Semantics of Urdu Ko and Se
HIDDEN FEATURES IN THE SEMANTICS OF URDU ko AND se
Abstract
Urdu clitics play a key role to make a syntactic configuration and to express its semantics. Occasionally, they vary in semantics in different syntactic environments. The role of dative/ accusative ko and instrumental/ablative se is discussed in this paper to show that dative and accusative ko are though two different case markers and have distinctive functions, they sometimes play an ambiguous role in forming active and passive constructions in the same sentence. Their role in causatives is also unique.
Accusative ko just plays the thematic role of the recipient in causative structures. Dative ko and instrumental/ablative se form volitional and non-volitional causatives. This position is in sharp contrast with that of Butt & King (2005), Ahmed (2007) and
Saksena (1982) who discuss only two types of causative structures ignoring the semantics of different structures involving dative and accusative ko.
1. Introduction: Urdu Case System
The Urdu case system is very complex, as more complicated relationship between cases and semantic is assumed in South Asian languages than anywhere in the world (Grimm
2006). This seems particularly complex in the context where dative and accusative ko are homophonous. Before going into further details, some introduction of Urdu case system is discussed below to understand the complex nature of Urdu clitics.
Urdu nouns exhibit cases in three different forms i.e. nominative, oblique and vocative.
Nominative (also called direct case) is phonologically null as it does not bear any clitic.
It appears not only in the subject position, as Kachro (1980) says, but also in the object position. (1b) shows the phenomenon where the object ghər ‘house’ is nominative.
Compare the examples (1a) and (1b):
1a. ləɽka a :m boy.m.s-nom. mango.m.s-nom
‘The boy is eating a mango.’
b. Wania-ne ghər Wania.f.s-erg house.m.s-nom. ‘Wania bought a house.’
c. Wania-ne
Abstract
Urdu clitics play a key role to make a syntactic configuration and to express its semantics. Occasionally, they vary in semantics in different syntactic environments. The role of dative/ accusative ko and instrumental/ablative se is discussed in this paper to show that dative and accusative ko are though two different case markers and have distinctive functions, they sometimes play an ambiguous role in forming active and passive constructions in the same sentence. Their role in causatives is also unique.
Accusative ko just plays the thematic role of the recipient in causative structures. Dative ko and instrumental/ablative se form volitional and non-volitional causatives. This position is in sharp contrast with that of Butt & King (2005), Ahmed (2007) and
Saksena (1982) who discuss only two types of causative structures ignoring the semantics of different structures involving dative and accusative ko.
1. Introduction: Urdu Case System
The Urdu case system is very complex, as more complicated relationship between cases and semantic is assumed in South Asian languages than anywhere in the world (Grimm
2006). This seems particularly complex in the context where dative and accusative ko are homophonous. Before going into further details, some introduction of Urdu case system is discussed below to understand the complex nature of Urdu clitics.
Urdu nouns exhibit cases in three different forms i.e. nominative, oblique and vocative.
Nominative (also called direct case) is phonologically null as it does not bear any clitic.
It appears not only in the subject position, as Kachro (1980) says, but also in the object position. (1b) shows the phenomenon where the object ghər ‘house’ is nominative.
Compare the examples (1a) and (1b):
1a. ləɽka a :m boy.m.s-nom. mango.m.s-nom
‘The boy is eating a mango.’
b. Wania-ne ghər Wania.f.s-erg house.m.s-nom. ‘Wania bought a house.’
c. Wania-ne