Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages Colorado Research in Linguistics. June 2004. Volume 17, Issue 1. Boulder: University of Colorado. © 2004 by Weldu M. Weldeyesus. Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages* Weldu M. Weldeyesus University of Colorado at Boulder This paper presents a description of the case marking systems in Amharic and Tigrinya. The case system is fully retained in the pronominal and determiner systems of both languages. Nominal case markings are, however, observed only in definite objects. The languages are nominative-accusative in their case system as can be seen from the pronouns, the definite article, and pronominal affixes which are attached to the verb to show agreement with subjects and definite objects. There is also interaction between the semantic notion of definiteness and object marking, which takes two forms: an object marker attached to the nominal object and an object marking verbal affix. In both cases, it is only if the object is definite that these object markings appear. This is an instance of split P. The two related object-marking phenomena always coexist in both languages. 1. Introduction In this paper, an attempt will be made to give a description of the case marking systems in Tigrinya and Amharic, closely related Ethiopian Semitic languages. Two languages have been considered instead of just one for comparative reasons. Amharic and Tigrinya exhibit a nominative-accusative case system. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the languages do not have typical nominal case marking except in objects which are definite. The case system is fully retained in the pronominal and determiner (specifically definite article) system. In addition, verbal affixes which show agreement in person, number and gender with subjects and objects help in giving an idea of what the case systems in the languages look like (Amanuel, 1998; Leslau, 1995; Getahun, 1990; and Baye, 1987; among others). As a background, it will be shown why the languages have are said to have a nominative-accusative system starting with the pronominal and determiner (definite article) system of the languages. Following this, an attempt will be made to demonstrate how verbal affixes are used to show agreement with subjects and objects in transitive sentences involving verbs with typical transitivity features (Hopper and Thompson, 1980). This is done in order to demonstrate the interaction between object marking and the semantic notion of definiteness which is one of the major objects of this paper. According to Hopper and Thompson, “Transitivity involves a number of components, only one of which is the presence of an object of the verb. These components are all concerned with the effectiveness with which an action takes place” (1980: 251). In the overall discussion, reference will be made to Hopper and Thompson (1980) since the issues they raised are central to this paper. Hopper and Thompson identified the * My sincere thanks are due to Professor Regina Pustet, my typology instructor, not only for introducing me to the subject matter of typology in the best possible way, but also for her critical comments in the course of writing this paper. My thanks are also due for the editors of CRIL for her their helpful comments. 1 Weldeyesus: Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages Published by CU Scholar, 2004 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Volume 17 (2004) 2 following scalar parameters of transitivity: participants, kinesis, aspect, punctuality, volitionality, affirmation, mode, agency, affectedness of object, and individuation of object. It is the last parameter that would be of immediate relevance to this paper since it is concerned with the properties of objects. Hopper and Thompson (1980: 253) point out that referents of nouns are either less or more highly individuated depending on the properties they have. They argue that proper nouns are more individuated than common nouns, human/animate more than inanimate, concrete more than abstract, singular more than plural, count more than mass, and referential/definite more than non-referential/ indefinite. Since the property definite versus indefinite will be the central concern of this paper, it will be discussed in some detail. In connection with this, the authors state, “An action can be more effectively transferred to a patient which is individuated than to one which is not; thus a definite O is often viewed as more completely affected than an indefinite one” (Hopper and Thompson, 1980: 253). They also posit a hypothesis which they claim to be a universal property of grammars. They call it ‘Transitivity Hypothesis’: “If two clauses (a) and (b) in a language differ in that (a) is higher in Transitivity according to any of the [transitivity] features, …then, if a concomitant grammatical or semantic difference appears elsewhere in the clause, that difference will also show (a) to be higher in transitivity” (1980: 254-255). There are concomitant structural manifestations such as the presence of an object marker or an object marking verbal affix which shows agreement with the object which will be one of the main purposes of this paper. The semantic notion of definiteness is treated in this paper for the reason that it strongly correlates with a split case marking in the coding of objects. In the next sections of this paper, a discussion of the pronominal and determiner systems of the languages will be presented followed by a discussion of the interaction between object marking and definiteness. 2. Case Systems in Tigrinya and Amharic Both Amharic and Tigrinya are nominative-accusative in their case system. As pointed out above, there are no nominal case markers except in definite objects. In both languages, case forms are morphologically realised in the pronominal system which has separate paradigms for nominative, accusative and genitive cases. They are also realized overtly in the determiner system of NPs, and more specifically the definite article. While the definite article in Tigrinya is realized as a separate word ( t- for nominative and n t- for accusative), it is realized in the form of a suffix in Amharic (-u for basic nominative and -un for accusative). In Tigrinya, there are inflectional paradigms for number and gender in the singular and plural forms. In Amharic, however, it is only in the singular that we see gender distinction. 2.1. Pronouns Tables 1 and 2 below show the pronominal systems of Tigrinya and Amharic. As can be seen from the tables, in the case of Tigrinya, in the nominative forms of the personal pronouns, we can see that the stem n ss- is common (except in the first person singular and plural) and the other forms are conjugated using agreement markers. In the 2 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Vol. 17 [2004] https://scholar.colorado.edu/cril/vol17/iss1/4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25810/aq41-pj57 Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages 3 accusative forms, n - is an object marker, as we shall see in the next section, which appears at the beginning of all the forms and suffixes which show person, number and gender concord are added to it. Table 1: Tigrinya pronominal system Person Nominative Accusative Genitive 1s an n ay nat y/nayy 1p n na n ana natna/nayna 2ms1 n ss xa n axa natxa/natka/nayxa 2fp n ss xi n axi natxi/natki/nayxi 2mp n ss xatum n axatum/ n axum natxatum/natatxum/nayxatum 2fp n ss xat n n axat n/ n ax n natxat n/natatx n/nayxat n 3ms n ssu n u natu/nayu 3fs n ssa n a a nata/naya 3mp n ssatom n atom/n om natatom/natom/nayatom 3fp n ssat n n at n/n n natat n/nat n/nayat n In the genitive, nat- (nay-) is the stem common to all the inflected forms in the paradigm. Following it are added the inflectional suffixes showing the agreement features of person, number and gender. Table 2: Amharic pronominal system Person Nominative Accusative Genitive 1s ne l ne y ne 1p nna l nna y nna 2ms ant lant yant 2fs anci lanci yancI 2mp 2fp nnant l nnant y nnant 3ms ssu/ rsu l ssu/l rsu y ssu/y rsu 3fs sswa/ rswa l sswa/l rswa y sswa/y rswa 3mp 3fp nn ssu/ nn rsu l nn ssu/l nn rsu y nn ssu/y nn rsu In the case of Amharic, as can be seen from Table 2, there is more diversity, the third person singular forms being more anomalous than the others. While all other forms 1Polite forms exist in the pronominal system of the languages. In Tigrinya, there are polite forms for 2ms n ss xum or n ssom, for 2fs n ss x n or n ss n, for 3ms n ssom, and for 3fs n ss n. In Amharic, there are also polite forms but with no gender distinction: rs wo for 2ms/2fs and rsac w 3ms/3fs. In Tigrinya, the use of polite forms applies to the determiner system as well where we have the same inflections for both the 3mp and its corresponding 3ms polite form on the one hand and for 3fp and 3fs polite form on the other. Mason (1996: 20) points out that the polite forms, which are used when talking about or addressing a person one defers, may be used as plurals. 3 Weldeyesus: Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages Published by CU Scholar, 2004 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Volume 17 (2004) 4 involve an alveolar nasal as part of the stem, the third person singular forms do not. The object marker l - and the genitive marker y - are added as prefixes taking the nominative as a stem to derive the accusative and genitive forms respectively. The presence of alternations in both tables is attributed to dialectal differences in both languages. 2.2. The Determiner (Definite Article) The definite articles in Tigrinya and Amharic show more differences than the pronominal system. While there is a stem for the article in Tigrinya, it is realized in the form of a suffix in Amharic as shown in the following tables. Table 3: Tigrinya definite article nominative Accusative Examples gloss ms t-i n t-i ti/n ti w di w ddi ‘boy’ fs t-a n t-a ta/n ta gwal gwal ‘girl’ mp t-om n t-om tom/n tom aw ddat aw ddat ‘boys’ fp t- n n t- n t n/n t n awal d awal d ‘girls’ As can be observed from Table 3, t- is the stem common to both the nominative and the accusative forms of the definite article in Tigrinya. What makes them distinct from each other is the presence of the object marker with the accusative forms. Note that the underlying representation for n t- is n - t-, which has been realized as n t- at the surface level2: t- → n - t- → n t. Table 4: Amharic definite article Nominative Consonants Vowels Accusative examples Gloss ms -u -w -un s w yye-w/-un s w yye ‘man’ fs -wa/-itu/-i( )twa -wa/-yet/-yetwa -un set yyo-wa/-n set yyo ‘woman’ mp fp -u -u -un s wwocc-u/-un setocc-u-/-un s wwocc ‘men’ setocc ‘women’ The Amharic definite article shows a more complicated picture as can be seen from Table 4. There is no stem representing the definite article as discussed above in the case of Tigrinya. It is realized in the form of a suffix attached to the noun it specifies. The 2 This phenomenon of phonological reduction seems to be quite common both in Amharic and Tigrinya. For example, in Tigrinya, the directional prepositions kab ‘from’ and nab ‘to’ are composed of k + ab and n + ab respectively. Likewise, in Amharic, as can be seen from Table 2, there is phonological reduction when the object marker and the genitive marker are added to the nominative, which serves as the stem. For example, in the first person singular, when the object marker l - and the genitive marker y - are added to the nominative ne, the initial sound of the stem has been deleted yielding the following: l + ne = l ne and y + ne = y ne. 4 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Vol. 17 [2004] https://scholar.colorado.edu/cril/vol17/iss1/4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25810/aq41-pj57 Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages 5 Amharic definite article is a suffixed element and has different realizations depending on whether the noun to which it is attached ends in a consonant or a vowel, singular or plural, and masculine or feminine. According to Leslau (1995: 155), if the noun to which it is attached is masculine singular and ends in a consonant, the marker of definiteness is - u as in bet ‘house’, which becomes bet-u ‘the house’. If the masculine singular ends in a vowel, however, the definite suffix is -w as in resa ‘corpse’, which becomes resa-w ‘the corpse’. On the other hand, if the noun to which the definite suffix is attached is feminine singular and ends in a consonant, the marker is realized as -wa, -itu, or -itwa ( twa) used interchangeably as in g r d ‘maid’ which becomes g r dwa/ g r ditu/ g r ditwa ‘the maid’. If the noun is feminine singular and ends in a vowel, the suffixed element is -wa, - y tu (-ytu) or -y twa, again used interchangeably, as in doro ‘hen’, which become dorowa/ doroy tu/ doroy twa ‘the hen’ (Leslau, 1995). There is no gender distinction in the plural in Amharic. The plural marker for all nouns is -occ or -wocc, the former for nouns ending in a consonant and the latter for nouns ending in a vowel, the -w- serving as an epenthetic segment between the cluster of vowels which is not permissible in both Amharic and Tigrinya. The definite marker added to these regardless of whether the noun is treated as masculine or feminine in the singular is -u. For example, in the masculine, as in n gusocc ‘kings’ (the plural of n gus ‘king’), the definite form becomes n gusocc-u ‘kings’. In the feminine, as in n g stocc ‘queens’ (the plural of n g st ‘queen’), the definite form becomes n g stocc-u ‘the queens’. The are certain forms which do not show any gender distinction and hence can be used for both masculine and feminine. One such example is ast nagaj ‘waiter/waitress’. The addition of an appropriate definiteness suffix determines the gender. For example, if -u is suffixed to it, it becomes ast nagaj-u ‘the waiter’; if -wa is suffixed to it, it becomes ast nagajwa ‘the waitress’. In the plural, there is no difference as discussed above: ast nagajocc ‘waiters/waitresses’ becomes ast nagajocc-u ‘the waiters/the waitresses’. It should be noted that while a distinction is made between masculine and feminine in both singular and plural in Tigrinya, it is only in the singular that a gender distinction is made in the case of Amharic. “For the plural, no distinction is made between the masculine and the feminine” (Leslau, 1995: 155). 2.3. Pronominal Affixes With the above introduction to the pronominal and determiner system of Tigrinya and Amharic so as to give a picture of the case system, we now see how case forms are indicated with the help of pronominal affixes attached to the verb. This will also help to further show the nominative-accusative nature of the case systems of the languages. Tigrinya: 1a) kasa m s’i -u Kasa came-3msS ‘Kasa came.’ b) kasa anb ssa-tat q til-u Kasa lion-PM killed-3msS 5 Weldeyesus: Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages Published by CU Scholar, 2004 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Volume 17 (2004) 6 ‘Kasa killed lions.’ Amharic: 2a) kasa arr f- Kasa rested/died-3msS ‘Kasa rested/died.’ b) kasa anb ss-oc g dd l- Kasa lion-PM killed-3msS ‘Kasa killed lions.’ The pronominal affixes attached to the verbs in the above examples show that Amharic and Tigrinya are nominative-accusative in their case systems. In (1) and (2), we see simple intransitive sentences in the (a) examples, and transitive sentences involving a direct object in the (b) examples. While the subjects of the intransitive sentences (S) and those of the transitive sentences (A) share similar features, the objects of transitive sentences (O/P) behave differently. For example, no matter whether the sentence is transitive or intransitive, the pronominal affix which is attached to the verb always agrees with the subject (S or A) in person, number and gender. The presence of a pronominal affix corresponding with the object appears only if the object is definite as will be shown in the following section. 3. Object Marking and Definiteness Apart from the typical case marking systems demonstrated above, the two languages also demonstrate a situation in which there is an interaction between object marking and the semantic notion of definiteness. The object marking takes two forms: using an object marker attached to the object or an object marking pronominal affix attached to the verb. 3.1. Object Marking Pronominal Affix and Definiteness The pronominal affix which marks the object in both languages interacts with the definiteness of the direct object in sentences with monotransitive verbs. Put another way, it is only if the nominal object is definite that the object marking verbal affix is attached to the verb. This is one instance of split P system. The split in this case is that if the nominal object is definite, the object marking verbal affix is attached to the verb; if the nominal object is indefinite, the object marking verbal affix is not attached to the verb. Tigrinya: 3a) kasa anb ssa-tat q til-u Kasa lion-PM killed-3msS ‘Kasa killed lions.’ b) kasa n t-om anb ssa-tat q til-u-wwom Kasa OMDef-3mp lion killed-3msS-3mpO ‘Kasa killed the lions.’ 6 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Vol. 17 [2004] https://scholar.colorado.edu/cril/vol17/iss1/4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25810/aq41-pj57 Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages 7 Amharic: 4a) kasa anb ssoc g dd l- Kasa lion killed-3msS ‘Kasa killed lions.’ b) kasa anb sso-c-u-n g dd l-acc w ( -acc w) Kasa lion-PM-Def-3mp-OM killed-3msS-3mpO ‘Kasa killed the lions.’ In Examples 3 and 4, the (a) sentences involve indefinite nominal objects, while the (b) sentences involve definite nominal objects. If the nominal object is indefinite, what we observe is that there is no pronominal affix attached to the verb. On the other hand, if the nominal object is definite, a pronominal affix which agrees in person, number and gender with the object is attached to the verb following the pronominal affix which shows concord with the subject. The fact that the pronominal affix which shows agreement with the subject is always attached to the verb is due to the pro-drop nature of the language. Pronominal subjects are optionally used unless there is some pragmatic reason to retain them. Yet, the verbal affixes attached to the verb always help in identifying the pronominal subject even if it may not appear overtly. In sum, what we see in the above discussion is an interaction between the occurrence of the object marking pronominal affix and the semantic notion of definiteness. It is only if the object is definite that the pronominal affix occurs. 3.2. Object Marker and Definiteness There is also an interaction between an object marker and the semantic notion of definiteness. Note that the object marker discussed here is different from the pronominal affix attached to the verb which was discussed in the previous section. The presence of an object marker along with the nominal object (preceding the object in the case of Tigrinya and following it in the case of Amharic) is likewise determined by whether the object is definite or not. Similar to the discussion in the preceding section, this is an instance of split P. In other words, the split would be between the occurrence of an object marker with the nominal object which is definite and its absence when the nominal object is not definite. Tigrinya: 5a) elsa anb ssa q til-a Elsa lion killed-3fsS ‘Elsa killed a lion.’ b) elsa had s b ay q til-a Elsa one man killed-3fsS ‘Elsa killed a man.’ c) elsa n t-u s b ay q til-a-tto Elsa OMDef-3ms man killed- 3fsS-3msO ‘Elsa killed the man.’ d) elsa n -kasa q til-a-tto Elsa OM-Kasa killed-3fsS-3msO 7 Weldeyesus: Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages Published by CU Scholar, 2004 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Volume 17 (2004) 8 ‘Elsa killed Kasa.’ Amharic: 6a) elsa anb ssa g dd l- c Elsa lion killed-3fsS ‘Elsa killed a lion.’ b) elsa and s w yye g dd l- c Elsa one man killed-3fsS ‘Elsa killed a man.’ c) elsa s w yye-w- n g dd l- cc- w Elsa man-Def3ms-OM killed-3fsS-3msO ‘Elsa killed the man.’ d) elsa kasa-n g dd l- cc- w Elsa Kasa-OM killed-3fsS-3msO ‘Elsa killed Kasa.’ As shown in Examples 5 and 6, when the object is not definite, no matter whether human or non-human, referential or non-referential, the object marker does not appear along with the direct object as in the (a) and (b) examples. Nevertheless, the object marker appears along with the object when the object is definite as in the (c) examples and proper nouns, which are inherently definite as in the (d) examples. Hopper and Thompson mention a situation in Spanish which “shows an extreme restriction in requiring that O’s marked with a must be not merely animate, but also either human or human-like–and furthermore that they be referential, as opposed to merely definite” (1980: 256). In Amharic and Tigrinya, it is only definiteness, but not humanness or referentiality that matters. Quoting Berman (1978), Hopper and Thompson discuss that O-markings occur with definite O’s regardless of referentiality or animacy taking an example from Modern Hebrew, in which an indefinite O is not marked as the object (but unmarked like the subject) while a definite O is marked with the object marker et, in addition to the definite article (1978: 256). This shows that there are two accompanying formal representations - an instance of double marking of the definite accusative, i.e., attaching an object marker to the nominal object, and adding a pronominal affix to the verb showing agreement features. In fact, these features seem to coexist all the time, as one does not occur without the other. It is also important to see what picture the object marking takes in sentences involving verbs taking two objects, commonly called indirect and direct, or first and second objects. Dryer (1986) calls these primary and secondary objects respectively. The verbal suffixes which show agreement in person, number and gender with the subject and the object are sequentially attached to the verb in order to signal the subject and indirect object agreement features. Tigrinya: 7a) kasa n - aster m s’ afti hib-u-wwa Kasa OM-Aster book gave-3msS-3fsO ‘Kasa gave Aster a book.’ 8 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Vol. 17 [2004] https://scholar.colorado.edu/cril/vol17/iss1/4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25810/aq41-pj57 Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages 9 b) aster n -kasa m s’ af hib-a-tto Aster OM-Kasa book gave-3fsS-3msO ‘Aster gave Kasa a book.’ Amharic: 8a) kasa l -aster m s’haf s t’t’-at ( -at) Kasa OM-Aster book gave-3msS-3fsO ‘Kasa gave Aster a book.’ (Getahun, 1990: 176/178) b) aster l -kasa m s’haf s t’t’- cc- w Aster OM-Kasa book gave-3fsS-3msO ‘Aster gave Kasa a book.’ Examples 7 and 8 involve ditransitive verbs. Whenever there are two objects, the theme argument remains unmarked, while the recipient/beneficiary is doubly marked in both languages: a dative-benefactive marker preceding the recipient argument, and a verbal affix showing agreement with it appears next to the pronominal affix designating the subject. The agent and recipient arguments in the (a) examples, which differ in gender have been switched in the (b) examples. Consequently, we see a change in the agreement markers which are attached to the verb. In his discussion of predicates taking two objects, Dryer argues, “In transitive clauses containing a notional DO but no IO, the object affix represents the notional DO. In clauses containing both a notional IO and a notional DO, the object affix represents the notional IO” (1986: 812, emphasis added). In his cross-linguistic study of topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement, Givon argues in the same line: “When both an accusative and dative-benefactive are present in the neutral word order, dative agreement takes precedence over accusative” (1976: 162). The above phenomenon partly goes along with the issue of humanness. Since the indirect object represents the recipient, which is most likely to be human, it takes precedence over the direct object which represents the theme. Hence, the object marking pronominal affixes which agree with the recipient appear next to the subject marking affix, while the direct object remains unmarked. In their discussion of sentences with ditransitive verbs, Hopper and Thompson (1980) argue that when a human object is in competition with an inanimate object for overt marking, it is the human object that wins. Since their study is discourse-based, the generalization that Hopper and Thompson give makes more sense. Although this appears to be the general tendency, there can also be situations in which a non-human object can win. Nevertheless, what matters most in the case of Amharic and Tigrinya is not the humanness/non-human, but definite/indefinite distinction. A similar situation is observed in the case of argument promotion. One such instance is the causative. In both Amharic and Tigrinya, a sentence with a monotransitive verb becomes ditransitive with the addition of the causative morpheme. Tigrinya: 9a) kasa b ggi arid-u Kasa sheep slaughtered-3msS ‘Kasa slaughtered a sheep.’ b) astern -kasa b gi a- rid-a-tto 9 Weldeyesus: Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages Published by CU Scholar, 2004 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Volume 17 (2004) 10 AsterOM-Kasa sheep CAUS-slaughtered-3fsS-3msO ‘Aster caused Kasa to slaughter a sheep.’ Amharic: 10a) kasab g arr d- Kasasheepslaughtered-3msS ‘Kasa slaughtered a sheep.’ b) aster kasa-n b g asar d- cc-iw Aster Kasa-OM sheep CAUS-slaughtered-3fsS-3msO ‘Aster caused Kasa to slaughter a sheep.’ Transitive verbs are two-place predicates. The addition of the causative marker to transitive verbs introduces a causer argument and the ultimate output seems to be similar to non-causative ditransitive verbs. The causer argument assumes the subject position; the patient assumes the direct object position; while the causee takes the indirect object position. As in the discussion of sentences with ditransitive verbs, the object marker is attached to the causee. In addition, the object marking pronominal affix attached to the verb agrees in person, number and gender with the causee, since the causee takes the position of the indirect object. In connection with this, Comrie (1989:177) states that in cross-linguistic study of causative constructions involving transitive verbs, the indirect object seems to be the most justified position for the causee which is extremely widespread across the languages of the world. The verbal affixes also help in signalling the subject and the indirect object in the causative construction just similar to non- causative constructions with ditransitive verbs as stated above with the subject marking pronominal affix appearing immediately next to the verb and then followed by the indirect object marking pronominal affix. The basic object of the monotransitive verb, however, remains unmarked. 4. Summary This paper set out with the object of presenting a description of the case marking system in system in Tigrinya and Amharic, closely related Ethiopian Semitic languages. While there are no nominal case markings except in definite objects, the case marking system is fully retained in the pronominal and determiner (definite article) systems of both languages. This paper has also shown that the languages are nominative-accusative in their case system, with the help of not only pronouns and the definite article, but also pronominal affixes which are attached to the verb to show the agreement features of person, number and gender with subjects and definite objects taking typical transitive sentences. An attempt has also been made to show the interaction between object marking and the semantic notion of definiteness. Object marking has been seen from two perspectives. On the one hand, there is an object marker which is attached to the nominal definite object. On the other hand, there is an object marking verbal affix which is attached to the verb. In both cases, it is only if the object is definite that these object markings appear. This is an instance of split P. The two related object-marking phenomena always coexist. 10 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Vol. 17 [2004] https://scholar.colorado.edu/cril/vol17/iss1/4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25810/aq41-pj57 Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages 11 Whenever the object is definite, not only is the object marker attached to the nominal definite object, but the object marking pronominal affix is attached to the verb. Although there are instances where the occurrence of the object markings is closely related to the human and non-human, animate and inanimate, and referential and non-referential distinctions in several other languages as shown by Hopper and Thompson (1980), it is only the definite-indefinite distinction which is the essential parameter in the case of Amharic and Tigrinya. 11 Weldeyesus: Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages Published by CU Scholar, 2004 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Volume 17 (2004) 12 References AMANUEL, SAHLE. 1998. Sewasiw Tigrinya B’sefihu (A Comprehensive Tigrinya Grammar). New Jersey and Asmara: The Red Sea Press, Inc. BAYE, YIMAM. 1987 E.C. YeAmarinya sewasiw [Amharic Grammar in Amharic]. Addis Ababa: E.M.P.D.A. COMRIE, BERNARD. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (Second Edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. GIVON, TALMY. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li. (Ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press. DRYER, MATTHEW S. 1986. Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative. Language 62: 808-845. GETAHUN, AMARE. 1990 E.C. YeAmarinya Sewasiw [Amharic Grammar in Amharic]. Addis Ababa: Commercial Printing Press. HOPPER, PAUL J. AND SANDRA A. THOMPSON. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251-299. LESLAU, WOLF. 1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. MASON, JOHN. 1996. Tigrinya Grammar. New Jersey: The Red Sea Press, Inc. Key to Abbreviations Used 1,2,3 = 1st, 2nd and 3rd Person CAUS = Causative Marker Def = Definite E.C. = Ethiopian Calendar Gen = Genitive f = feminine m = masculine O = object OM = Object Marker PM = Plural Marker p = plural s = singular S = subject 12 Colorado Research in Linguistics, Vol. 17 [2004] https://scholar.colorado.edu/cril/vol17/iss1/4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25810/aq41-pj57 Colorado Research in Linguistics 6-2004 Case Marking Systems in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages Weldu M. Weldeyesus Recommended Citation Microsoft Word - paper_WELDEYESUS.doc