Ventajas de la planificación

Relative clauses in Syriac cannot be introduced by the CSC; Rather, the ALC is obligatory used (Goldenberg 2013a: 236f.).²⁴For this reason, the linker d- is referred by some authors also as relative pronoun (Muraoka 1997: 21, §15). It can be co-referent with any argument (or adjunct) of the relative clause.²⁵ (53) Syriac: Noun (subject)–Clause

ܢܼܿܬ ܵܘܠ ܐ ܵ ݂ܬܐ ܸܕ ܐܝܒܢ

‘the prophet who came to us’ (Muraoka 1997: 63, §77) (54) Syriac: Noun (object)–Clause

݂ܟ ܵ ݂ܬ ܵܘܠ ܗ݀ܬܪ ܼܿܕ ܼܿ ܕ ܐܵܝ ݂ܒܢ

‘the prophet whom I sent to you’ (Muraoka 1997: 63, §77)

While I agree with Goldenberg (1995) that d- represents one and the same morpheme regardless of the material that follows it, it is worthwhile noting that the distribution of d+Clause is somewhat different from d+Noun, implying that these combinations are not equivalent (Van Peursen 2007: 245f.). This can be illustrated by cases in which the same primary is expanded both by a nominal and a clausal secondary. In such cases, the two d- phrases are not conjoined (contrast with example (37) on page 61):²⁶

(55) Syriac: Noun–Noun+Clause

‘the discourse of the elders, which they have heard from their fathers’

(Peshiṭta, Sirach 8:9 apud Van Peursen 2007: 232)

24Other classical Semitic languages allow the usage of the CSC with clausal secondaries, notably Akkadian, but also Classical Hebrew, Arabic and Ge’ez (Goldenberg 2013a: Ch. 14).

25The term clause is used here to cover verbal clauses with finite verbs. Nominal clauses, and in particular clauses with participial predicates are treated in the next section.

26One may argue that the NP šoʿitē d=sābē ‘discourse of the elders’ is the primary of the relative clause, rather than the noun šoʿitē. Yet in the dependency model I use, as well as from the semantic point of view, the relative clause is an expansion of šoʿitē ‘discourse’ alone.

Notwithstanding the pronominal nature of the linker d-, in its usage as a rela-tive pronoun it does not co-occur with a zero primary, according to my survey.

Instead, an explicit pronominal primary can occur in this construction, yielding either a free relative, or, less frequently, a non-restrictive relative clause.

(56) Syriac: Pronoun–Clause

‘he who receives me receives him who has sent me²⁷’ (Peshiṭta, Matthew 10:40; Muraoka 1997: 87, §111)

(57) Syriac: Pronoun–Clause

‘You, who bound the sea’ (Peshiṭta, Prayer of Manasseh, ed. Baars &

Schneider 1972: B3; Gutman & Van Peursen 2011: 221 (3a))

As Gutman & Van Peursen (2011: 87) note, the interrogative pronoun man

‘who’, which typically introduces non-specific free relatives as in example (56), can in fact also introduce free relatives referring to specific referents, as in the following example:²⁸

‘Who held²⁹the abyss’ (Peshiṭta, Prayer of Manasseh, ed. Baars & Schnei-der 1972: B3; Gutman & Van Peursen 2011: 221 (3b))

A quite distinct usage of the d+Clause pattern occurs when d- serves as a complementizer. This is the case when d- introduces complements of verbs, be

27Note that the first relative clause is in fact a participial clause, treated in the next section.

28Peripherally to this, note that in Modern Hebrew the pronouns introducing free relatives are frequently preceded by the definite accusative markerתאʾet, rendering them syntactically (but not necessarily semantically) definite.

29In the Syriac text, the verb appears in the 2^ndperson, yet the grammatical context seems to require a 3^rdperson. Indeed, in another version of the same text, the verb appears in the 3^rd person; see discussion of Gutman & Van Peursen (2011: 87f.).

they direct object or adverbial complements. These constructions are arguably not ACs at all, as their function is not to modify an implied referent. Indeed, in these cases, no nominal antecedent appears before the d-, and one could argue that no nominal primary is possible at all in this position. Nonetheless, I list these examples for the sake of completeness, but I gloss the d- in this function as comp.³⁰

‘He began to speak.’ (Peshiṭta, Mark 12:1; Muraoka 1997: 65, §82) (60) Syriac: Verb–Clause

‘I go to prepare a place for you.’ (Peshiṭta, John 14:2; Muraoka 1997: 65,

§82)

The distinct functions of d- serving either as a complementizer or as pronomi-nal linker are especially clear in the rare cases where two d- morphemes follow, each with another function, as in the following example:³¹

(61) Syriac: ∅–Noun

‘the hand was found to be that of the cupbearer’ (Acts of Thomas, ed.

Wright 1871: ܚ )

The d- morpheme functions likewise as a complementizer when it follows an adverbial acting as a conjunction. Note that in such cases the attributive

rela-30Wertheimer (2001: 275) argues that both functions of d-, introducing relative clauses or comple-ment clauses, stem from its more general function as a conversion morpheme (translatif in her terms), and indeed both uses are in fact nominalizations: as a relativizer d- nominalizes clauses into adjectives, while as a complementizer it nominalizes clauses into nouns (or substantives in her terms).

31The ∅ primary refers to the noun ʾidā ‘hand’, which can be analysed as having been raised out of the CP to serve as the subject of the matrix-clause. See also Muraoka (1997: 35*, fn. 51). The continuation of this sentence is given in example (79) on page 74.

tionship is already marked by the construct state of the adverbial. Compare the following with example (24) on page 56:

(62) Syriac: Adverbial Noun–Clause

ܴ ܓܳܢܪ ܰܬ ܐܶ ܶܢܕ ܡ ܳܕ qdām

front.cst [d=

comp=

neqrē call.impf.3ms

tarnāglā]

cock

‘before a cock crows’ (Payne Smith 1903: 490)

The structure of this example is superficially parallel to that of examples (35)–

(36) on page 61, in that the d- follows an element in construct state. The fine difference is that here it acts as a complementizer (nominalizing an event), and thus does not designate any implied referent. Note also that the construct state marking is needed in order to transform the noun ܐ ܳܡ ܳܕ qdāmā ‘front’, which can by itself be used adverbially, into a conjunction requiring a complement phrase.