Syntax of the World's Languages IV

Lyon, September 24, 2010

On clause-internal complementizers in Ossetic and Pamiri *
David Erschler, Independent Univerity of Moscow
erschler@gmail.com
Vitaly Volk, Moscow State University
burzachilo@gmail.com

Plan of the talk:

• Some generalities on complementizers
• East Iranian languages
• Types of complementizer placement in EI
• Floating complementizers and clause architecture
• Possible origins of the system

1. GENERALITIES ON COMPLEMENTIZERS
• We will indiscriminately use the words complementizer and subordinator.
• Complementizers are often perceived as something obligatorily occupying an edge of a
clause (with probably some minor phonologically-driven adjustments).
(1) Clause-initial complementizers
East Armenian
a. vardan-ә jekav jerp anahit-ә girkh ér karʁum
vartan-DEF came when anahit-DEF book AUX.3SG read.PRTC
‘Vardan came when Anahid was reading a book.’
b.* vartan-ә jekav anahit-ә girkh jerp ér karʁum
c. vardan-ә asec vor anahit-ә šutov kga
vartan-DEF said that anahit-DEF soon comes
Vartan said that Anaid would soon arrive.
d.* vardan-ә asec anahit-ә šutov vor kga
That is formalized in the notion of CP being the highest projection of a clause.
• We are not aware of published systematic research on complementizer placement in the
clause, although apparently much has been done by Dryer, (Dryer 2007: 99-100, Dryer
2008).
• One of Dryer’s conclusions is “the implicational universal ‘If OV, then final
subordinator’ is true for approximately 75 per cent of OV languages.” (Dryer 2007: 100)
• In this talk, we will show examples that ostensibly challenge the idea that
complementizers should always occupy a dedicated position in the clause.

2. EAST IRANIAN LANGUAGES

Table 1. East Iranian Languages

Old Iranian Middle Iranian New Iranian (only extant languages are listed)
The Eurasian Central Asia: Pashto (a huge dialect continuum in Afghanistan and
Steppe: Bactrian, Pakistan)
Scythian Sogdian, Pamiri (Areal Yazghulami (Tajikistan)
(onomastics) Khwarezmian, grouping) Shughni-Rushani group:
Khotanese and Shughni, (+ Badjuvi and Barvozi
*
The Ossetic data have been collected during the first authors field trips to North Ossetia in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Rushani judgments have been elicited from native speakers currently residing in Moscow.

1
 Tumshuqese Shughni), Rushani, Bartangi, Khufi,
Saka Roshorvi,
Sarikoli (China)
The Eurasian Ishkashimi group:
Steppe: Ishkashimi (Tajikistan), Sanglichi
Middle Scythian (Afghanistan)
and Saramatian Wakhi (a number of fairly divergent
(onomastics) dialects): Tajikistan, Pakistan, China
Munji (Afghanistan) & Yidga
(Pakistan)
Northeast Ossetic: Iron & Digor (the Central
Iranian Caucasus)
Yaghnobi (Tajikistan)

• PAMIRI:
• See bibliography in (Edelman, Dodykhudoeva 2009)
 Mostly head-final (SOV, consistently verb-final, the order modifier-head in NPs),
however, prepositions and circumpositions are widely used.
 Reduced case systems
 Impoverished system of moods
 Enclitic agreement markers.
• YAGHNOBI:
 All the above, except “enclitic agreement markers” and “impoverished system of moods”
 Only extant description: (Khromov 1972) plus a collection of texts with a dictionary
(Andreev & Peshchereva 1957). There exist some unpublished texts from late 19th
century and from mid 1950s.
• OSSETIC:
 Two closely related languages: Iron and Digor. (Virtually identical w.r.t. what interests
us now.
 Predominantly SOV and head-final, although WO is actually fairly free (Erschler & Volk
2009)
 Rigid constraints on WO (in simple clauses): negation markers and negative indefinites
are strictly preverbal (Erschler 2010a, Erschler & Volk 2010), wh-phrases can be
separated from the verb only by negation markers and NIs.
 Rich case & mood systems, an empoverished tense system.

3. BEHAVIOR OF COMPLEMENTIZERS
3.1. CLAUSE-EDGE COMPLEMENTIZERS: PAMIRI
• Given that the predominant WO is SOV, it would not be surprising to find clause-final
complementizers. (Or clause-initial, because they are very common anyway.)
• Apparently, A CLAUSE-FINAL COMPLEMENTIZER is attested only in Wakhi:
(2) Wakhi
Sentence-final complementizer
a. maẓ̌-ǝj čex̌=cǝj (*niv) taw-ǝj sǝtk nǝ carǝm
I.OBL-ACC kill=if now you.OBL-ACC full NEG I.make
‘If you kill me (*now), I will not make you feel full.’
modified1 from Grünberg, Steblin-Kamensky (1976: 654)
b. maẓ̌-ǝj niv čex̌=cǝj taw-ǝj sǝtk nǝ carǝm
I.OBL-ACC now kill=if you.OBL-ACC full NEG I.make

1
We thank Boghshoh Lashkarbekov for discussing these data with us.

2
 ‘If you kill me now, I will not make you feel full.’
c. *maẓ̌-ǝj niv=cǝj čex̌ taw-ǝj sǝtk nǝ carǝm
I.OBL-ACC now=if kill you.OBL-ACC full NEG I.make
• CLAUSE-INITIAL COMPLEMENTIZERS
Rushani
clause-initial complementizer (d)ide
a. ikim ʁaða bovar kix̌̌t [ide zamin šipak]
this boy belief do.PRS.1SG COMPL earth[Taj] flat
‘This boy believes that the Earth is flat.’ (fieldwork)
• Cognates of (d)ide in other languages of the Shugni-Rushani group show a similar
behavior. See, for instance, (Bakhtibekov 1979: 76) for the description of the Shughni
(i)di.
• APPROXIMATELY CLAUSE-FINAL COMPLEMENTIZERS
• The Shugni-Rushani ca and its cognates are always preverbal.
(3) Rushani
a. [jā ōzir ca=jiðd] fuk-aθ xuš sāw-am
this now if=comes] all-EMPH merry go-PRS.1PL
‘If he comes now, we will be all pleased.’ (Fajzov 1966: 188)
b.* jā ca=ōzir jiðd
(4) Wakhi
[guṣ̌t cə ɨmɨt] wɨzəmd
meat COMPL be.PRS.3SG bring.PRS.3SG
‘If there will be meat (there), (s)he will bring (it).’ (Pakhalina 1975: 113)
(5) Roshorvi (Kurbanov 1976: 207)
[o:damaxar ca=xe:rd] farbe: sa:wd
man rose.hip if=eats healthy goes
‘If you eat rose hips you recover.
Possible objections:
• ca is actually not a complementizer anymore, but a part of verb morphology.
• ca is actually clause-final, but specified as a proclitic and thus undergoes a readjustment.
Both objections seem invalid:
 First, Pamiri languages virtually lack (obvious) prefixing morphology and it is rather
unnantural to analyze something with a doubtful status as a prefix.
 Proclitics to the last constituent/last words of the cliticization constituent of the are
extremely rare cross-linguistically. (Potentially such clitics are attested in Ingush
(Northeast Caucasian), (Peterson 2001)).
• But still perhaps we may get away with positing clause-final complementizers and some
minor reorderings.
3.2. PREVERBAL COMPLEMENTIZERS IN OSSETIC
Ossetic:
• No obligatorily clause-initial complementizers
• Preverbal complementizers
(6) Digor Ossetic, preverbal complementizers
a. soslan nɐ feʁusta [mɐdinɐ kud ɐrbacudɐj] woj
Soslan NEG heard Madina COMPL entered it
‘Soslan did not hear how Madina entered.’
b. … *[kud mɐdinɐ ɐrbacudɐj] woj

3
 … COMPL Madina entered it
Idem (intended meaning)
• The verb needn’t be clause-final.
(7) Digor Ossetic
[ɐndɐr bɐstɐ-mɐ ke cɐwuj dɐ=furt], je=din žin ɐj?
other country-ALL COMPL goes your=son it=2SG.DAT hard is
‘Is it hard to you that your son is going to another country?’ @
• Therefore the idea about “approximately clause-final” position is apparently untenable.
The complementizers are indeed preverbal. Unlike Pamiri with only one compl with such
behavior, most Ossetic complementizers are preverbal.
Table 2. Preverbal subordinators in Ossetic
Complementizers Translation
Iron Digor
kɐj ke that
kwyd kud how
kwy ku when, if
kɐm kɐmi where
a
Relative pronouns
či ka who
sy či what
kɐsy kɐči which
kɐdon - which-PL

3.2. FLOATING COMPLEMENTIZERS

• ‘Floating’ complementizers: able to occur anywhere between the verb and the left edge of
the clause.
• Ossetic has two such complementizers: sɐmɐj/cɐmɐj ‘in order that’ and kɐd ‘when/if’.
(8) Digor Ossetic, floating complementizers
a. fdɐ ɐ=furt-ɐn zaxta cɐmɐj bɐx nirtaja
father POSS.3SG=son-DAT said COMPL horse bathe:SUBJ.PRS.3SG
‘Father told his son to wash a horse.’
b. … bɐx cɐmɐj nirtaja
… horse COMPL bathe:SUBJ.PRS.3SG
c.* … bɐx nirtaja cɐmɐj
… horse bathe:SUBJ.PRS.3SG COMPL

d ʁɐwi kɐd jew kadgin lɐg attɐj wɐd

village.OBL if one respected man was then
je=dɐr nimad cudɐj wonɐbɐl
he=EMPH count.PRTC went they.SUP
‘Whoever was respected in the village, he was among these’@
e. wɐxɐn ɐntɐštǯijnɐd-tɐmɐ=k’oχ-i=ba
such success-PL POSS.1SG=hand-OBL=CONTR

kɐd baftuj-ʒɐnɐj χucau ɐ=zonɐg

if fall-FUT.3SG god POSS.3SG=know.PRTC
a
Only nominative forms are given, the statement holds true for all case marked forms.

4
 ‘God knows whether such success will fall in my hands.’ @
• Actually, such ‘floating’ complementizers are almost ubiquitous in East Iranian: Besides
Ossetic, they are attested in Yaghnobi (Khromov 1972: 68), Wakhi (Grünberg & Steblin-
Kamensky 1976: 650, Lorimer 1958: 218), Yazgulami (Edelman 1966: 120), Roshorvi
(Kurbanov 1976: 208–209), Munji (Grünberg 1972: 454), and Ormuri (Efimov 1986:
241, 284).
(9) Munji
a. [məndẓ̌on nāfār kə mər-a] vow wuznāt
Munjan human[Dari] COMPL die-PST.3SG he wash-PRS.3PL
‘In Munjan, when someone dies, they wash him (...)’ @ (Grünberg 1972: 185)
b. za hājwon češ-ām
I animal not.be-PRS.1SG
kə tu mən bozi dāl-əj
COMPL you I.OBL play give-PRS.2SG
‘I aren’t an animal for you to deceive me.’ @ (Grünberg 1972: 33)
(10) Yaghnobi (Khromov 1972: 68)
a. [či darün gugirt=k anosim] ati:sim
from inside matches=COMPL I.took I.entered
‘When(=After) I had took matches from the house, I entered.’
b. [na=k tifarot] naʁz na vutišt
NEG=COMPL they.give good NEG becomes
‘If they wouldn’t give it, it wouldn’t be good.’
c. [ni:mišaw vitišt]=k ǯaxošt
midnight passes=COMPL they.get.up
‘When midnight passes, they get up.’
• Moreover, by no means is the phenomenon restricted to East Iranian: they are attested in
Georgian and Svan, Abesadze (1960: 139, 141), Boeder (2005: 70-72).
4. QUESTIONS
• How to describe the clause structure?
• How do such systems come into existence?
• Remark: If complementizers are considered as heads of their dependent clauses, these
effects are even more surprising, as East Iranian languages are consistently head-final.
• Natural question: What happens to wh-words?
• Pamiri and Yaghnobi have wh in situ, Ossetic places them preverbally:
(11) Digor Ossetic
a. Madin-i ka warzuj? b.* ka madini warzuj?
Madina-OBL who loves who Madina-OBL loves
‘Who loves Madina?’ Idem (intended)
c. Madin-i ka nɐ warzuj?
Madina-OBL who NEG loves
‘Who does not love Madina?’
• However, both preverbal and floating complementizers in Ossetic disallow both wh-
phrases in dependent clauses and the long-distance movement of wh-words:
(12) a.* fdɐ ɐ=furt-ɐn zaxta cɐmɐj či nirtaja?
father POSS.3SG=son-DAT said COMPL what bathe:SUBJ.PRS.3SG
‘What did father tell his son to bathe?’ (intended meaning)
b.* soslan nɐ feʁusta [kud ka ɐrbacudɐj] (woj)
Soslan NEG heard COMPL who entered it

5
 ‘Who Soslan did not hear that entered?’ (intended meaning)
c.* soslan nɐ feʁusta [ka kud ɐrbacudɐj] (woj)
Soslan NEG heard who COMPL entered it
‘Who Soslan did not hear that entered?’ (intended meaning)
d.* fdɐ ɐ=furt-ɐn či zaxta [cɐmɐj či nirtaja?]
father POSS.3SG=son-DAT what said COMPL bathe:SUBJ.PRS.3SG
‘What did father tell his son to bathe?’ (intended meaning)
e.* soslan ka nɐ feʁusta [kud ka ɐrbacudɐj] (woj)
Soslan who NEG heard who COMPL entered it
‘Who Soslan did not hear that entered?’ (intended meaning)
• STANDARD ASSUMPTION: long distance movement proceeds through the left periphery of the
clause.
• CONCLUSION: in clauses with non-initial complementizers the relevant position in the left
periphery is nonetheless occupied.
• Idea: In languages of this type, whatever the actual position of the phonologically
expressed complementizer, the clause nethertheless has a regular C0 head at its left
periphery.
• It agrees with the complementizer via some long distance agreement mechanism.
• REMAINING QUESTION: Where exactly is this ‘left periphery”?
• Our hypothesis is that (at least in Ossetic) it is actually preverbal.
• Arguments in favor of this conjecture are diachronic.
5. POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF THE SYSTEM
• Sadly, no attested East Iranian language has an attested direct ancestor. (Yaghnobi and
Sogdian come the closest to it, but still sound correspondences show that Yaghnobi
cannot be a descendant of any attested Soghdian variety.)
• In Old Iranian as well as in Vedic, wh-phrases and relative pronouns were invariably
placed clause-initially and could be preceded, at most, by a topicalized constituent, see
Hale (1987: 8, 32, 33, 50, 57), who provides an exhaustive treatment of these
constructions.
• Thus it is reasonable to suppose that the same obtained in ancestors languages of all EI
languages and any deviations from this system are definitely innovations.
• This system apparently has survived in Bactrian, at least insofar as complementizers are
concerned, Gholami (2009: 56-60, 106-111) (Wh-questions are unattested in Bactrian
texts.)
• Emergence of preverbal wh-complementizers is attested in Sogdian 2: some instances of
preverbal placement have been attested as well3 (see many examples in MacKenzie 1970,
particularly lines 335-390). Apparently, all these examples HAVE TO DO WITH SUBJECT
TOPICALISATION:
(13) a. Buddhist Sogdian
rty ZK ’ywznk’ mrtγm’kw ’YK’ myrty
and DEF such man when/if dies
‘When such a man dies, (he falls into the hell of heated iron lumps)’
(MacKenzie 1970: 12, l. 204-205)
• NB That was not the typical behavior: Subordinators in Sogdian appear to be
predominantly clause initial, see, for instance, examples quoted by Heston (1976: 307-

2
We thank Nicholas Sims-Williams, Ilya Yakubovich and Yutaka Yoshida for discussions of Sogdian data.
3
Among the two examples quoted in (Gershevitch 1961: 242, 244), one appears to be mistranslated, whereas the
other is very obscure, and thus neither of them provides reliable evidence for this phenomenon.

6
 318, 328-330, 336-338) and those in text editions: Sundermann (1981: 37 line 360, 46
line 534; 1985: 30 b174; 31 b179) and Sims-Williams (1985: 70 31R 20; 113 57R 1).
• Simultaneously, Sogdian shows emergence of preverbal wh-words.
• Therefore, in Sogdian the formation of preverbal complementizers had just started.
• Thus, for PREVERBAL COMPLEMENTIZERS, the following scenario seems to be plausible:

Emergence of the preverbal focus position → Preverbal position as a possible locus of wh-
movement → Re-analysis of the focus position into C position.

• For FLOATING COMPLEMENTIZERS, no intermediate stages are attested.

• However, synchronic Ossetic data does provide an insight into this development.
• Both Ossetic floating complementizers have a clear etymology: they are re-analyzed wh-
words: kɐd ‘when”, and sɐmɐj/cɐmɐj the etymology is clear: it is the ablative of sy/či
‘what’. In the capacity of wh-words, these things are strictly preverbal. (And
sɐmɐj/cɐmɐj, if used as a relative pronoun, is strictly preverbal as well.)
• Thus it is likely that ‘floating complementizers’ in Ossetic are a secondary development
(reasons for which are unclear).
• Returning to the clause architecture, this argument forces us to posit preverbal C in
Ossetic (possibly silent).
• As for Pamiri languages, where the connection between complementizers and wh-words
is less straightforward, the question remains open.

6. CONCLUSIONS
• Regardless of any theories, we hope to have shown a surprising phenomenon.
• In order to analyze the phenomenon, it seems to be necessary to get rid of the notion of
the obligatory clause-edge ‘left perifery’.
• The focus position is a likely grammaticalization source for a complementizer position.

References
Abesadze, N. 1960. Hip’ot’aksis c’evr-k’avširebi da k’avširebi svanurši. [Hypotactic conjunction words
and conjunctions in Svan] Tbilisis saxelmc’ipo universit’et’is šromebi. 93. 105-150. (Transactions of the
Tbilisi State University)
Andreev M.S., Peshchereva, E.M. 1957. Jagnobskie teksty. [Yaghnobi texts.] Moscow/Leningrad:
Russian Academy of Sciences.
Baxtibekov, Tupči. 1979. Grammatikai zaboni šughnoni. [Shughni grammar.] Dushanbe: Donisn
Boeder, W., 2005. The South Caucasian languages. Lingua. 115. 5-89.
Edelman, Joy. 1966. Jazgul’amskij jazyk. [Jazghulami.] Moscow: Nauka.
Edelman, Joy; Dodykhudoeva, Leila. 2009. The Pamir Languages. In: Windfuhr, Gernot. The Iranian
languages. London: Routledge. 773-786
Efimov, V. 1986. Jazyk ormuri v sinxronnom i istoricheskom osveščenii. [Ormuri in synchronic and
diachronic perspective.] Nauka, Moscow.
Erschler, D., 2010. Otricatel’nye mestoimenija v osetinskom jazyke: areal’nye i tipologicheskie aspekty.
[Negative indefinites in Ossetic: Areal and typological aspects.] Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2010 (2). 84-105.
Erschler, David, Vitaly Volk. 2009. Svobodnyj porjadok slov i kak s nim borot'sja: o strukture
sostavljajuščix i ellipsise v digorskom osetinskom. [Free Word Order and How to Cope with it: On
Constituent Structure and Ellipsis in Digor Ossetic.] 6th Young Researchers’ Conference on Typology
and Grammar, Petersburg, Institute of Linguistic Studies, November 2009.
Erschler, David, Vitaly Volk. 2010. On negation, negative concord, and negative imperatives in Digor
Ossetic. To appear in the Proceedings of ICIL3. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Fajzov, Maxram. 1966. Jazyk rushancev Sovetskogo Pamira. [The language of Soviet Pamir Rushanis]
Dushanbe: AN TSSR.
Gershevitch, I. 1961. A grammar of Manichean Sogdian. Blackwell, Oxford.
Gholami, Saloume. 2009. Selected Features of Bactrian Grammar. Univeristy of Goettingen PhD thesis.

7
Grünberg, Alexander. 1972. Mundzhanskij jazyk. [Munji.] Leningrad: Nauka.
Grünberg, Alexander & Ivan Steblin-Kamenskij. 1976. Vakhanskij jazyk. [Wakhi.] Moscow: Nauka.
Hale, M., 1987. Studies in the comparative syntax of the oldest Indo-Iranian languages. Harvard
University PhD thesis.
Heston, W.L. 1976. Selected problems in fifth to tenth century Iranian syntax. University of
Pennsylvania: Unpublished PhD Thesis.
Kurbanov, Khushkadam. 1976. Roshorvskij jazyk. [Roshorvi] Dushanbe: Donish.
MacKenzie, D.N., (Ed.) 1970. The ‘Sutra of the causes and effects of actions’ in Sogdian. OUP, London.
Pakhalina, Tatayana. 1959. Ishkashimskij jazyk. [Ishkashimi] Moscow
Pakhalina, Tatyana. 1966. Sarykol’skij jazyk. [Sarykoli] Moscow
Peterson, David. 2001. Ingush ˀa: The Elusive Type 5 Clitic? Language Vol. 77, No. 1. 144-155.
Sims-Williams, N. 1985. The Sogdian Christian Manuscript C2. (Berliner Turfantexte XII.)
Akademie Verlag, Berlin.
Sims-Williams, N. 2007. Documents from Northern Afghanistan II: Letters and Buddhist Texts, Studies
in the Khalili Collection III, Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum II, 4. The Nour Foundation in Association
with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, London.
Sundermann, W. 1981. Mitteliranische manichäische Texte kirchengeschichlischen Inhalts. (Berliner
Turfantexte XI.) Akademie Verlag, Berlin..
Sundermann, W. 1985. Ein manichäisch-sogdisches Parabelbuch. (Berliner Turfantexte XV.). Akademie
Verlag, Berlin.
Glosses

ACC ACCUSATIVE OBL OBLIQUE

ALL ALLATIVE PART PARTICLE
CONTR CONTRASTIVE TOPIC PF PERFECT
COMPL COMPLEMENTIZER PL PLURAL
DAT DATIVE POSS POSSESSIVE PROCLITIC
DEF DEFINITE PREP PREPOSITION
EMPH EMPHASIS PREV PREVERB
FUT FUTURE PRTC PARTICIPLE
NEG NEGATIVE SUBJ SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD
NOM NOMINATIVE SUP SUPERESSIVE