Arabic-L:LING:Coordination in Egyptian Arabic

[Dilworth B. Parkinson]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arabic-L: Wed 12 Dec 2001
Moderator: Dilworth Parkinson <dilworth_parkinson at byu.edu>
[To post messages to the list, send them to arabic-l at byu.edu]
[To unsubscribe, send message to listserv at byu.edu with first line reading:
           unsubscribe arabic-l                                      ]

-------------------------Directory-------------------------------------

1) Subject: Coordination in Egyptian Arabic
2) Subject: Coordination in Egyptian Arabic

-------------------------Messages--------------------------------------
1)
Date:  12 Dec 2001
From: "Schub, Michael" <michael.schub at trincoll.edu>
Subject: Coordination in Egyptian Arabic

One may also say /dhahabtu  wa-zaydAN/, WITH THE "COMITATIVE /ma9iyyah/
/wa-/.
In this regard, see Journal of Arabic Linguistics, Vol. 22,
1990,  pp. 79--80.

                                               Mike Schub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:  12 Dec 2001
From: Waheed Samy <wasamy at umich.edu>
Subject: Coordination in Egyptian Arabic

>Diesing and Jelinek (1995) observes that in Egyptian Arabic, pronouns
>are always cliticized to the verb and that the verb has to be
>duplicated when pronouns are coordinated, as shown in (1). The
>interesting point is that (1b) may refer to only one event, despite
>the double occurrence of the verb.
>
>(1) a. *saaf-u   wi   hiyya
>          saw-him  and  she
>      b. saaf-u   wi  saaf-ha
>         saw-him  and saw-her
>I would appreciate if I could get further references on such
>phenomenon in Egyptian Arabic or other languages.

The following statement is incorrect:
"Egyptian Arabic pronouns are always cliticized to the verb".

As Farghali points out, there are two types of pronouns, the
independent and the suffix.
It is only the second kind, the suffix, that is a clitic.
Thus the statement should be:
Egyptian Arabic clitic pronouns are always cliticized to the verb.

The statement "The interesting point is that (1b) may refer to
only one event, despite the double occurrence of the verb" is
in my opinion a question of semantics.

The utterance "shaaf-u wi shaf-ha" is somewhat contrived.
It would seem to me that "shaf-hum" would work.
The context might be sufficient to indicate the referent
of "hum", just as it would the referent of "him and her".

Concerning the number of events in "shaf-hum" or
"shaaf-u wi shaf-ha", I would not agree that either of
these necessarily refers to one event.  Either one can
refer to one event or more.

How many events are in "he saw him and her"?
Were both of them sighted at the same time, or was
one sighted just before the other?

Waheed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Arabic-L:  12 Dec 2001