Abstract
The early stage of the Western Hindi vernaculars demonstrates two types of typology competing with each other - Nominative typology and Split Ergative typology. Ergative typology includes a number of ergative strategies existing in different vernaculars and in the one and the same vernacular as well. In the course of standardization of Modern Standard Hindi (MSH) Split Ergative Typology wins. The main features of Old Hindi case system are: 1) Old Hindi demonstrates the same, dative case marking both for Subject (Agent) and Object (Patient), whereas MSH has differentiated these case markers, 2) Old Hindi has two types of agreement - (a) only with unmarked S/O and (b) both with unmarked and marked S/O, while MSH allows only the first one.
References
Anand, Pranav & Nevins, Andrew. 2006. The locus of ergative case assignment: evidence from scope. In Johns, Alana & Massam, Diane & Ndayiragije, Juvenal et al. (eds.), Ergativity. Emerging Issues 65, 3-25. Dordrecht: Springer.
Beames, John. 1966 (1872-1879). A comparative grammar of the modern Aryan languages of India: to wit, Hindi, Panjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati, Marathi, Oriya, and Bangali. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal (London: Trübner & Co.), 3 vols.
Bhatt, Rajesh & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1996. Object Shift and Specificity: Evedencies from ko-phrases in Hindi. In Dobrin, Lise M. & Singer, Kora & McNair, Lisa (eds.), Papers from the Main Session of CLS 32(1), 11-22. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Butt, Miriam. 2006. The Dative-Ergative Connection. In Bonami, O. & Cabredo Hoffherr, P. (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6., 69-92. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html.
Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway. 1991. Semantic case in Urdu. In Dobrin, Lise M. & Nichols, Lynn & Rodriguez, Rosa M. (eds.), Papers from 27th Regional Meeting of Chicago linguistic Society 1991. Part one: the General Session, 31-45. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Butt, Miriam & Tafseer, Ahmed. 2011. The redevelopment of the Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology 21(3-4). 545-572.
Chakraborty, Jayshree. 2009. Telicity and Boundedness: An Analysis of Hindi Ergativity in Aspectual Frame (Abstract). EHU International Workshop on Ergative Languages. Bilbao. http://www.kongresuak.ehu.es/p275-shergact/en/contenidos/informacion/ergativity_programme/en_program/programme.html. (Accessed 2009-10-27.)
Deo, Ashwini & Sharma, Devyani. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 10(3). 369-418.
Edelman, Dzhoi I. 2002. Iranskije i slavjanskije jazyki. Istoricheskiye otnoshenija. (Iranian and Slavic Languages. Historical Relations). Moscow: Vostochnaja Literatura.
Elizarenkova, Tatjana Ya. 1967. Ergativnaja konstrukcija v novoindijskikh jazykakh. In Ergativnaja konstrukcija predlozhenija v jazykakh razlichnykh tipov (Ergative construction in the new Indo-Aryan languages. In Ergative construction in different types of languages), 116-125. Leningrad: Nauka.
Gupta, Narmadaaprasaad. 2000. Paariichat kau kaTak aur uske aitihaasik saNket. In Gupta, Sudha (ed.), Some aspects of Indian History. Commemoration volume of Dr. B.D. Gupta, 300-309. naii dillii: hindii buk seNTar. 302.
Joseph, E. 1986 (1910). Jatu Glossary. A Manual of the Language of Jats. Also called Hariani. New Delhi: Rani Kapoor (MRS.) Cosmo Publications (1st ed. In Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 6(12). 1-182).
Keine, Stefan. 2007. Reanalyzing Hindi Split-Ergativity as a Morphological Phenomenon. In Trommer, Jochen & Opitz, Andreas (eds.), 1 2 many One-to- many relations in grammar (Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 85), 73-127. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig.
Khan, Abdul Qadir & Sarfraz, Sumaira. 2009. Ergativity in Pahari language. Language in India 9. 12 December 2009, 1-19, http://www.languageinindia.com/dec2009/pahariergativity.html (Accessed 2009-12-12.)
Khokhlova, L. V. 1993. Trends in the syntactic development of Western New Indo-Aryan languages. In Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija Vostokovedinije 3. 43-56.
Khokhlova, L. V. 2001. Ergativity attrition in the history of Western New Indo-Aryan languages (Panjabi, Gujarati and Rajasthani). In Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao Karumuri Venkata (eds.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2001: Tokyo Symposium on South Asian Languages: Contact, Convergence and Typology, 159-184. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Khokhlova, L.V. 2006. Syntactic peculiarities of Rajasthani. http://www.departments.iaas.msu.ru/resursy/publikaciion-line. (Accessed 2006-12-27.)
Khokhlova, L.V. 2007. Sintaksicheskaja evoljutsija zapadnykh novoindijskikh jazykov v 15-20vv. (Syntactic evolution of the Western New Indo-Aryan languages in the 15-20 centuries). In Orientalia et Classica. Trudy Instituta vostochnykh kul’tur i antichnosti. XI. Aspekty komparativistiki 2 (Orientalia et Classica. Papers of the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies. XI. Aspects of comparative linguistics). Moscow: RGGU (Russian State University of the Humanities), 151-186.
Klaiman, M.N. 1987. Mechanism of Ergativity in South Asia. Lingua 71. 61-102.
[Lalluu Laal]. Premsaagar. 2010 (1953). Brajratnadaas Sam(paadak) [NaagariipracaariNii graNthmaalaa 27], Kaaši: NaagariipracaariNii Sabhaa.
Liperovskiy, V.P. 1988. Ocherk grammatiki sovremennogo bradzha (An essay of the Modern Braj grammar). Moscow: Nauka.
Liperovsky, V.P. 2007. Notes on the Marking of Actants in Braj (in comparison with Modern Standard Hindi). In Masica, Colin P. (ed.), Old and New Perspectives on South Asian Languages and Semantics, 144-152. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Masica, Colin P. 1993. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maslov, Ju. 2004 (1949). K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii posessivnogo perfekta (Concerning the problem of genesis of the possessive perfect). In Maslov, Ju., Izbrannije trudy. Aspektologija. Obshcheje jazykoznanije (Collected papers. Aspectology. General Linguistics), 266-292. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoi kultury.
Montaut, Annie. 2004. Oblique main arguments in Hindi as localizing predications. In Non-nominative Subjects 2 [Typological Studies in Language 61], Bhaskararao, Peri & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 33-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Montaut, Annie 2007. The evolution of the tense-aspect system in Hindi/Urdu, and the status of the ergative alignment. In Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 365-385. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Montaut, Annie. 2009. Ergative and Pre-ergative Patterns in Indo-Aryan as Predications of Localization. In Fatihi, A.R. (ed.), A Diachronic View of Past and Future Systems, Language Vitality in South India, 295-325. Aligarh: Aligarh Muslim University.
Sakhokija, M. M. 1985. Posessivnost΄, perekhodnost̀ ì ergativnost. Tipologicheskoje sopostavlenije drevnepersidskikh, drevnearmjanskikh i drevnegruzinskikh konstruktsiy (Possessivity, telicity and ergativity (Typological comparison of ancient Persian, ancient Armenian and ancient Georgien constructions). Tbilisi: Metsnijereba.
Saksenaa, Baabuuraam. 1952. Dakkhinii hiNdii. Ilaahaabaad: Hindustaanii ekeDemii.
Śarmaa, Śrii Raam. 1954. Dakhinii kaa gadya aur padya. Ilaahaabaad: Hindii Pracaar sabhaa.
Shamatov, A.N. 1974. Klassicheskij dakhini (juzhnyj khindustani XVII v.) (Classical Dakhini (Southern Hindustani of XVII century)). Moscow: Nauka.
Sigorskiy, A.A. 2007. Case, Split Nominativity, Split Ergativity, and Split Accusativity in Hindi: A Historical Perspective. In Masica, Colin P. (ed), Old and New Perspectives on South Asian Languages. Grammar and Semantics, 34-61. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Snell, Rupert. 1991. The Hindi classical tradition: a Braj Bhāṣā reader (SOAS South Asian Texts No. 2). London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Stroński, Krzysztof. 2009. Approaches to Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Lingua Posnaniensis 51. 77-118.
Stroński, Krzysztof. 2010a. Non-Nominative Subjects in Rajasthani and Central Pahari. The Status of the Ergative and Obligatory Constructions. Lingua Posnaniensis 52(1). 81-97.
Stroński, Krzysztof. 2010b. Variations of Ergativity Patterns in Indo-Aryan. Poznań studies in Comparative Linguistics 45(3). 237-253.
Stroński, Krzysztof. 2011. Decay or Reinforcement of Ergativity? The Case of Pahari. http://iling-ran.ru/beta/news/111120pgt. (Accessed 2011-11-20.)
Subbarao, K. V. & Arora, Harbir. 1988 (1990). On extreme convergence of Dakkhini Hindi-Urdu. Indian Linguistics 49. 92-108.
Trask, R. L. 1979. On the Origins of Ergativity. In Plank, F. (ed.), Toward a Theory of Grammatical Relations, 385-404. London: Academic Press.
Varmaa, Dhirendra. 1959. GraaamiiN Hindii. Ilaahaabaad: Sahitya Bhavan.
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Alexander A. Sigorskiy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.