Confrontational Analysis of Taxis on the emic and etic levels – English, Arabic and Kurdish
Prepared by the researcher : Pro. Dr. Rafik Sulaiman
Democratic Arabic Center
International Journal of Kurdish Studies : Fourth Issue – January 2024
A Periodical International Journal published by the “Democratic Arab Center” Germany – Berlin
:To download the pdf version of the research papers, please visit the following link
Abstract
In this present study we try to bring together, as part of contrastive linguistics, translation, lexicography and confrontation of morphological forms, both on the emic and etic levels. Another theoretical problem has been tackled here, the problem of the basis of all aspects of confrontational linguistics. One could not compare two or more languages unless one had a very clear idea of a certian underlying tertium comparationis, some third member on the basis of which the confrontation was effected. Languages may be quite different in every imaginable respect. If they belong to different linguistic familes, then the differences are practically unpredictable and unlimited. If we think that we can translate from one language into another, either in the from of texts or by way of writing or compling dictionaries, or by way of creating contrastive grammars, then we must be sure that there does exist a backdrop against which the difference will actually stand out.
When we compare English and Kurdish we always expect great similarity, because they are distantly related languages. If we take a closely related language the degree of similarity should increase. Thus, let us take the following examples in English and Kurdish( and in both Romanian and French just to make it more clear!).
He entered the shop below. = Ew derbasî dikana jêr bû = Il entra dans le magazin qui se trouvait au rez-de-chaussee.= Intra in pravalia de la parter.
Soames followed another method.= Soames mîtodek/rêbazek din peyda kir = Soames adopta une autre methode = Soames adopta o alta metoda.
The examples given above suffice to demonstrate that past indefinite- Dema boriya têdayî= passe simple- Perfectul simplu are practically identical in cases of this kind, both from the point of view of synchronic functional confrontation and the historical community of morphological systems.
When conronting English, Kurdish, French and Romanian, we begin concentrating on the original identity and approach confrontation with preconceived ideas of potential correspondences already formed in advance. But we have an altogether different picture when we approach the task of confrontation of completely different languages, such English, Kurdish and Romanian, on one side and Arabic on the other.
As far as Arabic is concerned, all we have is an abstract idea that, typologically, it can refer the utterances to the moment of speaking and classify its speech formations as including the moment of speech, preceding and following it.
we cannot have any previous assumptions about the form these oppositions may have in Arabic, for there is no comparative-historical basis whatsoever for us to go by. But in our case we have not only got it, we must know how to use it.
We cannot ignore it or insist that one of the basic premises of confrontational linguistics is complete renunciation of all background comparative-historical knowledge.
It goes without saying that if the confrontation of cognate languages had been reduced to statements of complete fromal identity, there would be no need in working out a seperate methodology, for contrastive linguistics,comparative-historical linguistics would be adequate.
Even confrontation of cognate languages becomes necessary because in a very large number of cases they diverge widely for no synchronically obvious reason. When we confront English, Kurdish and Arabic, we regard the equivalent forms and complete non-coincidence of forms as quite natural and regular.
( MELENCIUC D: 1994)
More than that, the complete non-coincidence even on the expression plane would be regarded as a curious cas, as a peculiar phenomenon. But when we are dealing with cognate language we cannot help asking: why is dema boriya teedayii, perfectul simplu not used regularly, is it so functionally limited as to be replaced in speech and non-fiction texts by a stylistically more natural form- Dema boriya teküz, perfectul compus? It is not always easy to explain this difference only by stylistical factors.
This will be possible only if the non-coincidences were confined to colloquial style:
When did they go over?= Kangî ew çûn?= Cand au emigrat?
You were absolutely right?= Tu tam rast bûyî?
= Ai avut perfect/dreptate.
Exactly the same relationship is found in scientific texts:
They recognized what was to become the basic principle of modern linguistics.
= Ei au recunoscut acest principiu, care aveas/devina principiul fundamental al lingvisticii moderne. ( E. Benveniste: 1967)
Past indefinite has been confronted with dema boriya têdayî, perfectul simplu to illustrate historical continuity; with dema boriya teküz, perfectul compus it was confronted as an instance of divergence which even today is not easy to account for.
There are cases when past indefinite is translated by means of neteküz, imperfectul in Kurdish and Romanian, and imperfect in Arabic, in spite of the fact that imperfect expresses non-completion of an action, and ought to be always referable to past continuous, which has become so specifically continuous, it is very often found to have a metasemiotic co nnotation and past indefinite is increasingly used to denote not merely the point actions, but also those which require serious attention not only to the fact of its having taken place but also to the way it progressed-hence the tendency to equate past indefinite with imperfectul:
He represented for her the reality of things.
= Wî ji bo wê rastiya tiştan temsîl dikir = El reprezenta pentru ea realitatea vie/ii.
It reminded me too much= Pir zêde hat bîra min.
=Dar ea mi-l reamintea
A similar phenomenon is observed in Arabic. Here the imperfect also expresses an extended action, which is not complete:
Yaktubü; Hua yaktubü=يكتبُ /هو يكتبُ
The imperfect in Arabic preseded by qad expresses an action in general(qad yaktubü=قد يكتبُ ). This means may be and may be not!.
The fact that the imperfect has a wider meaning in Kurdish and Romanian and correspondingly in Arabic than the English continuous aspects forms may be explained by the fact that the latter appeared much later and its meaning is based not on aspectual opposition proper, but on a specific continuous aspects as a form which in most cases in emphatically loaded (metasemiotically burdened).
Of particular interest are those cases when past indefinite is confronted with past anteriority forms in the contrasted languages. Only a study of the collocational situations can account for this:
All through the house it was a wakeful night.
= Casa inreaga/petrecuse o noapte de veghe.
He was an actor on the English stage.(J.Galsworthy).
= Ew aktorek li ser sehneya îngilîzî bû .
= Fusese actor pe scena engleza.
If we base our conclusion on the context, then what has been said here in the past indefinite forms, is in the relationship of anteriority with the preceding and the subsequent situation. The category of anteriority and the content of precedence in the case of two events, follo wing one another, are in avery complex relationship. The fact is that real anteriority may both find expression, or remain unexpressed, in the way the appropriate forms are used.
Everything, depends on the purport of the utterance.
It is interesting to note that anteriority is closely connected, in the above given examples, with different predications of being.
There are different ways of saying or expressing it but the less natural ones would be metasemiotically coloured. One and the same actual situation may be categorially interpreted in completely different ways.
The choice of this or that interpretation will depend on the idiomatic character of this or that language as well as the intention of the speaker.
What has been said above is confirmed by examples where the English past indefinite is confronted with present in Kurdish and Romanian:
Linguistics was worked out within the framework of comparative grammar.
( E.Benveniste:1967)
= Zimannasî di çarçova beraweriya rêzimanî de hatiye xebitandin!
= Lingvistica se elaboreaz/’n cadrul grammaticii comparative.
In this case probably the English translator is not using present tense because simply he would not consider this as an idiomatically acceptable way of saying it. It is also probable that in Kurdish even in Romanian in such cases historical present may be used without expressing any connotation.
1.1. In English historical present would invariably carry different metasemiotic overtones.
As far as present perfect is concerned it is included in the category of taxis but in this case we do not find a clear-cut opposition as in the case of future perfect and past perfect.
Comparing past indefinite and present perfect we see that in both cases the actions are in the past.
The main difference between them is that past indefinite is an action separated by the speaker from the present moment:
I visited London in January
Ez di meha çile de çûm Londonê
I saw him ten seconds ago.
Min ew berî deh saniyan(sîkondan) dît!
and present perfect expresses an anterior action connected with the present moment
1) directly: I have lived in London for 10 years. I have been waiting you for an hour!, and
= 10 sal in ez li Londonê dijim. Ev(bü) saeteke li heviya te me!.
2)indirectly by means of a period of time connected with the present moment:
I have visited London this year. I have seen him this week.
= Min îsal serdaniya Londonê kiriye . Min ew vê haftiyê dîtiye!.
If there is no time marker and no context we usually use present perfect.
I have read all the books written by this author. What I mean is that I began to read them sometwhere in the past and continued to read them during my life( up till now).
= Min tevahiya pirtukên ku ji hela nivîskarî ve hatine nivîsandin, xwendiye!
In case I want to tell you exactly when I finished them reading I could say:
” I read all the books written by this author last year.”
= Min par tevahiya pirtûkên vî nivîskarî xwendin!
Present perfect may also be used to express future anteriority in clauses of time and condition:
As soon as I have read the book I shall return it to you. And if I have read it by five o’clcok I ‘ll bring it to you today.
Di aciiliin wext de ku min pirtuk xwendibe ez ee wee li te vegeriinim.
At first sight it seems that there is complete coincidence between present Perfect in English and perfect compus in Romanian on one hand and Kurdish present perfect= dema boriya têdayî on other hand!.
But the actual functioning is quite different. Perfect compus has one more function, that of expressing actions not connected with present moment and in this case it regularly confronted with past indefinite in English:
1) Anteriority directly connected with the present moment equivalent to present perfect exclusive actions:
Am citit pan/acum. In case of present perfect inclusive, it is regularly rendered to Kurdish but more to Romanian by means of present:
Locuiesc aici de 20 de ani.
2) Anetriority indirectlt connected with the present moment:
L-am vzut anul acesta. Am vizitat Londora anul acesta.
3) An action not connected with the present moment:
Am citit o carte ieri.
4) Future anteriority used stylistically in colloquial speech:
Cum numai am citit cartea, i-o intorc. Cum am ajuns acasa,ma apuc de lucru.
The perfect in Arabic can also express an action anterior to the present moment and it is usually used with the particle:
Litani qad katabtü el-Risalata=ليتني قد كتبتُ الرسالة
= I was to have written the letter.
In some cases the perfect may express an action very close in meaning to the present action( Fahimtü=فهمتُ . I understand. Afham.
I knew).
Past perfect in English is used to express: anteriority to an action or moment in the past:
He said that he had seen the film.
= Wî got ku wî Fîlim dîtibü!
= Hua qala inhü qad shahada El-film =هو قال: انه قد شاهدَ الفيلم .
Future aneriority from a moment in the past in clauses of time and condition:
He promised that he would return the book as soon as he had read it, and if he had read it by six o’clock he would bring it on the same day.
= Wî soz da ku ew ê pirtükê bixwîne, heke heta seat şeşan bixwîne dê wê di heman rojê de vegerîne/bîne.
= Hua wa’ada inhü sayerjahü El-kitaba sera’anama yaqraahü, wa iza qad qaraaha qabla el saa el-sadisa sayerajahü bi nafsi El-yüm.
هو وعدَ انه سيرجع الكتاب عندما يكون قد قرأها وإذا قد قرأها قبل الساعة السادسة سيرجعه بنفس اليوم
1.2. The form of past perfect used to express an unreal condition or wish in the past clauses of unreal condition(subjunctive II), in this case present perfect does not express anteriority in the past:
If you had come yesterday you would have met them. If I had the dictionary yesterday I should have translated the article. If you hade come yesterday you would have met him.
= Eger tu şeva bûrî hatiba, te dê bi wan re hevdîtin bikira. Eger duh ferheng li nik min hebüya, diviya min gotar wergeranda. Eger tu şeva bûrî hatibayî , te ew didît.
=Iza rajata el-bariha lakuntüm qad raaytehüm. Iza hasaltü ela El-qamüs-i- lakuntü qad tarjamtü El-meqalata. Iza qad Ja’atüm El-bariha, lakuntüm qad raaytahüm إذا رجعتُ البارحة لكنتُ قد رأيته.إذا حصلتُ على القاموسِ لكنت قد ترجمتُ المقالة.
إذا جئتم البارحة لرأيته .
There is a tendency in English (especially) in the American variant) sometimes to use a non-perfect form instead of past perfect in colloquial speech, anteriority in such cases is expressed lexically or contextually. This tendency is more advanced in the Romanian language and in the republic of Moldova.
In the spoken language people would regularly substitute pluscvamperfectul with perfectul compus( in the meaning of past indefinite), anteriority again is expressed lexically: ” C’nd am venit ea deja a plecat”instead of ‘c’nd am venit ea deja plecase”.
(MELENCIUC D.: 1994)
Past perfect in Kurdish, as in English, is not an analytical form( Suffix-verb”bü)added to verb. But in Arabic peresent perfect&past perfect are an analytical form( the qad) plus lexical article are added to distinguish betwen both of them in Arabic. The past perfect wil not be used in Arabic! but the present perfect!. We could express anetriority in the past:
Qad talat Elshamsü= قد طلعت الشمس
= The sun has had already set/
The sun has already set! may be by lexical means!.
Past perfect in Kurdish more often used to express taxis than other anteriority forms.
But the Present perfect in Arabic is more often to express taxis than other anteriority.
Comparing English, Kurdish and Romanian texts very often we find non-coincidences like:
1) Past perfect- Dema teküz- Perfectul compus:
I replied unwittingly, and not at first observing the extraordinary manner in which the speaker had chimed in with my meditation.
= ng’ndurat cum eram, la ‘nceput nici nu mi-am dat seama ca vorbele lui au coincis intocmai cu gandurile mele.
This discrepancy may be also explained with the tendency in Romanian to substitute pluscvamperfect by perfectul compus ( a form identical to present perfect in English as well as Kurdish).
2) Past perfect- Dema boriya teküz- perfectul simplu:
On the evening of her twenty-second (Fleur’s) birthday Michael had come home.
= Di şeva bist û du saliya rojbüna wê de Mîkael hatibû malê.(hatibû malê)
=In seara celei de-a dou/zeci si dou/anivers/ri a lui Fleur, Mihai veni acasa.
Again simple past form is used (simple past is used only in fiction in the written form, with the exception of some dialects) and this may be considered as a tendency of pluscvamperfectul(past perfect) in Kurdish and Romanian to gradually get out of usage.
The anteriority plane can now be regarded as a supercilious pedanticism.
More than that, the anteriority form is becoming peripheral and even optional, for in situations of ordinary, everyday dialogue it is very easy to do without it.
Thus, the simultaniety-anteriority category(taxis)need not necessarity be expressed by elaborate morphological means. It would be faultlessly correct to say, for example: He first went to London, and then he came to Paris or He was in London and came to Paris much later.
We would like to mention in this connection again some important points of linguistic confrontation to be taken into consideration. (Nickel G:1970))
First of all we have to stress the fact that one could not compare two or more languages unless one had a very clear idea of a certain underlying
tertium comparationis (in our case it is English and its category of taxis, which is well developed and has been linguistically well investigated), some third member on the basis of which the confrontation is affected.
Our previous knowledge of the confronted languages also helps us to secure a firm stand, a reliable basis for our analysis and there is no doubt that synchronic confrontation of any two systems cannot be really scientific unless account is carefully taken of their previous development.
(Sulaiman Rafik. 2008)
2.1. Non-Predicative(nominative) Anteriority forms in English, Arabic and Kurdish
We we analyse the material on the categorial level we have to take into consideration the specific system of nominal(non-predicative forms). If we take the category of taxis in the predicative forms, we observe that the categorial forms of anteriority are mixed with those of tense and aspect, etc. In the nominal forms taxis is usually expressed in a “pure” way.
The non-predicative forms in English are: past participle, present participle( the marked form of taxis is present participle perfect forms), the gerund with its perfect and non-perfect forms and the infinitive.
2.2. Non-perfect infinitive( the unmarked form of taxis).
When we compare related languages we always expect to find more coincidences than differences. Let’s take some examples from English, Kurdish Romanian and confront them and then do the same with examples taken from English and Arabic.
Smaller boys than himself flocked at his heels proud to be seen with him.
(M.Twain)
= Zarokên ji wî piçüktir li ber lingên wî civîyan ü serfirazbün ku ew bi wî re bên dîtin.
= B/e= ii mici alergau buluc ‘n urma lui, m’ndri de a fi v/zu=i ‘mpreun/cu el.
In this example as we see we have complete coincidence. But to our surprise when analysing a larger number of examples we come to the conclusion that the great majority of them are classified as non-coincidences. Let’s take some examples, where the English infinitive is translated into Kurdish and Romanian by other than invinitive forms.
Very often the equivalent in Kurdish and Romanian are”conjuctivul”, a form which is gradually taking over from the infinitive:
The strom culminated in one matchless effort than seemed likely to tear the island to pieces, burn it up, drown it to the treetops,blow it away, and deafen every creature in it, all at one and the same moment. (M.Twain)
= Furtuna se n/pusti cu ‘ta furie, ‘nc ‘t p/rea c/vrea s/sf/r ‘ME İNSULA ‘n /ri,s-o mistue ‘n fl/c/ri,s/inunde copacii,s-o mistue depe fa/a p/m ‘ntului(i s/st ‘rpeasc/orice fiin)/ vie.
To take from a civilian to pay a civilian
(J.Galsworthy)
= Ji sivîlekî bistînin ku bidin sivîlekî .
= S/ei de la un civil pentru a-l pl7ti pe alt civil.
It was very interesting to find that the English non-perfect infinitive can be translated into Kurdish
and Romanian by means of present tense form:
But what has Cahrlie Ferar done not to be spoken for six years!
= Lê Cahrlie Ferar çi kiriye ku şeş salan naye axaftin!
= Dar ce a f/cut Charlie Ferar de nu-(i vorbesc de/ase ani).
The non-perfect infinitive in Arabic usually called”El-hader El-basit”( present infinitive) is regularly corresponding to the English simple infinitive:
I can speak English أنا أستطيع أتكلم الأنكليزية
= Ena astatih atakalam El-engliziya.
You have to read the book by tomorrow
= Enta yajab an taqraa El-kitaba qabla El-ghad يجب أن تقرأ الكتاب قبل الغد.
There is nobody to help me.
= La yujad hunaka ahadin an yesa’adni
I wanted him to come in time
= Ena aradtuhu an yahti(ya) fi waktihi=أنا أردته أن يأتي في وقته
The strom culminated in one matchless effort than seemed likely to tear the island to pieces, burn it up, drown it to the treetops,blow it away, and deafen every creature in it, all at one and the same moment.(M.Twain)
In the last example we find two indifinities that have been translated into Arabic by means of past indefinite ( Elmadi Elbasit=الماضي البسيط ) Elasifa ba’da, El-hal and stress on”t” and “n” in ” Ratabat” and masmuhan”. And there is an example where the infinitive is translated into Arabic by means of the present indefinite without a stress( Elhader Elbasit=الحاضر البسيط )
To take from a civilian and to pay a civilian
= Taahuza min El-müatin(Elmadany) wa terga’aha lahü.
= تأخذ من المواطن وترجعه له
( but this analyse of prosodic stress could be depended on in both Arabic El-hadir El-basit and El-madi Elbasit. We just try it!).
Next we are going to give examples with perfect infinitive forms in English, Arabic, Kurdish and Romanian:
Yes, and frequently enough to have found the carriage,-answered the queen
Da,(i prea fericit chiar de a fi g/sit acea tr/sur/, replica regina.
After having looked at the rat again they separated horrified to have said so many things misterious and delicate.( M. Twain)
= Privind la(obolan din nou ei s-au desp/r/it ‘ngrozi/i de a fi spus at ‘t de multe lucruri misterioase(İ delicat e.
= Bada an nazaru ila El-jardi saniyatin, bi haufaan kaabiran kanu yaqulun ına kesir min El-ashia ghamidün wa mütahayerün.
Confronting the material we come to the conclusion that the perfect infinitive forms are widely used in English and relatively not so often in Kurdish and Romanian, especially in the spoken language.
Even in those cases where we do have perfect infinitive forms in translation, they can be easily replaced by the “conjunctivul perfect”( which are perfectable in usual speech and less bookish.
In Arabic in the examples given above we have”El-hader El-tam)regularly used, accompanied by some lexical forms with a logical stress on them to identity the given form (an+stress; bahda+wa+stress; ahiran+an+wa+stress).
Let’s take some other cases. There cases where the English perfect infinitive is translated into Kurdish and Romanian by past perfect and present perfect. While analysing the non-finite forms we shall sometimes name participle I and gurnd as -ing forms.
The difference between them is that the gerund is closer to the noun in its functions, and the participle is closed to the adjective. In their perfect forms they have some common functions(of adverbial modifier)and both forms express anteriority. If the actions follow one after the other, a simple form (non-perfect) is used, anteriority being expressed simply lexically or contextually, because there no need to intensify it by grammatical ant eriority. Thus for example:
Having registered all the letters, the secretary sent them down to be posted. Having won the first match by only one point, the players realized that they must train much harder to win the championship. Not finding my friend at home, I left a note for him. On entering the room he ıntroduced himself to all those present. After looking through the morning mail the manager called in his secretary and dictated a few letters.
= Piştî ku Sekreterê hemû name tomarkirin , ew ji bo postkirinê şandin.
Piştî qezenckirina lîsteka yekem bi yek golê, lîztikvanan tê giheştin ku ji bo bidestxistina şampiyoniyê divê ew dijwartir perwede bibin. Min hevalê xwe li malê nedît, min ji bo wî nametêbînîk hila. Dema ku ew derbasî odê bû wî xwe pêşkêşî tevahiya zindiyan kir. Piştî ku rêveber li nameyên sibê mêze kir, bangî Sekraterê xwe kir ü bi wî çend name dane nivîsandin.
The perfect-ing forms are usually used in the formal bookish language. The perfect -ing forms passive voice are used much more rarely even in the literary language. (LADO R: 1973)
The perfect infinitive in English is still regularly used both in the literary and colloquil language(in the former it is much more often used).
Here are some examples:
Yes, and fortunately enough to have found the carriage. At last I’ll obtain the favour from you not to leave behind the regret to have seen the poor queen perish, and to not have fought for her
It is interesting to observe that confronting the nominal perfect forms in English, Kurdish and Romanian it was observed that they are relatively more often used in English and Kurdish than in Romanian, where predicative are used to render them.
Now let’s take some examples where English and Arabic nominal(perfect and non-perfect) forms will be confonted:
I begin writing a letter.
= Ena badahtü aktubü El-risalata=أنا بدأتُ أكتبُ الرسالة
( an identical form coinciding in its meaning, is used-“participle”).
It is nice to have written the letter in time.
Jamilün an taktüba(taküna katiban) El-risala fi weqtiha = جميل أن تكتب(تكون كاتبآ) الرسالة في وقتها.
A form coinciding with future perfect is used in Arabic.
It is so good of you to have been working for so long.
Inhü gamilün minka an tamila(taküna amilan) hakaza tawila
= إنه لطف منك أن تعمل (تكون عاملآ) هكذا طويلآ.
A form coinciding with future perfect imperfectve or continuous is used in Arabic.
Having read the book he returned it to me.
Enha El-kitab wa arj’aha ley=
انهي الكتاب وارجعه لي
(lexical from bahda+the verb express equivalent meaning given in the English sentence).
After having visited my friend I went home
Bahda ziyareta sadiqi zahabtü ila El-beyti
بعد زيارة صديقي ذهبتُ إلى البيت
(past participle +bahda)
On enterning the room I shook hands with everybody.
Indama dahaltü El-ghürfa safahtühüm külahüm = عندما دخلتُ الغرفة صافحتهم كلهم.
(Past participle+lexical element of bahda).
It is very kind of you to be working in the garden now.
Lutfün minka an taamila(taküna amilan) fi El-hadiqati el-aan.
لطف منك أن تعمل في الحديقة اليوم.
( Present participle +lexical element El-aan.)
Comparing the examples given above we can conclude that in spite of the fact that the system of nominal forms in English is completely different from that given in the Arabic, where we do not have a definite system, we still have enough means to render the categorial means from the source language into the target one.
Thus, a participle in Arabic corresponds to the English -ing form writing, the perfect infinitives are rendered by grammatical forms homonymous with future perfect in Arabic, the perfect infinitive continuous forms is rendered by means of future continuous.
Perfect -ing forms and non-perfect -ing forms with lexical and contextual anteriority meaning have been translated into Arabic by means of past participle and the lexical form”bahda”meaning “after”.
CONCLUSION:
As a result of systematic confrontational analysis of the categorial forms of taxis, tense and aspect we come to the following general conclusions:
- The categories of tense in English, Kurdish and Arabic consist of three categorial forms.
But these grammatical forms in English is represented by a much more numerous variety of forms, while that in Arabic is
The categories of tense in English, Kurdish and Arabic consist of three categorial forms.
But these grammatical forms in English is represented by a much more numerous variety of forms, while that in Arabic is represented by a smaller number.
The category of tense in Kurdish and Arabic, indicating the perfect and imperfect actions, differ in the position of the affixes of the person: in one case it is the preffix , inffix and suffix.
An important part is played by the distribution of the vowels in the root.
- The category of taxis(anteriority)in English, Kurdish and Romanian, distantly related language, are embarcing the entire grammatical system of the veb.
The English system is relatively “YOUNG”, while in Kurdish it is old system going back to Ideo-european and in Romanian to Latin.
But in three languages we observe a similar trend: categorial transition from purely grammatical categories into lexical-grammatical end even purely lexical.
The analysis demonstarted that this process is found being Arabic as well, where in spoken languages simpler forms are used, grammatical forms being important part in the realization of the categories of taxis and aspect.
The perfect forms in Kurdish are formed by means of suffixes directly connected to the past-last root of the bisyllabic base and denoting number and gender.
But the perfect forms in Arabic are formed by means of suffixes connected to the last root of the bisyllabic based and denoting person,number and gender.
It is very important to mark that the Arabic perfect forms denote not only anteriority but also they often denote a perfective of finished action, that is a meaning that was characteristic of perfect or perfective forms in many European Languages as well.
Compare for example with the Russian sovershennyi vid(perfective aspect). Even now these two meanings bring to some confusion.
Some linguists consider the perfect forms not as part of the category of anteriority, but as part of the category of aspect: Perfect vs. Continuous aspect. For the English language this is practically unacceptable. But in Arabic it is quite natural to have the oppositions: Continuous vs. Non-continuous and Perfective vs. Imperfective (in the meaning of Finished vs. Unfinished).
- Thus, in Kurdish we have not a complex aspectual systems. But in Arabic we have a complex aspectual system of forms, for examples, expresses an extended action occuring or starting simultaneously with the moment of speech or with any other moment that is directly or indirectly designated in a given utterance and it is formed by adding the corresponding preffixes and endings(a,i,u) to the form of past tense.
The past continuous shows that the continuous action started earlier than the other past action and is still taking place at the moment of completion of the other action. Thus the past contnuous is used to describe a situation in which the main action is progreesing.
Turning to the category of aspect in English we discover that it is a state of transition from a purely grammatical category into a grammatical-stylistic and sometimes every purely stylistic category.
References:
- MELENCIUC D. “ a Contrastive Study of distantly related Languages, Part 1.P.21 Chisinau 1984
- Beneviste E.”Problems de Linguistique generale”, P. 19-63, Paris 1967
- MELENCIUC D.”A Confrontation of Some Verbal Categories in English and Romanian(in:The 9th. Biennial Conference on Balkan and south Slavic Linguistics, Literature, and Folklore”, Indian University. Bloomington.1994
- NICKEL G, “Contrastive Linguistics and Foreign Language Teaching(in “Papers in Contrastive Linguistics”). P. 13 Combridge University Press, 1971
- Sulaiman Rafik” The Category of Anteriority” Soran Verlag, 26-34 Berlin 2008
- LADO R,”Meine Perspective der kontrastiven Linguistik” zur kontrastiven Lingusitik”, Gerald Nickel, Herausge-geben von; Frankfurt am Main, 1972.
