In Neo-Aramaic dialects the historic passive participle is used as the base form for the preterite tense. Nonetheless, the scholarly tradition saw it as a passive form, especially when it appears alone as a 'bare form'. A wide corpus study of Jewish Zakho Neo-Aramaic shows, however, that in some cases it is justified to see this form as bearing an active function. This is established through the examination of the information-structure associated with the form. A comparison to an older stratum of Neo-Aramaic, namely the Nerwa texts from the 17th century, provides a possible diachronic explanation of this change.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 378 | 65 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 74 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 60 | 5 | 0 |
In Neo-Aramaic dialects the historic passive participle is used as the base form for the preterite tense. Nonetheless, the scholarly tradition saw it as a passive form, especially when it appears alone as a 'bare form'. A wide corpus study of Jewish Zakho Neo-Aramaic shows, however, that in some cases it is justified to see this form as bearing an active function. This is established through the examination of the information-structure associated with the form. A comparison to an older stratum of Neo-Aramaic, namely the Nerwa texts from the 17th century, provides a possible diachronic explanation of this change.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 378 | 65 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 74 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 60 | 5 | 0 |