Ergativity in Kurdish Language (PP

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

Ergativity in Kurdish Language (PP. 143-160) Assistant Prof. Dr. Ali M. Jukil English Dept. College of Basic Education-Salahaddin University- Hawler (SUH)

Received: 16 /02/2015 Accepted: 05 /05/2015

Abstract This study deals with the ergativity in Kurdish Language, since the ergativity is a case system and within a case system, languages can be classified into "accusative" "ergative" and "active" according to how they mark the core arguments in a clause. The objective of this study to find out the phenomenon of ergativity status as a case system in the Kurdish language. First of all, the study presents transitivity in Kurdish language, and then it explains case systems in which it identifies ergative, accusative and active languages. After this the study illustrates case marking which is divided into three types; case endings, markedness of pronouns and markedness of clitics which are the core topics to examine Kurdish 'language, particularly the Hawler subdialect comparing with sulemani subdialect and Northern Kurmanji (NK) dialect to indicate split-ergativity and clitic movement in Hawler subdialect. Then the study presents the criteria to test ergativity such as Equi-deletion, raising rules and causative. At the end it presents the conclusion and bibliography.

1-Introduction his study deals with the ergativity in Kurdish Language, since the ergativity is a case system and within a case system, languages can be classified into "accusative" T "ergative" and "active" according to how they mark the core arguments in a clause. The term "ergativity" as a case system used to identify the grammatical pattern in which the subject of a transitive clause is different from the intransitive subject which is treated in the same way as the object of a transitive clause. Ergative refers to case marking of a noun phrase which is the subject of transitive. It is the case which is contrasting with another case called "nominative" but at present "absolutive" in which the subject of the intransitive verb and the "object" of the transitive verbs are in the same case, the nominative or the absolutive, while the subject of the transitive verb is in ergative case. The whole points about the ergative languages can only be interpreted by reference to the transitive verbs. First of all, the study presents transitivity in Kurdish language, and then it explains case systems in which it identifies ergative, accusative and active languages. After this the study illustrates case marking which is divided into three types; case endings, markedness of pronouns and markedness of clitics which are the core topics to examine Kurdish 'language, particularly the Hawler subdialect comparing with Sulemani subdialect and Northern Kurmanji (NK) dialect to indicate split-ergativity and clitic movement in Hawler subdialect. Then the study presents the criteria to test ergativity such as Equi-deletion or Big PRO, raising rules and causative. At the end it presents the conclusion and bibliography. 11. Transitivity This section presents the relationship between NPs and verb within the clause. All languages have intransitive and transitive clauses. In transitive, a verb is one place verb which requires only one NP (argument) i.e., intransitive clause involves with a verb and just on NP participant. e.g., darmé, damri, daçi, darwa, .... as in

143 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

1) diwaraka darmé. (intransitive) wall the T collapse. S V The wall is collapsing.

2) Piyâwaka damri. (intransitive) man the T die. S V The man is dying.

3) ?aw daçit. ( intransitive) He T go he. S V He is going.

4) Qutabyaka darwât. ( intransitive) Student the T walk he. S V The student walks (is walking).

While a transitive verb is a two-place verb, here the verb requires two NPs (arguments) i.e., transitive clause involves with a verb and two NP participants, one of the NPs fills the place of the subject and the other the place of the object. e.g.,

5) damréni, kuşt, danwéni, darzéni darmând, damrând, danwând, darzând.

6) Kabra diwarak darméni. (transitive) Man wall the is collapsing / falling down. The man is falling down the wall.

7) Kabra diwarakay darmand. (transitive) Man wall the was collapsing/ falling down. The man was falling down the wall.

8) Polisaka piyawkujekay kuşt . ( transitive) Police the murdered the killed. The police killed the murdered.

9) Źnaka mindalakay danwěni. ( transitive) Woaman the child the her is sleeping. The woman made her child to be slept.

10) Źnaka mindalakay danwand. (transitive) Woman the child the her was sleeping. The woman makes her child to be slept.

11) Kiçaka çayaka darženi . ( transitive) Girl the tea the is spilling. The girl is spilling the tea. 144 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

12) Kiçaka çayaka daržand. (transitive) Girl the tea the was spilling. The girl was spilling the tea.

In Kurdish most verbs are inherently transitive or intransitive for example' rôyiştin "to go" ; kawtin "to fall" hâtin "to come" ?âxâftin "to speak", çun "to go", ... etc are inherently intransitive, while verbs like girtin "to seize" birdin "to take" dîtin "to see" dân "to give" are inherently transitive. 13) ?aw rôyişt. (intransitive) He went.

14) ?aw kawt. (intransitive) S/he fell S/he fell. 15) ?aw hât. (intransitive) S/he came. S/he came. 16) ?aw di?axeft / dadwet. (intransitive) S/he T speak/ T speak. S/he is speaking. 17) ?aw çu:wa bâzâr. (intransitive) S/he went to bazaar. S/he went to bazar. 18) Policaka dizakay girt. (transitive) Police the thief the s/he seized. The police arrested the thief. 19) Qutabiyaka kitébi romanakay bird. (transitive) Student the book novel the took. The student took the novel book. 20) ?âmin mindâlakanim dît. (transitive) I children the saw. I saw the children. 21) ?amin kitébakânim ba ?ali da. (transitive) I book the pl. to Ali gave. I gave the books to Ali. In Kurdish verbs may be used transitively and these verbs take verbal affix en / ând which is a very productive suffix for deriving transitive verbs which can be considered ditranstive or complex transitive verbs because each of these verbs can select the number of internal arguments and also they can be turned into causative verbs. e.g.,

22) Diwâraka darûxé. present tense( intransitive) 23)Piyawaka diwarakay ruxand. (transitive) (causative)

24) Diwâraka rûxa. past tense( intransitive) 25) Piyâwaka diwarakay ruxand. (transitive) ( causative) (Jukil,2000;67-87). In Kurdish it can be distinguished between intransitive clause such as (24) and passive clause below since the verbs in the passivized clauses are inflected by the suffix ra/ ré; e.g., 145 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

26)Diwaraka daruxéndré. (present tense)

The previous presentation indicates that Kurdish distinguishes between clauses with a verb and just one core argument and those clauses with a verb and two core arguments in addition to ditransitive clauses a subtype of transitive clauses; i.e., Kurdish works in terms of three primitive relations (Dixon 2002 ;6) 1- NP core argument as an intransitive subject (S).

e.g.; 27) ?âzâd hat, past tense intransitive Azad came. 28) ?âzâd dét, present tense intransitive Azad is coming.

29) Xânwaka darmét. present tense intransitive The house if falling down. 30) Xânwaka rima. past tense intransitive The house was falling down.

2- NP or core argument as transitive subject (A) agent.

e.g.; 31) ?âzâd Xânwaki kirî. Past tense transitive Azad bought a house.

32) ?âzad Xânwak dakrét. present tense transitive Azad will buy a house.

33)? âzâd Xânwakay ruxând. Past tense transitive Azad collapsed the house

34)? Âzâd Xânwakay daruxénét. Present tense transitive Azad is collapsing the house

3- NP as transitive object (O) or (P). 35) ?âzâd Xânwakay bajéheşt / bajehéla. Azad left the house. 36) ?âzâd Xânwaka bajédelét. Azad will leave the house. The above examples indicate that (S) "subject" is a mere argument of an intransitive verb; (O) is clearly object and (A) is for agent. The prototypical semantic role is taken by the subject of a transitive verb, and the transitive subject "A" can be distinguished from object (0) or (P); "?âzâd" and xânwaka (house) respectively. (Tallerman 1998; 152).

1II.0. Case System This section presents the major case systems because within the case system, languages are classified as "accusative", "ergative" and "active" according to how they mark the core arguments in a clause. Subject which is a universal category links functions from intransitive and transitive clause type; and the relationship between S, A and O are the basic universal syntactic relations. This relation is entirely natural in accusative language to case-mark

146 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192 subject (S) and (A) with one single case which is nominative, whereas the (O) , the argument of a transitive verb is marked with accusative, and this can be presented as; (Dixon 2002;6). Nominative; A S Accusative; O While ergative languages show an ergative -obsolutive case system in which (S) and (O) are assigned the same case, called absolutive, whereas (A) is an ergative case as in; Absolutive : S O Ergative: A While in active languages (A) and (O) in the transitive clause might be marked as nominative vs accusative, whereas in the transitive clause the verb determines whether the S argument patterns with (A) or with (O). The languages are also called split languages in which intransitive verbs are divided into two groups; active and state verbs. The subject of the active verb is grouped with the agent (A) of a transitive verb which has an ergative case, while the subject of the state verb is grouped with (O) in the transitive construction, and an accusative language.(Barwari,2004;84).

III. 1.Case Marking Case endings, markedness of pronouns and markedness of clitics can be taken into account; 1- Case endings: In an ergative- absolutive case system subjects and objects are assigned and marked with the same case; called absolutive which usually unmarked case and agents (A) are assigned ergative case which are the marked case.(Dixon 2002;39). While in nominative - accusative case system; the subject of intransitives (S) with the subject of transitive (A) are marked in the same way and both are assigned nominative case, (O) objects of transitive verbs are differently marked and they are assigned accusative case. Good examples are Latin, German, Japanese and Turkish. (Tallerman; 1998;153).

Latin 37) i. Puella veni- t

girl; Nom come PRES. 3SG The girl(S) comes.

38) ii. Puer-um puella audi-t. Boy-ACC girl; NOM hear-PRES; 3SG The girl (A) hears the boy(O).

39) iii. Puella puer-un audi-t. girl; NOM boy-ACC hear- PRES;3SG The girl (A) hears the boy (O). Tallerman 1998:154 Or the following examples can be taken into consideration from Latin that both S and A have nominative case which is realized morphologically by the suffix -us, whereas (O) is assigned accusative case which is realized by the suffix -um.

147 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

40) a. domin-us veni-t. master; NOM come; PRES-3SG The master (S) comes. 41) b. ser-us veni-t.

slave; NOM come; PRES-3SG The slave (S) comes.

42) c. domin-us serv-um audi-t. master; NOM slave;ACC hear; PRES-3SG The master (A) hears the slave(O).

43) d. serv-us domin-urn audi-t. slave; NOM master; ACC hear- PRES; 3SG The slave (A) hears the master (0). (Dixon 2002; 9) While in split systems which have a combination of ergative and accusative properties in syntax and morphology, the language as indicated before doesn't use just one case marking system consistently for all instances of A, Sand O (Tallerman 1989; 159). In Kurdish case marking doesn't vary only from a dialect into another, but also it varies from a sub-dialect to another, for example Sulemani sub-dialect doesn't display case marking, therefore, a study of case endings will reveal no information concerning presence and absence of ergativity.(Friend;1985). While in Northern Kurmanji (NK) particularly in the most sub-dialects of this dialect reveals information on case endings in the form of oblique case and it is determined by number and gender while Central Kunnanji especially in Hawler, Mukrian and Soran sub-dialects reveals information on case endings, but the information proves that these sub-dialects behave in SOITle cases like NK and in other cases like Sulemani sub-dialect and this is the indication that sub-dialects of CK have been developed and changed; therefore, there is no agreement yet about the number and the terminology of Kurdish cases ( Barwari; 2004; 84). For illustrating this, the following case system can be assumed for NK and CK; Sulemani Sub-dialect Hawler NK Dialect case Morphological Morphological realization realization Absolutive Ø Ø Ø Oblique Ø î / ê (masc. sg) î (masc. sg.) (â) n (pI. masc. & a / ê(fern. sg) ê(ferm.sg.) fern) Dative Ø/ Ø / ra ra Locative awa dâ dâ awa awa Thus a noun like "dost" (beloved) can appear in the following case forms. Sulemani Sub-dialect Hawler NK Dialect case Morphological Morphological Morphological realization realization realization Absolutive dost-Ø dost -Ø dost -Ø

148 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

27) The above table indicates that absolutive or direct in Sulemani, Hawler sub-dialects, in NK dialect is morphologically unmarked and the absolutive form of a noun is inflected root that is used for citation and it has zero realization, while oblique also in Sulemani dialect like Hawler sub-dialect and NK dialect is morphologically marked in respect of number, while in respect of gender in Sulemani sub-dialect it is morphologically unmarked, the form of a noun as an oblique case has zero realization whereas in Hawler sub-dialect and NK dialect the oblique case is morphologically marked and the form of the oblique case is determined by gender and number. Oblique dost -Ø dost-î (masc. sg) dost-î (masc. sg) dost -Ø dost-ê (fern. sg) dost-ê(masc. sg.) dost- an (pI. masc. dost- ân (pI. masc. dost- ân (pI. masc. & fern) & fern) & fern) Dative dost -Ø dost -Ø dost - râ dost - râ Locative dost -awa dost -dâ dost -dâ I dost -awa 111 -2- Markedness of pronouns Parallel to case marking, it is the marking of pronouns. Both sets of marked and unmarked pronouns can be found in ergative/absolutive system. In such a system subject and object pronouns are unmarked, while agent pronouns are marked. In Kurdish the existence of classes of pronouns differs from one sub-dialect to another, for example in NK dialect and Hawler, Soran and Mukryan sub-dialects the two classes of pronouns are available, while in Sulemani sub-dialect there is no indication of the existence of two classes of pronouns. Generally speaking Kurdish language has a system of six personal pronouns. The case forms of each pronoun with absolutive and oblique can be shown below; Sulemani Sub-dialect Obsolutive oblique min mm to to aw aw ?êma ?êma ?ewa ?êwa ?awan ?awan HA

Hawler Sub-Dialect Obsoulutive oblique ?amin min ?atu tu/ta ?aw (a) wî (masc ) (a) wê (hê) ?ama ma ?ango ngo ?awana wan

NK Dialect

149 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

Obsoulutive oblique Az min tu ta ?aw (a) wî (masc ) (a) wê (fem.) ?ama ma ?ango ngo ?awana wan

These personal pronoun forms have the functions of the nominal case forms. The following examples can be taken into account in order to yield information on the presence or absence of ergativity in Kurdish language:- It is not necessary that examples on Sulemani dialect to be cited because the data on pronoun in this sub-dialect yield no information on the presence or absence of ergativity since the pronoun "min" can be appeared as subject of intransitive as an object and as an agent of transitive verb with the same case and also the system of verb agreement shows some problems because of the movement of clitics. While the data of NK clearly indicate the existence of ergativity system in case marking and verb agreement on pronouns; for example: PRESENT

SG 44) ?az di - ç- im. 1 1st SG ABS PROG. PRES- 1st SG/ AGR I (S) am going. Intransitive 45) Tu di - ç- î- t. 2 2nd SG ABS PROG. PRES- 2nd SG/ AGR intransitive You (S) are going. 3 46) ?aw di - ç- î – t

3rd SG ABS PROG. PRES- 3rd SGI AGR Intransitive He/ She (S) is going. 47) ?am di - ç- î - n. 1 1st PI- ABS PROG - go - PRES. 1st pl- AGR Intransitive We (S) are going. 48) hon di - ç-î-n. Intransitive PL 2 2nd P1- ABs PROG - go - PRES. 2nd pl- AGR You (S) are going. 49) ?aw(ana) di – ç-î-n. Intransitive 3 3rd P1- ABs PROG - go - PRES. 2nd pl- AGR They (S) are going

Simple Present Tense 50)?az çu- m. 1 1st SG ABS. went. PAS .1st SG/ AGR Intransitive I (S) went. 51) Tu çu - y. SG 2 2nd SG ABS. went. PAS 2nd SGI AGR Intransitive You (S) went 52) ?aw çu - O. 150 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

3 3rd SG ABS. went. PAS 3rd SG/AGR Intransitive She/he (S) went. 53) ?am çu - n. 1 1st PI - ABS- went. PAS 1st p1- AGR Intransitive We (S) went. 54) hon I hingo çu - n. Intransitive PL 2 2nd P1-ABS-Went. PAS 2bd P1-AGR You (S) went. 55) ?aw(ana) çu - n. 3 3rd P1- ABS- went. PAS 2nd pl- AGR They (S) went.

The above examples show the (S) of intransitive in the absolutive case, while with transitive verbs the subject will be in an oblique case and this displays that (A) will be in a different case: e.g., . 56)1- min nan- Ø xar- Ø. ( Transitive) 1 SG OBL bread ABS eat Past- T/AGR. I(A) ate bread (O). .

57) 2- ta nan- Ø xar- Ø. (Transitive) SG 2SG OBL bread ABS eat Past- T/ AGR. You (A) ate bread (O). 58) 3- wi/wê nan- Ø xar- Ø. (Transitive) 3SG OBL bread ABS eat Past-T/ AGR. He/ she (A) ate bread (O). 59) 1- ma nan- Ø xar- Ø. (Transitive) 1 p1 OBL bread ABS eat Past-T/ AGR. We (A) ate bread (O).

60) 2- wa nan- Ø xar- Ø. (Transitive) PL. 2 p1 OBL bread ABS eat Past- T/AGR. You (A) ate bread (O).

61) 3- (?a)wan nan- Ø xar- Ø . (Transitive) 3 p1 OBL bread ABS eat Past- T/ AGR. They (A) ate bread (O). The above examples indicate that oblique case denotes the agent of an ergative construction in NK, but for illustration some examples can be presented to indicate that the object of transitive clause has a nominative - accusative pattern on pronouns; e.g., 62) ?az ta di - bin-î- m. 1 I SG ABS. 2 SG OBL T/ see. PRES. I SG/ AGR Transitive I (S) see you (O). 63) Tu min di - bin-î. SG 2 2 SG ABS. 1 SG OBL T/ see. PRES.2 SG/ AGR Transitive You (S) see me(O). 64) ?aw wê/wî di - bin- î 3 3 SG ABS. 3 SG OBL T/ see. PRES.3 SG/ AGR Transitive

151 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

He/ She (S) sees him! her (O). PL 65) ?am hingo di - bin- î- n. 1 1 p1 ABS. 2 p1 OBL T/see. PRES. 1p1/ AGR Transitive We (S) see you(O). 66) ?am ta di - bin-î- n. 1 1 p1 ABS. 2 SG OBL T/ see. PRES. 1 pl/ AGR Transitive We (S) see you(O). 2 67) hon I hingo ma di - bin- î- n. 2 p1 ABS. 1 p1 OBL T/ see. PRES.2 pl/ AGR Transitive You (S) See us (P) 68) hon / hingo wan di - bin- î- n. Transitive 2 2p1 ABS. 3 p1 OBL T/ see. PRES.2p1/ AGR You (S) see them(O) . 69) ?aw wa di - bin- î- n. Transitive 3 3 p1 ABS. 2 p1 OBL T/ see. PRES.3 p1 / AGR They (S) see you(O). (Nabaz 1976: 24) The examples cited above indicate the construction of nominative-accusative case of the object in the transitive clause in which the oblique case functions as an object to denote this type of construction. For further indication and to verify the exhibition of ergativity both in case marking and verb agreement in NK, the clauses based on the past tense can be presented (Barwari 2004 ; 88-89).

70) a- ?az âxif-t-im. (Intransitive) 1 SG ABS speak -PAST- 1 SG I (S) spoke.

71) b- ?âzâd- az hêl- â- m. (Transitive) Azad OBL - 1 SG ABS leave- past- 1 SG. Azad (A) left me(O).

73) ta dargah- Ø di- gir- t- Ø. 2SG OBL door- ABS T - close- past- 2SG- 3SG (transitive) You ( A) were closing the door (O). He (A) has seen him/her/it (O).

74) Wî aw dit- y- a. 3SG OBL 3SG ABS saw - past - 3SG- perfect. He (A) has seen him/her/it (O).

The above examples indicate the ergative-absolutive construction by the case marking on the core arguments and verb agreement. This ergative construction has developed from the passive form in which the Agent that is in the oblique case functions as the grammatical subject of this construction and the oblique case has genitive case particularly in NK dialect and Hawler sub-dialect while this case disappeared in Sulemani sub-dialect as a result of its development. The genitive case in NK dialect and Hawler sub-dialect can be presented in the 152 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192 following:- Kur -î min genitive Son (masc) obl- 1SG My son

*Kur-î NK dialect

Kîž -î min. Daughter (fem) obl- 1 SG My daughter

* Kîž –î ?az

The above examples indicate that the oblique case is morphologically marked and this appears at the end of the noun as a case marker. The singular masculine form "e" and the singular feminine "a" appear at the end of the noun as a case marker while in Bawler sub dialect the singular masculine form is "1" and the singular feminine form is "ê" which appear at the end of the noun as a case marker as in. Kur - î min genitive Son (masc) obl- 1SG My son

*Kur-î ?amin

Kîž – ě min. Daughter (fern) obl- 1SG\ My daughter

*Kîž-ě ? amin. (Nabaz 1976: 24)

Also the data of Hawler sub-dialect yield no information on the existence or the absence of ergativity system, and this is not clear enough because the Hawler sub dialect has changed under the impact of Sulemani sub-dialect which is the medium of instruction in the public education, but" it is necessary to present examples in order to tackle this problem; PRESENT (Hawler Sub-dialect) 75) ?amin da- ro- m. 1 1st SG ABS T/PROG go. PRES- 1ST SG/ AGR (Intransitive) I (S) am going. 76) ?atu da- ro- y. SG 2 2nd SG ABS TI PROG.go. PRES- 2nd SGI AGR (Intransitive) You (S) are going. 77) ?aw da- r- wâ. 3 3rd SG ABS T/ PROG. go PRES- 3rd SG/ AGR (Intransitive) He / She (S) is going. PL 1 78) ?ama da - ro- y- in. 1st Pl- ABS T/PROG - go - PRES. 1st pl- AGR (Intransitive) We (8) are going. 79) ?ango da- ro- n. Intransitive 2 2nd Pl- ABS. T/ PROG - go - PRES. 2nd pl- AGR You (S) are going.

153 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

80) ?awana da- ro-n. Intransitive 3 3rd Pl- ABS. T/ PROG - go - PRES. 2nd pl- AGR They (S) are going.

Past Tense 1 81) ?amin royi~t- 1- m. 1st SG ABS. went. PAS.lsT SGI AGR Intransitive I (S) went. 82) ?atu royişt- î-t. SG 2 2nd SG ABS. went. PAS 2nd SGI AGR Intransitive You (S) went. 83) ?aw - royişt- Ø - Ø. 3 3rd SG ABS. went. PAS 3rd SG/ AGR Intransitive He/She (S) went. 84) ?ama royişt-î- n. 1 1st Pl- ABS - went. PAS 1st pl- AGR Intransitive We (S) went. 85) ?ango royişt- i- n. Intransitive PL 2 2nd Pl- ABS- went. PAS 2nd pl- AGR You (S) went. 86) ?awana royişt- i - n. Intransitive 3 3rd P1- ABS- went. PAS 2nd pl- AGR They (8) went. The examples in Hawler subdialect cited above, like NK indicates the (S) of transitive clauses in the absolutive case, while with transitive verbs the subject can be in oblique case and this shows that (A) will be in different case; for example; 87) Min nan-i-m xiward- Ø 1 SG obI bread ABS- 1SG eat - past- AGR I (A) ate bread (O). 88) to/ta nan-i-t xiward- Ø 2nd SG obI bread ABS 2nd SG eat - past- AGR. You (A) ate bread (O). The above examples indicate the ergativity system, but the problem is the verb agreement because the evidence of ergative verb agreement is that the verb shows agreement with the subject of an intransitive verb and with the direct object in one way, and with the agent in another way. Here, the verb has zero realization and the bound morpheme (clitic) appears at the end of the object to indicate the person and number of the (A) agent, and this movement will make the construction of the sentence to be flexible by applying the elliptical rule as in; 89) Ø nan-i-m xiward- Ø 1st obl bread ABS- 1 SG eat - past- AGR I (A) ate bread (O) 90) Ø xiward-i-m 1st obl ABS eat-past3rd SG-1SG O A

The above examples indicate the accusatlvlty - nominativeaccusative construction - in Hawler subdialect since the (S) and (A) grouped together to exclude (0). Here the case marking on the

154 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192 arguments (S) and (A) is in absolutive case and (0) in the oblique case. But at the same time the above examples can be expressed in different ways as in;

95) - nan-î xiward- Ø. 3 SG- ABS- 3SG- Obl- ate- Past. Bread-he-ate

96) - nan- û xiward- Ø 3Pl. ABS- 2 PI Obl- eat. These types of construction will arise ambiguity on the existence or absence of ergativity system in Hawler sub-dialect. For comparing and illustrating; the following examples can be presented;

97) 1- ?amin da dwê- m. 1 SG ABS T/ PROG- speak- 1 SG. I am speaking.

98)2-?azâd-Ø ?amin-î cê-helâ-Ø. Transitive 3SG-Obl 1SG ABS-3SG leave-Past-Ø. Azas (A) left me (O). Here the verb shows agreement with the subject of intransitive verb and with the (A) of transitive verb and there is no agreement of the verb with the direct object. The above presentation indicates that the data in Hawler subdialect yield no information on the existence and absence of ergativity system. 111-3- Markedness of Clitics Clitic constituents have no independent existence but they attach to another constituent in the sentence. A language can employ clitics. The clitics can act as bound pronouns which can attach the verb and the other constituents such as the subject, object and agent to indicate the grammatical relations. If the: set of clitics which represent subject and object are different from the set of clitics which represent agent, this might be evidence of ergative morphology (Dixon 1979:66). The bound clitics which have grammatical relations with subject, object and agent can be divided into two sets as in:

Absolutive Independent bound Independent bound

?amin (i)m min (i) m 1SG ?ama - 1: n ma man 1PL ?atu - 1 to/ ta (i) t 2SG ?ango n ngo ta:n 2PL ?aw a/Ø (a)wî/(a)wê i:/Ø 3SG ?awana n (a)wan ya:n 3PL

155 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

As illustrated Kurdish language has two sets of bound pronoun (clitics) which can be referred as I for a set and 2 for a set 2. In the present tense, the subject (S) and the agent (A) are represented in the clitic form by a set (unmarked) clitics and the object is represented by the set 2 (marked) clitics while in the past tense the subject and object are represented in the clitic form by a set I and the agent is excluded and it is represented by a set 2, and this can be illustrated in the following examples;

99)?ama dê-yn. 1 P1 ABS PRES-1 We shall come

100) Ø da-m-kuz-ê. 3SG ObI T/ -2- PRES- 3SG- fem- I Tense - me - kill- she She (A) will kill me(O).

Past Tenses 101)Ø çu-y-n-a safarê. T/A Past I Prep O. Perf- went they (S) on a journey.

102) Ø ?amin - yan nas-î. 1 SG/ ABS 2 past- I. They (A) knew me (O).

The above examples i.ndicate the ergativity system in Bawler subdialect object in the form of clitics are represented by a set I while the agent is represented by a set 2. This indicates that the ergativity in Bawler sub-dialect is morphological, not syntactic, and for further illustration the Equi-NP deletion rules can be used to determine the extent of ergativity in the language.

V.Equi-NP Deletion Rules: The extent of ergativity in a language can be noted by the types of noun-phrase behavior; the first type of NP behavior is the grammatical relations in which subject, agent, or object control deletion of co-referential noun phrase in embedded clauses and in which the grammatical relations is embedded clauses may delete ( Friend, 2005:p) as in: 103) Kabra danişt u …….nan-î xiward. ( intransitive) Man ABS sat down and ……bread he ate. The man sat down and ate bread. The above example is intransitive clause and only the subject of the matrix clause controls deletion, but object does not as in; 104) Kabra kitêbêk-i kir-î u ……..royişt. Man ObI book- buy Past - he and went. The man bought a book and went. The above examples can be the test criteria for syntactic ergativity which indicate that the syntactic behavior of the arguments in these clause follow a nominativeaccusative syntax because S and A control the deletion in the second clause.

156 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

V1.Raising Rules: Another criterion to test for ergatIvlty is ralsmg in which noun phrase is unable to receive case in its D - Structure, it moves to case marked position to receive case (Chomskey 1981; 68), i.e., raising rules move Nps from a sub-ordinate clause into a main clause. For example; in English some verbs permit subjects and agents to raise, and others permit objects to raise, as in 105)It seems that Tom is running. 106)Tom seems to be running. 107)It is likely that Ali will leave. 108)Ali is likely to leave. Raising rules can be used to test for syntactic ergativity; in the language, if subjects and objects could be, but agents can, this would be evidence of ergativity. If, however, subjects and agents can be raised, but objects cannot, or objects, subjects can, but agents cannot, this would be evidence of nominative / accusative syntax. If objects, subjects, and agents may all be raised, but this test will not be useful for deciding the existence of ergativity. For further illustration may examples in Hawler sub-dialect can be presented;

109) 1- a- Ø diyâra ka ?êwa naway ?ayinda- n. NPe seems that you generation future- you- T/ AGR. It seems that you (S) are the future generation. 110) b- ?êwa diyâra naway ? ayinda- n. you seem generation future:- T –you. You seem to be the future generation. 111)2- a- Ø diyâra ?êwa' da- b- n- a nawa-y? âyinda- n. NPe seems you T/Subj.- you- prep generation future. It seems you will be the future generation.

112) b- ?êwa diyâra da- b- n- a naway ?âyinda. You seem to be the future generation.

113) 3- a- Ø diyârbu ka ?êwa da- bu- n- a nawa-y ? âyinda- a. NPe seem(Past) that you T/ be you- was generation future. It seemed that you would be the future generation. b-?êwa diyârbun da-bu-n-a nawa-y ?âyinda- a. You seem(Past) - you. T/ be(Past) you generation future. You seemed to be the future generation. The above examples indicate that the verb "diyar" permit raising the subject in the embedded clause in present and past tenses. For more illustration the following examples can be examined;

115) 1- a- Ø Diyâr- a kitêb- ak-ân ? azad da- yân kri. seem - T book - Def- 3 pl- Azad T - 3pl. buy (PRES) It seems Azad will buy the books. 116) b- ? âzâd diyâr-a kitêb- ak-ân da-yân kri. Azad (A) seem book - Def-pl (O) T/ buy. Azad seems to buy the books. 117) c- kitêb- ak-ân diyâr-a ? âzâd da-yân kri. Book - Def- 3pl. seem Azad(A) T-3pl buy(PRES) The books seem to be bought by Azad.

157 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

The examples cited above indicate the verb “diyâra” allows agent raising and also permits object to be raised but at the same time leaves the pronoun clitic referring to the object, while I raising agent it doesn’t leave any pronoun clitic “ yân”refers to the object (kitebakan) and this indicates that the object raising is not allowed but the subject and agent raising are permitted by the verb (diyara). This might be the criterion of the existence of ergativity in Hawler sub-dialect. For further indication one might take a set of verbs to see which of the grammatical relations subject, agent, and object can be raised; among these verbs which implicitly function as a sentence such; "pedac;et" "it is likely"; lawanaya, "It is possible" dabwaya, "It is necessary" .... etc., but the application of the raising rules indicate that ergativity in Hawler subdialect is split ergative via syntactic relations and clitic movements. Another criterion which can be used to test for syntactic ergativity is causative which typically (in both ergative and accusative languages) derives from an intransitive clause, a transitive / causative construction in which subject becomes object( cf- pp 3-4) but this is not emphatically evidence of ergativity or accusativity.

V11.Conclusion From the previous presentation, it can be concluded that the order of constituents particularly the relative order of noun phrases with regard to the verb, within the clause, does not differ in an intransitive to transitive sentences, because Kurdish word-order of the sentence is a verb-final, and the verb medial word order is possible. The transitivity of Kurdish language indicates that Kurdish works in terms of three primitive relations; NP or a core argument as an intransitive subject (S), or as a transitive subject (A), agent; or as a transitive object (0) or (P) patient. Also it can be deduced that case marking in Kurdish varies from a dialect to another and also from a subdialect to another; 1- Sulemani subdialect doesn't display case marking. 2- Northern Kurmanji reveals information on case endings in the form of oblique case and it is determined by number and gender. 3- Hawler subdialect, in some cases, behave like Sulemani subdialect, while in other cases like NK dialect, therefore; there is no agreement yet about the number and the terminology of Kurdish cases. Also it can be concluded that in Kurdish the existence of classes of pronouns differs from one subdialect to another. For example; in Sulemani subdialect , there is no indication of the existence of two classes of pronouns, while in Hawler subdialet and NK dialect, the two classes of pronouns are available and the case forms of these pronouns are absolutive and oblique case:;, therefore; the data of NK . dialect clearly indicate the existence of ergativity system in case marking and verb agreement on pronouns ; while in Hawler- subdialect, there is ambiguity because the verb agreement shows some problems and this is due to the movement of the clitics. As far as the markedness of clitics is concerned, the study presents two sets of bound pronouns. The first set is unmarked, while the second set is marked. The second set is marked. The data of bound pronouns in Hawler subdialect indicate that the ergativity is morphological, not syntactic, because the application of Equi deletion and raising rules prove that syntactic behavior of the arguments in clauses follow a nominative/ accusative system. Finally it can be concluded that in Hawler subdialect, the ergativity is split – ergative.

158 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

References  Barwari, M. S. Abdulla (2004) Topics in GB Theory, with Reference to English and Kurdish.Unpublished Dissertation. Salahaddin University- Bawler.  Chomskey (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrech: F oris.  Dixon, Robert M.W. (1979) Ergativity. Language 55,59- 138.  ______( 2002) Ergativity(Cambridge Studies In Linguistics69) Cambridge University press.  Friend, Robyn Chrisine (1985) Ergativity in Sulemaniye Kurdish. In MESA Conference, 1985.  Jukil,Ali, M(2000). " Transitivity of Verbs in Kurdish" Zanko, The Journal of Humanity Science,2008, No10. Salahaddin University- Hawler. Erbil, KR,Iraq.  ------&Ali Yousif (2008) "Case Theory in Kurdish" Zanko, The Journal of Humanity Science2008, No.37. Salahaddin University- Hawler. Erbil, KR,Iraq.  ------(2011)."Equi-NP Deletion or Big PRO" Zanko, The Journal of Humanity Science2011, No.40. Salahaddin University- Hawler. Erbil, KR,Iraq.

 Nabaz, Jamal (1976) uaraw Zimani Yekgirtuy Kurdi; "Towards a unified Kurdish Language". Bambery: W. Germany.  Tallerman, Maggie (1998) Understanding Syntax. London; Arnold.

159 Vol.19, No.6, 2015

طؤظارى زانكؤ بؤ زانستة مرؤظايةتييةكان بةرطى. 91 ، ذمارة.6، سالَى 5192

ئێرگەتیڤیتی لە زمانی كوردیدا

پوختە هەروەك لە واوویشاوەكە دەردەكەوێت ئەم توێژیىەوە دەربارەی دیاردەی ئێرگەتیڤیتی )Ergativity(یە لە زماوی كوردیدا، چووكە )Ergativity( دەچێتە خاوەی سیستەمی دۆخەوە، كە بە هۆیەوە دەكرێت زمان پۆلیه بكرێت بۆ ئێرگەتیڤ )Ergative( و دۆخی كارلێكراو )Accusative( وكاری بەكار )Activeِ( و كە هەر بەگوێرەی ئەماوەوە چۆویەتی ویشاوكردوی كرۆكی ئارگومێىتەكان لە رستەدا دەكرێت. پێش هەموو شتێك ئەم توێژیىەوە باسی تێپەرایەتی )Transivity( لە زماوی كوردیدا دەكات و دواتر. راڤەی سیستەمی دۆخ دەكات كەلە رێگەیەوە جۆرەكاوی زمان وەك ئێرگەتیڤ )Ergative( و دۆخی كارلێكراو )Accusative( وكاری بەكار )Active( دیاری دەكات. ئیىجا توێژیىەوەكە ویشاوەكاری دۆخ روون دەكاتەوە كە دەكرێت بە سێ جۆر: كۆتاییەكاوی دۆخ و ویشاوەكاری جێىاو و كلیتك )Clitic( كە ئەماوە كرۆكی توێژیىەوەكەیە لە زماوی كوردی بە تایبەتی زاری هەولێر بە بەراوردكردن لەگەڵ زاری سلێماوی و دیالێكتی كرماوجی ژووروو بۆ دیاركردوی ئێرگەتیڤیتی لێك ترازاو جوولەی كلیتك لە زاری هەولێر. هەروەها توێژیىەوەكە ئەو پێوەراوە دەخاتە روو كە ئیشی ئێرگەتیڤیتی پێ دەكرێت و

وەك جێىاوی گەورە یان كەوتىی واو )Equi NP-deletion( و رێسایەكاوی بەرزكردوەوە )Raising rules( و هۆ دەربری بەكار )Causative( ، لە كۆتایشدا دەرەوجام و لیستی سەرچاوەكان دەخاتە روو.

الخالصة يتضخ يٍ انؼُىاٌ اٌ هرا انبذث يتُاول ظاهسة )Erigativity( في انهغت انكسديت الٌ )Erigativity( هي ضًٍ َظاو انذال ) Case system( انتي بىاسطتها يًكٍ تصُيف انهغت انى )Active, Accusative, Erigativity( و بىاسطتهى يًكٍ تذديد َىاة )Argumentsِ( في انجًهت .قبم كم شيء هرا انبذث يتُاول )Transitivity( في انهغت انكسديت بؼد ذنك يشسح َظاو انذال )Case system( ثى يىضخ داالث االدىال وهي ثالثت اَىاع )Case Marking, Markedness of pronouns, markedness of clitic( الٌ هرة انؼُاصس َىاة انبذث في انهغت انكسديت وباالخص في هىنيس)Sub dialect( با نًقازَت يغ سهيًاَيت )Sub dialect( ونهجت انكسياَجيت انشًانيت )Northern Kurmanji dialect( وكرنك يذدد )Split- Erigativity( و دسكت )clitic( في هىنيس )Sub dialect( ثى اٌ انبذث يستؼسض انؼًاييس انتي تذدد ػًهيت )Erigativity( يثم )Raising Rules, EquiNP-Deletion or Big PRO( يغ )Causative( واخيسا يقدو انبذث انُتائج انتي تىصم انيها انبادث يغ قائًت انًساجغ.

160 Vol.19, No.6, 2015