Complex verbs in Bohairic Coptic

Zakrzewska, E.D.

doi:10.1075/slcs.180.08zak

Cited by 17 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 Both for the indirect object in the sense of a goal or beneficiary and for the direct object with verbs of perception, ⲉ-/ⲉⲣⲟ= e-/ero= can appear instead. Support-verb constructions seem integrated in this system, in that direct objects with ⲙ-/ⲙⲙⲟ= m-/mmo= are available (Reintges 2001;Zakrzewska 2017). With the so-called possessed nouns, object integration by means of suffixation if the object is pronominal is also possible, for example, ⲕ-ϯ-ⲣⲏⲧ-ϥ k-ti-r et-f 2sg-give-name-POSS.3sg 'you are calling him', as it is for simplex verbs outside the imperfective system.…”

Section: Object Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects: Greek‐Coptic Interference in the Documentary Papyri?¹

Fendel

2023

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Support‐verb constructions are combinations of a verb and a noun that fill the predicate slot, for example, to make a suggestion in I made the suggestion yesterday. The article examines direct‐object structures with support‐verb constructions in Greek documentary papyri from fourth‐ to mid‐seventh‐century Egypt. By the fourth century, Greek and Egyptian (at this stage called Coptic) had co‐existed in Egypt for about a millennium and the latter was gaining ground. The article focusses on the support‐verb‐construction families surrounding ἐξουσίαν exousian ‘power’ and ἐγγύην egguēn ‘surety’ as well as on a selection of structures with ποιέομαι poieomai ‘to do’. The article finds that direct‐object structures in the data sample have differing explanations. Direct‐object patterns are a marginal pattern in classical Greek already, such that some patterns can be explained by inheritance or the extension of a pattern to new contexts. However, some writers either idiolectally or sociolectally applied object patterns more widely based on the Coptic parallel. The syntax of support‐verb constructions in Greek does not run counter to the verbal syntax otherwise, which may aid the fact that they do not introduce systemic changes.

show abstract

Section: Object Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One ‘is based on aspect (telicity) and referential properties of the arguments (head marking vs. n ‐/ mmo= ), the other one on their agentivity vis‐à‐vis affectedness ( n ‐/ mmo= vs. e ‐/ ero= vs. n ‐ na= etc. )’ (Zakrzewska 2017: 165). The first subsystem reflects the Stern‐Jernstedt rule with all verbs in Coptic.…”

Section: A Mixed Bagmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects: Greek‐Coptic Interference in the Documentary Papyri?¹

Fendel

2023

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt

Fendel¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Egypt in the early Byzantine period was a bilingual country where Greek and Egyptian (Coptic) were used alongside each other. Historical studies along with linguistic studies of the phonology and lexicon of early Byzantine Greek in Egypt testify to this situation. In order to describe the linguistic traces the language-contact situation left behind in individuals’ linguistic output, this study analyses the syntax of early Byzantine Greek texts from Egypt. The primary object of interest is bilingual interference in the syntax of verbs, adverbial phrases, and clause linkage as well as in semi-formulaic expressions and formulaic frames. The study is based on a corpus of Greek and Coptic private letters on papyrus, which date from the fourth to mid-seventh centuries, originate from Egypt, and belong to bilingual, Greek-Coptic, papyrus archives. The study shows that deviations from the standard pattern fall into three categories, i.e. bilingual interference, SLA-related errors, and internal confusion of patterns. There is a marked difference as to the extent to which deviations, and interferences in particular, affect syntactic domains. The degree of complexity of the syntactic structure in question as well as the degree of divergence from the corresponding Coptic structure seem to play a role. There is also a marked difference as to the extent to which deviations affect different types of contexts (i.e. free, semi-formulaic, and formulaic contexts). The degree to which constraints are imposed on structures in each type of context seems to play a role. Finally, it appears that the way writers assimilated patterns can explain a large number of deviations. Interferences account proportionately for fewest deviations vis-à-vis SLA-related errors and the internal confusion of patterns.

show abstract

Copyright Page

Fendel

2022

Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters From Egypt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex verbs in Bohairic Coptic

Cited by 17 publications

References 35 publications

Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects: Greek‐Coptic Interference in the Documentary Papyri?¹

Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects: Greek‐Coptic Interference in the Documentary Papyri?¹

Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt

Copyright Page

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Complex verbs in Bohairic Coptic

Cited by 17 publications

References 35 publications

Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects: Greek‐Coptic Interference in the Documentary Papyri?1

Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects: Greek‐Coptic Interference in the Documentary Papyri?1

Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt

Copyright Page

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects: Greek‐Coptic Interference in the Documentary Papyri?¹

Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects: Greek‐Coptic Interference in the Documentary Papyri?¹