of Pronominal Clitics: Syntax and Semantics 19, 175-215. New
York: Academic Press.

Bošković, Ž. (2005). On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of
NP. Studia Linguistica 59, 1-45.
218 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle

Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr

Bossong, G. (1991). Differential object marking in Romans and beyond. In D.

Wanner and D. Kibbee (eds.) New Analyses in Roman Linguistics:
Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Roman
Languages, 143-170. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bowers, J. (1993). The Syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656.

Bowers, J. (2003). Predication. In M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds.) The Handbook

of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 299-333. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bryan, M. (1959). The T/K languages: A new Substratum. Africa 29, 1-21

Bryan, M. (1968). The *N/*K language of Africa. Journal of African Languages

7, 169-217.

Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht:

Reidel.

Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Carnie, A. (1995). Non-verbal Predication and Head Movement. Doctoral

dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.

Carstens, V. (2011). Hyperactivity and Hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua

121(5): 721-741.

Carstens, V. and M. Diercks. (2013). Parameterizing Case and Activity: Hyper-

raising in Bantu. In Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell and Robert
Staubs (eds.) Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East
Linguistic Society, 99-118. Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 219

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris

Publications.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

press.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D.

Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist
Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A

Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Citko, B. (2008). Small clauses reconsidered: not so small and not all alike.
Lingua 118, 261-295.

Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and

Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Comrie, B. (1997). The typology of predicate case marking. In J. J. Baybee (ed.)

Essays on Language Function and Language Type, 39-50. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Cornips, L. and A. Hulk (1998). Affected objects in Heerlen Dutch and

Romance. Languages in Contrast 1(2), 191-210.

Croft, W. (1988). Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. Barlow
and C. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language, 159-179.
Stanford: CSLI.
220 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Davies, W. and T. Kaplan (1998). Native speaker vs. L2 learner grammaticality

judgments. Applied Linguistics, 19(2):183-203.

Deal, A. R. (2013). Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry, 44:3, 391-432.

chaine, R. (1993). Predicates across Categories: Towards a Category-Neutral

Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Amherst.

Demeke, G. (2003). Clausal Syntax of Ethio-Semitic. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Tromsø.

Demeke, G. (2007). Copula constructions in Geez and Tigre. In J. Crass and R.

Meyer (eds.) Deictics, Copula, and Focus in the Ethiopian
Convergence Area, 153-165. Koln: Rudiger Koppe Verlag.

Demeke, G. and R. Meyer (2001). A reexamination of tense in Amharic. In

Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 65, 143-155.

den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication,

Predicate Inversion and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dillmann, A. (1907). Ethiopic Grammar. Improved and enlarged by Karl

Bezold, translated by J. A. Crichton. London: William and Norgate.

Doron, E. (1983). Verbless Predicates in Hebrew. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Texas at Austin.

Edwards, M. (2006). Pronouns, agreement and focus in Egyptian Arabic. SOAS

Working Wapers in Linguistics 14, 51-62.

Eid, M. (1983). The copula function of pronouns. Lingua 59, 197-207.

Elliott, J. R. (2000). Realis and irrealis: forms and concepts of the

grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4, 55-90.
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 221

Enç¸ M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1), 1-25.

Engidashet, H. (1998). Empty Categories in Amharic and the Theory of

Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delhi.

Fenta, Y. (1986). Fɨnotä Geez. Asmara, Franchescana Printing Press.

Fassi-Fehri, A. (1982). Linguistique a e o e et nte t t on. Rabat:

Publications de la facult des ettres et Sciences Humaines.

Fassi-Fehri, A. (2003). Distributing features and affixes in Arabic subject verb

agreement paradigms. In Research in Afroasiatic grammar: Papers
from the 3rd Conference on Afroasiatic Languages. Sophia Antipolis,
France 1996, ed.

J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm & U. Shlonsky, 79–100. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Fiengo, R. (1980). Surface Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard

University Press.

Freeze, R. (1992). Existentials and other locatives. Language 68, 553-595.

Gass, S. (1983). The development of L2 intuitions. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2):

273-291.

Giorgi, A. and G. Longobardi (1991). The Syntax of Noun Phrases:

Configuration, Parameters, and Empty Categories. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
222 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Goldenberg, G. (1964). On the Amharic tense system. Journal of Semitic Studies

9(1), 47-49.

Greenberg, Y. (2002). Manifestation of genericity in the tense aspect system of

Hebrew nominal senetences. in J. Ouhalla and U. Shlonsky (eds.)
Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax, 267-298. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2001). Phases, case and accessibility: the case of extraction

from DP in Spanish. In J. McCloskey (ed.) Syntax and Semantics at
Santa Cruz 3, 104-118. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center,
University Of California.

Haile, G. (1967). Demonstrative pronouns in Amharic. Journal of Ethiopian

Studies 5, 9-12.

Haile, G. (1970). The suffix pronouns in Amharic. In C.W. Kim and H. Stahlke
(eds.) Papers in African Linguistcs, 101-111. Edmonton: Linguistc
Research.

Haile, G. (1974). The copula näw in Amharic. Proceedings of the Fourth

International Conference of Ethiopian Studies.

Halefom, G. (1994). The Syntax of Functional Categories: A Study of Amharic.

Doctoral dissertation, University of Quebec at Montreal.

Harbour, D. (2006). The elimination of geometry. Paper presented at the

University of Toronto Colloquium.

Hazout, I. (2000). Adjectival genitive constructions in Modern Hebrew. The

Linguistic Review 17:29-52.

Hazout, I. (2010). Verbless sentences and clause structure. Linguistic Inquiry 41:
471-485.
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 223

Heck, F., G. Müller and J. Trommer. (2008). A phase-based approach to

Scandinavian definiteness marking. In C. B. Chang and H. J. Haynie
(eds.) Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, 226-233. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.

Heggie, L. (1988). The Syntax of Copular Structures. Doctoral dissertation,

University of South California.

Heller, D. (2002). Possession as a lexical relation: evidence from the Hebrew

construct state. In L. Mikkelsen and C. Potts, (eds.) Proceedings of the
21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 127-140.

Higgins, F. R. (1979). The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. New York,

London: Garland Publishing.

Hiraiwa, K. (2005). Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and

Clausal Architecture. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.

Hoekstra, E. (1991). On double objects in English and Dutch. In Katherine

Leffel and Denis Bouchard (eds.) Views on Phrase Structure, 83-
95.Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Hong, S. and H. asnik. (2010). A note on ‘raising to object’ in small clauses

and full clauses. Journal of East Asian Linuistics 19, 275-289.

Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic

Inquiry 31(2), 231-270.

Irwin, L. (1966). Some Saysay sentence patterns. Unpublished mimeograph,

Addis Ababa University.
224 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Jaeggli, O. (1986). Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.

Julien, M. (2002). Syntactic heads and word formation. Oxford: Oxford

University
Press.

Kamper, G. (2006). Differential object marking. In L. Varga (ed.) The Even

Yearbook 7 : ELTE SEAS Working Papers in Linguistics. Department
of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.
Retrieved from: http://seas3.elte.hu/delg/publications/even.

Kayne, R. (1981). On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic

Inquiry 12, 349-371.

Kayne, R. (1993). Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia

Linguistica 47, 3-31.

Kebede, E. (1981). The Verb ‘to be’ in Oromo. MA thesis, Addis Ababa
University.

Kifle, K. (1948). M s'h sӓw sɨw wӓgɨss wӓ ӓzgӓ ӓ q l t h dd s. Addis

Ababa: Artistic Printing Press.

Kim, J. (2002). Adjectives in construct. In G. Katz, S. Reinhard, and P. Reuter

(eds.) Sinn and Bedeutung VI: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual
Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, 185-200. University of
Osnabrück.

Klis, M. (2010). Bare PPs from a Multilingual Perspective. MA Thesis, Utrecht

University.

Kramer, R. (2010). The Amharic definite marker and the syntax-morphology

interface. Syntax 13, 196-240.
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 225

Kramer, R. (to appear). Clitic doubling or object agreement: the view from
Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.

Kremers, J. (2005). Adjectival constructs in Arabic. Linguistische Berichte 203,

331-348.

Landau, I. (1999). Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107, 1-37.

Larson. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3),

335-391

Lasnik, H. (2001). Subjects, objects and the EPP. In W. D. Davies and S.

Dubinsky (eds.) Objects and Other Subjects: Grammatical Functions,
Functional Categories, and Configurationality, 103-121. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. (1991). On the subject of infinitives. In L. M. Dobrin,

L. Nichols and R. M. Rodriguez (eds.) Papers from the 27th Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1, 324–343. Chicago
Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. [Reprinted in H. Lasnik,
Minimalist analysis, 7-24. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999].

Le Bruyn, B., H. de Swart and J. Zwarts (2009). Bare PPs across languages, ms.
Utrecht University.

Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2006). German possessor datives: raised and affected.

Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9, 101-142.

Leslau, W. (1995). Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto

Harrassowitz.
226 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Leyew, Z. (2012). Onomatopoetic-ideophones in Ethiopian languages with

particular reference to Amharic. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 45, 1-54.

Lima, A. (2006). A minimalist view on differential object marking for

specificity. Talk presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Michigan
Linguistics Society, Oakland University.

Linn, M. & S. Rosen. 2003. The functional projections of subject splits. In W.

Griffin (ed.) Texas Linguistics Forum (The role of agreement in natural
language: TLS 5 proceedings), 53:135–146.

Maling, J. and A. Sprouse. (1995). Structural case, specifier-head relations, and

the case of predicate NPs. In S. O. H. Haider (ed.) Studies in
Comparative Germanic Syntax, 167-186. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Manahlot, D. (1977). Nominal Clauses in Amharic. Doctoral dissertation,

Georgetown University.

Mandell, P. (1999). On the reliability of grammaticality judgment tests in second

language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 15(1): 73-
99.

Marelj, M. and O. Matushansky (2009). Against overt predicators in Slavic: A

paper presented at the workshop "Syntax and Ontology of
Predication". Paris.

Matushansky, O. (2008). A case study of predication. In F. M. Zaucer (ed.)

Studies in Formal Slavic Linguisitcs: Contributions from Formal
Description of Slavic Languages 6.5, 213-239. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.

McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of non-concatenative morphology.

Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373–418.
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 227

McGinnis, M. (2001). Phases and the syntax of applicatives. In M. Kim and U.

Strauss (eds.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 31, 1-
17. Georgetown University: GLSA.

Mikkelsen, L. (2004). Specificational subjects: a formal characterization and

some consequences. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 36, 79–112.

Mikkelsen, L. (2005). Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and

Equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mikkelsen, L. (2011). Copular clauses. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von

Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds.) Semantics: An International
Handbook of Natural Language Meaning 2, 1805-1829. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Moro, A. (1997). The Raising of Predicates: Predicate Noun Phrases and the
Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mouchaweh, L. (1986). De la Syntaxe de Petites Propositions. Doctoral

dissertation, Université de Paris VIII.

Mullen, D. (1986). Issues in the Morphology and Phonology of Amharic: The

Lexical Generation of Pronominal Clitics. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Ottawa.

Musan, R. (1995). On the Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases. Doctoral

dissertation, MIT.

Nakamura, Y. (1999). The Syntax of Possessor Raising. MA thesis, University

of British Columbia.
228 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Ogihara, T. (1994). Adverbs of quantification and sequence-of-tense

phenomena. In H. Mandy and L. Santelmann (eds.) Proceedings of
SALT 4, 251-267. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University.

Pereltsvaig, A. (2001). On the Nature of Intra-Clausal Relations: A Study of

Copular Sentences in Russian and Italian. Doctoral dissertation,
McGill University, Montréal.

Pereltsvaig, A. (2002). Cognate objects in Modern and Biblical Hebrew. In J.

Ouhalla and U. Shlonsky (eds.) Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax,
107-136. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Perelsvaig, A. (2008). Copular Sentences in Russian: A Theory of Intra-Clausal

Relations. Springer.

Philippaki-Warburton, I. et. al. (2004). Moving from theta positions: pronominal

clitic doubling in Greek. Lingua 114, 963-989.

Postal, P. (1974). On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical
Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Procházka, S. (2004). Altäthiopische Studiengrammatik. Fribourg: Academic

Press – Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis – Subsidia linguistica 2). XII + 111 Seiten.

Pylkkänen, L. (2001). What applicative heads apply to. In M. Minnick, A.

Williams and E. Kaiser (eds.) Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn
Linguistics Colloquium: UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 7.1.

Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing Arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,

Cambridge.

Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 229

Rapoport, T. (1987). Copular, Nominal and Small Clauses: A study of Israeli

Hebrew. Doctoral dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of
Technology.

Richardson, K. (2007). Case and Aspect in Slavic. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Rothstein, S. (1995). small clauses and copular constructions. In A. Cardinaletti

and M.T. Guasti (eds.) Small Clauses: Syntax and Semantics 28, 27-
48. New York: Academic Press.

Siegel, M.E.A. (1976). Capturing the Adjective. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Sigurðsson, H. (1989). Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic: A Comparative GB

Approach. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.

Sigurðsson, H. (1991). Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical

A-positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9, 327-363.

Siloni, T. (2002). Adjectival constructs and inalienable constructions. In J.

Ouhalla and U. Shlonsky (eds.) Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Sim, R. (1989). Predicate Conjoining in Hadiya. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Edinburgh.

Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Svenonius, Peter. 2004. On the edge. In D. Adger, C. de Cat and G. Tsoulas

(eds.) Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects, 259-287.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
230 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Sybesma, R. (992). Causatives and Accomplishments: The Case of Chinese ba.

Dordrecht: HIL.

Szabolcsi, A. (1981). The possessive construction in Hungarian: A

configurational category in a non-configurational language. Acta
Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31.

Szabolcsi, A. (1983). The possessor that ran away from home. Linguistic
Review 3, 89-102.

Teklemariam, A. (1899). yägɨɨz säw ssɨw. Keren: Catholic Printing.

Tenny, C. (1992). The aspectual interface hypothesis. In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi

(eds.) Lexical Matters, 1–28. Stanford: CLSI Publications.

Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.

Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Tourabi, A. 2002. Arabic subject-verb agreement affixes: Morphology,

specification, and Spell-Out. In A. Csirmaz, Z. Li, A. Nevins, O.
Vaysman & M. Wagner (ed.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42:
Phonological answers, 329–356.Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Doctoral

dissertation, MIT.

Travis, L. (2010). Inner Aspect: the Articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.

von Heusinger, K. and J.A. Kaiser (2011). Affectedness and differential object
marking in Spanish. Morphology 21, 593-617.

von Steckow, A. and A. Grønn. (2009). Subordinate tense: English, Russian,

Japanesse a fromal and cross-linguistic perspective. accessed from
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 231

http://www.sfs.uni-
tuebingen.de/~astechow/Handouts/SOT_Parameter.doc.pdf.

Williams, E. (1983). Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(2): 287-308.

Yabe, T. (2001). Clitic doubling and the link with possessed noun phrase
constructions: the case of Amharic object marking. Paper presented at
the CUNY/SUNY/NYU Mini-Conference.

Yimam, B. (1987). Zӓ ӓn w Y ññ Säwasɨw. Addis Ababa: EMPDA.

Yimam, B. (1998). Agreement phenomena in Amharic. Ms. Addis Ababa

University.

Yimam, B. ( 2004). Agreement phenomena in Amharic. In V. Böll (ed.) Studia

Aethiopica. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 319-336.

Yimam, B. (2006). The interaction of tense, aspect and agreement in Amharic

syntax. In John Mugane et al. (eds.) Selected proceedings of the 35th
Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Sommerville: MA:
Cascadilla proceedings project, 193-202.

Zamparelli, R. (2000). Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York: Garland.

Zaring, . (1996). Two ‘be’ or not two ‘be’: identity, predication and the Welsh
copula. Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 103–114.
232 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez
 Appendix

Questionnaire to elicit data about non-verbal predication in Amharic

and Geez

Introduction:
Dear Informant,
This questionnaire is prepared to elicit data for a research project on non-
verbal predication in Ethiopian languages. The questionnaire has three parts.
In the first part, you are asked to translate the given English sentences into
the languages for which you are asked to do so. In the second part, you are
asked to provide all possible word orders for the given sentences. In part
three, you are requested to give the negative and interrogative counterparts
of the given sentences. All the translations and the required sentences have
to be given. If you have any problem in filling out the questionnaire, please
feel free to contact the data collector through the given address.

Thank you for your cooperation

Identification
Language: _____________________________________
Date(s) of data collection: _________________________

Part one: Affirmative primary and secondary Predication.

Translate the following English sentences into ________

(1) Primary predication

Predicational copular clauses:
a. Jonas is tall _________________________________
Jonas is a student_____________________________
Jonas is in the/a house_________________________
b. Jonas was tall _______________________________
Jonas was a student___________________________
Jonas was in a/the house_______________________
c. Jonas will be tall _____________________________
Jonas will be a student _______________________
234 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Jonas will be in the/a house _____________________

Equational clauses:
Jonas is the student___________________________
Jonas was the student ______________________
Jonas will be the student ______________________

Jonas is Peter ____________________________

Jonas was Peter____________________________
Jonas will be Peter__________________________

Finfinne is Addis Ababa_________________________

Finfinne was Addis Ababa______________________
Finfinne will be Addis Ababa____________________

Existential clauses:
There is/are (a) student(s) in the field:__________________
There was/were (a) student(s) in the field _______________
There will be (a) student(s) in the field_________________

Locative clauses:
The student(s) is/are in the field______________________
The student(s) was/were in the field __________________
The student(s) will be in the house ____________________

Possessive clauses:
Saba has a book __________________________________
Saba had a book _________________________________
Saba will have a book _____________________________
Saba has the book _______________________________
Saba had the book _______________________________
Saba will have the book _____________________________

(2) Secondary predication:

ECM verbs:
The man considered john foolish/ a student
________________________________________________
Saba considered the girl a student/ (to be) the student
_________________________________________________
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 235

Saba considered the student to be the girl

_________________________________________________

Saba considered the girl to be in the house

_________________________________________________
Resultatives:
The man painted the house yellow
_________________________________________________
Depictives:
Saba drank the coffee hot ____________________________
Jonas ate the meat raw ______________________________
Saba /john ate the meat nude _________________________

Verbs of Naming/calling
They called him Theodros __________________________
They nominated him chairman ______________________

Part Two: Word Order:

Are there other possible orders of the clauses (1a-e)? If so, give all the
possible orders (you can use a different paper if the possible word orders are
more than one).

Predicational copular clauses

Jonas is tall _____________________________
Jonas is a student_________________________
Jonas is in the/a house_____________________

Jonas was tall ____________________________

Jonas was a student _______________________
Jonas was in the/a house ___________________

Jonas will be tall __________________________

Jonas will be a student ______________________
Jonas will be in the/a house __________________

Equational clauses:
Jonas is the student________________________
Jonas was the student______________________
Jonas will be the student ____________________
236 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

Jonas is peter_______________________________
Jonas was peter _____________________________
Jonas will be peter___________________________

Finfine is Addis Ababa_______________________

Finfine was Addis Ababa_____________________
Finfine will be Addis Ababa___________________

Existential clauses:
There is/are (a) student(s) in the field
____________________________________________
There was/were (a) student(s) in the field
____________________________________________
There will be (a) student(s) in the field
____________________________________________

Locative clauses:
The student(s) is/are in the field
_____________________________________________
The student(s) was/were in the field
_____________________________________________
The student(s) will be in the house
_____________________________________________

Possessive clauses:
Saba has a book ________________________________
Saba had a book ________________________________
Saba will have a book ____________________________
Saba has the book _______________________________
Saba had the book _______________________________
Saba will have the book ___________________________
The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 237

Can the predicates and the subjects of the secondary predication in (2a-d) be
found in a different order? If so give all possible orders.
ECM verbs:
The man considered john foolish/ a student
________________________________________________
Saba considered the girl a student/ (to be) the student
________________________________________________
Saba considered the student to be the girl
________________________________________________
Saba considered the girl to be in the house
________________________________________________
Resultatives:
The man painted the house yellow
________________________________________________
Depictives:
Saba drank the coffee hot
________________________________________________
Jonas ate the meat raw
________________________________________________
Saba /John ate the meat nude
________________________________________________
Verbs of Naming/calling
They called him Theodros
________________________________________________
They nominated him chairman
________________________________________________

Part three: Negation and interrogation in Copular clauses:

Give the negative forms of clauses from (1a-e)
Predicational copular clauses:
Jonas is tall: negative _________________________
Interrogative11__________________________
Interrogative 2 __________________________
interrogative 3 __________________________
Jonas was tall: negative_________________________
interrogative1_________________________
1
There can be three interrogative forms for a single clause: (a) yes/no questions, (b)
wh-question for the subject, and (c) wh-question for the Predicate/non-subject. Give
all of them
238 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas will be tall: negative____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas is a student:negative___________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas was a student: negative ______________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas will be a student: negative_______________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas is in the/a house :negative______________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas was in the/a house: negative_____________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas will be in the/a house: negative___________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________

Equational clauses:
Jonas is the student: negative ________________________
interrogative1__________________________
interrogative 2 _________________________
interrogative 3 _________________________
Jonas was the student: negative________________________
interrogative1__________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 239

interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas will be the student: negative______________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas is peter: negative _______________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas was peter: negative____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas will be peter: negative__________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Finfine is Addis Ababa: negative_______________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Finfine was Addis Ababa: negative_____________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Finfine will be Addis Ababa: negative___________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________

Existentials clauses:
There is/are (a) student(s) in the field
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________

There was/were (a) student(s) n the field

negative_____________________________
240 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
There will be (a) student(s) in the field
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________

Locatives clauses:
The student(s) is/are in the field
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
The student(s) was were in the field
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
The student(s) will be in the house
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Possessives clauses:
Saba has a book: negative___________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Saba had a book: negative___________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Saba will have a book: negative_______________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3_________________________
Saba has the book: negative__________________________
 The syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez 241

interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Saba had the book: negative_________________________
nterrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2: _______________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Saba will have the book negative______________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________

Negation of Secondary Predication:

ECM verbs:
The man considered john foolish/ a student
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Saba considered the girl a student/ (to be) the student
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Saba considered the student to be the girl
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Saba considered the girl to be in the house
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________

Resultatives: The man painted the house yellow

negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
242 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

interrogative 3 ________________________
Depictives: Saba drank the coffee hot
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Jonas ate the meat raw: negative______________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Saba /john ate the meat nude :negative _________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________
Verbs of Naming/calling: they called him Theodros
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 __________________________
They nominated him chairman
negative_____________________________
interrogative1_________________________
interrogative 2 ________________________
interrogative 3 ________________________

--------------------The end-----------------
 Samenvatting in het Nederlands

Het onderwerp van deze dissertatie is non-verbale predikatie –

proposities waarin het hoofdpredikaat een NP, AP of PP is – in twee
Ethiopische Semitische talen, nl. het Amhaars en het Geez. Met een
focus op zinnen met koppelwoorden onderzoek ik fenomenen die we
niet vinden in beter gekende talen. Het Amhaars heeft drie
koppelwerkwoorden die in de aantonende wijs gebruikt worden. Deze
koppelwerkwoorden verschillen zowel in agreement (ze laten default
agreement toe) als in de lexicale categorie waarmee ze gecombineerd
kunnen worden. Bovendien vinden we in Amhaarse NP en AP
predikaten een alternantie tussen nominatief en accusatief, afhankelijk
van de individual of stage-level interpretatie van het predikaat. Het Geez
heeft non-verbale predikatie met of zonder koppelwoord dat bovendien
niet noodzakelijk werkwoordelijk is. Net als in het Amhaars verschillen
Geez koppelwerkwoorden in agreement, het type predikaat waarmee ze
kunnen combineren en de naamvalsmarkering op AP en NP predikaten.
Daarbovenop beschikt het Geez ook over voornaamwoordelijke en
voorzetselkoppelwoorden die – zoals ik zal aantonen – zich systematisch
als koppelwerkwoorden gedragen op twee punten na, nl. het feit dat ze
zich eerder richten op inherente dan op contingente predikatie en het feit
dat ze andere naamvalstoekenningseigenschappen hebben.
Ik zal een syntactische analyse van zinnen met koppelwerkwoorden in
het Amhaars en het Geez voorstellen die een verklaring biedt voor de
genoemde variatie. Ik beargumenteer dat het verschil tussen
koppelwerkwoorden wat betreft agreement en predikaattype te wijten is
aan het feit dat het om verschillende typen werkwoorden gaat –
persoonlijke en onpersoonlijke aan de ene kant en subject-raising en
possessor-raising aan de andere kant. Dit suggereert dat we te maken
hebben met meer dan één BE in deze talen. Wat het verbale/non-verbale
contrast betreft in de koppelwoorden in het Geez, beargumenteer ik dat
de non-verbale koppelwerkwoorden gebruikt worden voor inherente
predikatie, terwijl de verbale variant voor contingente predikatie
gebruikt wordt. Dit verklaart dan ook waarom de laatste variant tijd- en
244 The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

aspectmarkeerders kan dragen. Wat betreft zinnen zonder

koppelwoorden in het Geez claim ik dat we ook hier te maken hebben
met full clauses. Om de naamvalsmarkering op NPs en APs te
analyseren zal ik beargumenteren dat nominatiefmarkering hier moet
worden gezien als het ontbreken van een naamval, terwijl de accusatief
toegekend wordt door een functioneel hoofd in de small clause die
semantisch eventiviteit toevoegt.
Curriculum Vitae
Mulusew Asratie wondem was born on the 7th of January 1972 in
Felegebirhan, Gojjam, Ethiopia. He attended his primary and secondary
education in Felegebirhan and Debrework primary and secondary schools,
respectively and graduated in 1992. In 1994, he got a diploma from Kotebe
College of teachers’ education in Ethiopian languages and literature. After
teaching Amharic for four years in Grawa secondary school, he joined Addis
Ababa University and graduated with a BA in Ethiopian Languages and
Literature in 2000. In 2002 and 2003, he taught linguistics at Dilla College
of teachers’ education, which was then under Debub University. In 2005 he
got his MA in linguistics from Addis Ababa University. Since 2006 he has
been teaching linguistics at Addis Ababa University. In 2009 he was given a
study leave from his university and started his PhD research in Utrecht
University focusing on the non-verbal predication in Amharic and Geez. The
research was part of the huge project entitled Cross-linguistic Marking of
Non-verbal Predication which was carried out by Ora Matushansky by the
financial grant of NWO. Currently, he is chairman of the Department of
Amharic language, Literature and Folklore at Addis Ababa University.