convert

24.956

Topics in the Syntax of the Modern Indo-Aryan Languages

February 7, 2003

1 The Indo-Aryan Languages: a tour

sub-branch of the Indo-European family, spoken mainly in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,

Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldive Islands by at least 640 million people (according to the
1981 census). (Masica (1991)).

Together with the Iranian languages to the west (Persian, Kurdish, Dari, Pashto, Baluchi,

Ormuri etc.) , the Indo-Aryan languages form the Indo-Iranian subgroup of the Indo-
European family.

Most of the subcontinent can be looked at as a dialect continuum. There seem to be no

major geographical barriers to the movement of people in the subcontinent.

1.1 The Hindi Belt

According to the Ethnologue, in 1999, there were 491 million people who reported Hindi
as their first language, and 58 million people who reported Urdu as their first language.

Hindi-Urdu or Hindi and Urdu

The Hindi Belt involves a vast area that stretches across most of Northern India. Despite
Hindi being the official language for this entire area, this area is home to many languages
that are clearly distinct from Hindi.
Grierson (1883), Grierson (1969) divided the Hindi dialect area into the following sub-
groups:

‘Western Hindi’: Braj, Kannauji, Haryan.vi

‘Eastern Hindi’: Awadhi, Bagheli, Chhattisgarhi

‘Bihari’: Bhojpuri, Magahi, Maithili

‘Central Pahar.i’: Kumauni, Garhwali

‘Rajasthani’: Marwar.i, Mewar.i, Har.auti, Malvi

1.2 East of the Hindi Belt

The following languages are quite closely related:

Assamese (Assam)

Bengali (West Bengal, Tripura, Bangladesh)

Or.iya (Orissa)

Bishnupriya Manipuri

This group of languages is also quite closely related to the ‘Bihari’ languages that are part
of the Hindi belt: Bhojpuri, Magahi, Maithili.

1.3 Central Indo-Aryan

Eastern Punjabi

‘Rajasthani’: Marwar.i, Mewar.i, Har.auti, Malvi etc.

Bhil Languages: Bhili, Garasia, Rathawi, Wagdi etc.

Gujarati, Saurashtra

The Bhil languages occupy an area that abuts ‘Rajasthani’, Gujarati, and Marathi. They
have several properties in common with the surrounding languages.
Central Indo-Aryan is also where Modern Standard Hindi fits in.
Some central Indo-Aryan languages are spoken far from the subcontinent. These include
the various forms of Romani, and Parya, spoken by about 1,000 people in Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan.

1.4 Northern and Northwestern Indo-Aryan

The Pahar.i (Hill) languages:

Eastern: Nepali (spoken in Nepal, adjoining parts of India (West Bengal, Sikkim),
and Bhutan)

Central: Garhwali, Kumauni

Western: Dogri/Kangri, Jaunsari, Bilaspuri

Northwestern Indo-Aryan:

Dardic

Sindhi: Sindhi (Sindh

, Pakistan), Kachchhi (Gujarat)

Peccavi! (I have Sindh/sinned!) British general Sir Charles James Napier sent this one word message

to his commanding officer, Lord Ellenborough, after he had captured Sindh, in modern Pakistan.

Lahnda: Hindko, Western Punjabi, Saraiki/Siraiki

Dardic:

Chitral: Khowar, Kalasha

Kashmiri

Kohistani: Tirahi, Torwali

Kunar: Gawar-Bati, Shumashti

Shina: Brokskat/Brokpa, Domaki, Savi, Shina

Dardic languages used to be grouped together with the Nuristani (Kafiri) languages. But
since Strand (1973), the Nuristani languages (Ashkun, Kati/Bashgali, Prasuni

, Tregami,

Waigali) have been analyzed as sisters of the Indo-Aryan and the Iranian language fami-
lies.

1.5 Southern Indo-Aryan and Further

Southern Indo-Aryan

Marathi (Maharashtra)

Konkani (Goa, Mangalore, coastal areas of Maharashtra)

Further:

Sinhala/Sinhalese (Sri Lanka)

Veddah (Sri Lanka)

Maldivian/Divehi (Maldives)

These languages have been separated from the rest of the Indo-Aryan languages since
around the 5th century B.C. They are heavily influenced by the surrounding Dravidian
languages.

1.6 The Non-Indo-Aryan Neighbourhood

The primary language family with which the Indo-Aryan languages came into contact
with was Dravidian (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam). There are reasons to believe
that Dravidian languages were spoken in parts of North India where Indo-Aryan lan-
guages are now spoken. Brahui, an isolated Dravidian language, is still spoken in parts of
Pakistan. The influence of Dravidian languages is particularly clear on those Indo-Aryan
that currently abut the Dravidian area (Marathi, Or.iya) and on those which have been

argued to abut the Dravidian area at some point in the relatively recent past (Gujarati).
The other language families in the area are:

The most aberrant of the Nuristani languages cf. www.ethnologue.com and Richard Strand’s detailed

Nuristan site: http://users.sedona.net/˜ strand/.

Iranian: Pashto, Dari, Persian, Baluchi, Ormuri

Language Isolate: Burushaski

Austroasiatic 1: Mon-Khmer: Amwi, Khasi, Pnar/Jaintia

Austroasiatic 2: Munda: Mundari, Juang, Khariya, Gorum, Ho

Tibeto-Burman: Kiranti, Newari, Meithei, Lepcha, Tangkhul, Hmar

2 Major Syntactic Phenomena

2.1 Case-Marking

Case-marking in Indo-Aryan languages is typically postpositional in nature. Subjects of
finite intransitive clauses typically receive nominative case, which is usually unmarked.

(1)

a. Leela

Leela.f

kal
yesterday

aa-ii
come-Pfv.f

‘Leela came yesterday.’

b. Kalpna

Kalpna.f

bahadur
brave

thii
be.Pst.F

‘Kalpna was brave.’

Nominative case (on subjects) seems to be licensed by finite Tense in many Indo-Aryan
languages.

(2)

[Shiraz*(-kaa)

Shiraz-Gen

Ruta-se
Ruta-Instr

baat
talk

kar-naa]
do-Inf

zaroorii
necessary

hai
be.Prs

‘It is necessary that Shiraz talk to Ruta.’

An nominative subject cannot appear in a non-finite clause in Hindi. Genitive marking is
an option that is generally available. In certain ECM-like environments, an accusative or
dative case can also be licensed.
The conditions on the licensing of Nominative vary throughout Indo-Aryan. In particular,
in Marathi, we find that nominative subjects can appear in what appear to be non-finite
clauses.

2.1.1 Ergativity

The case on the subject of a finite transitive clause in the Western Indo-Aryan languages
(Standard Hindi-Urdu, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Sindhi but not Bengali, Or.iya,

Bhojpuri etc.) depends upon the aspect.
In perfective tenses, the subject receives Ergative case. In all other tenses the case on the
subject is nominative. Ergative case in Hindi-Urdu is marked by the case-clitic -ne.

(3) Perfective Tenses:

a. Simple Past: perfective participle by itself:

Lataa-ji-ne
Lataa-Hon-Erg

kai
many

gaane
song.MPl

gaa-ye
sing-Pfv.MPl

‘Lataa-ji sang several songs.’

b. Present/Past Perfect: perfective participle plus tense auxiliary

Lataa-ji-ne
Lataa-Hon-Erg

kai
many

gaane
song.MPl

gaa-ye
sing-Pfv.MPl

h ˜E/the
be.Prs.Pl/be.Pst.MPl

‘Lataa-ji has/had sung several songs.’

(4) Non-Perfective Tenses:

a. Habituals: imperfective/habitual participle plus tense auxiliary

Lataa-ji
Lataa.f-Hon

gaane
song.Pl

gaa-tii
sing-Hab.f

h ˜E/th˜ı:
be.Prs.Pl/be.Pst.FPl

‘Lataa-ji sings/used to sing songs.’

b. Progressive: formed periphrastically

Lataa-ji
Lataa.f-Hon

gaanaa
song.m

gaa
sing

rah˜ı:
Pro.FPl

h ˜E/th˜ı:
be.Prs.Pl/be.Pst.FPl

‘Lataa-ji is/was singing (a song).’

c. Subjunctive

Shaayad
Maybe

Lataa-ji
Lataa.f-Hon

gaanaa
song.m

gaa-˜e
sing-Sbjv.Pl

‘Maybe Lataa-ji will sing (a song).’

d. Future: subjunctive ending plus a participial ending

Lataa-ji
Lataa.f-Hon

gaanaa
song.m

gaa-˜e-gii
sing-Fut.FPl

‘Lataa-ji will sing a song.’

In Hindi-Urdu, the same perfective auxiliary appears in the simple past and the perfect.
This is not the case in Kashmiri. However, the ergativity patterns are the same as in
Hindi-Urdu.

(5) (Kashmiri from Wali and Koul (1997))

a. Simple Past:

Aslam-an
Aslam-Erg

por
read-MSg

akhba:r
newspaper.MSg

‘Aslam read the newspaper.’

b. Past Perfect (same facts obtain for the Present/Future Perfects):

me/tEm’
I-Erg/he-Erg

o:s
be.Pst-MSg

akhba:r
newspaper.MSg

por-mut
read-psp-msg

‘I/he had read the newspaper.’

In the case of compound tenses, the lowest/most local aspectual marking seems to be the
one relevant for licensing ergative case. We have seen that the future does not allow for
ergative subjects (cf. 4). However, the future perfect requires an ergative subject.

(6) Future Perfect/‘Presumptive’: Perfective Participle + be-Fut

Lataa-ji-ne
Lataa-Hon-Erg

yeh
this

gaanaa
song.m

gaa-yaa
sing-Pfv.MSg

ho-gaa
be-Fut.MSg

‘Lataa-ji must have sung this song.’

A similar point is made by past counterfactuals which involve habitual morphology on
top of a perfective participle.

(7)

a. Past Counterfactual: Perfective Participle + Habitual: Ergative Subject

agar
if

Lataa-jii-ne
Lataa-ji-Erg

yeh
this

gaanaa
song.m

gaa-yaa
sing-Pfv.MPl

ho-taa,
be-Hab.MSg

‘If Lataa-ji had sung this song,...’

b. Unspecified Counterfactual: Habitual: Nominative Subject

agar
if

Lataa-ji
Lataa.f-Hon

yeh
this

gaanaa
song.m

gaa-t˜ı:
sing-Hab.FPl

‘If Lataa-ji sang this song,...’

There seems to be no optionality with respect to ergative marking on subjects of transitive
verbs. However, some optionality seems to emerge with respect to unergatives.

(8) (Kashmiri, from Wali and Koul (1997), pg. 153)

bI
I.Nom

nots-us/
danced-1sgps

me
I.Erg

nots
danced

‘I danced.’

This optionality has been related to notions of volitionality, with the version with ergative
marking being more volitional.
Hindi and Kashmiri make a surface distinction between Ergative and Nominative case in
all person-number combinations. Many of the other Ergative Indo-Aryan languages col-
lapse the distinction between Ergative and Nominative in several person-number com-
binations (typically 1st and 2nd person, and plurals) (e.g. Gujarati (cf. Cardona (1965)),

In isolation, a future perfect reading is hard to get. Adding an additional compound verb that indicates

completion such as le ‘take’ and suitable adverbs facilitates the future perfect reading.

i. kal

tomorrow

5-baje
5-o’clock

Lataa-ji
Lataa.g-Hon

yeh
this

gaanaa
song

gaa
sing

li-yaa
TAKE-Pfv.MSg

ho-gaa
be-Fut.MSg

‘Tomorrow at 5 o’clock, Lataa-ji will have sung this song.’

Marathi (cf. Pandharipande (1997)), Punjabi (cf. Bhatia (1993)). This apparently surface
fact has interesting implications for questions pertaining to markedness and the direc-
tionality of syntactic change as discussed in Deo and Sharma (2002).
It was noted in the discussion on the licensing of nominative on the subject that in many
Indo-Aryan languages, nominative subjects cannot appear in non-finite environments.
Somewhat curiously, in these languages this also seems to be true of Ergative subjects.
Further the Indo-Aryan languages where nominative subjects can appear in non-finite
environments also seem to allow Ergative subjects in certain non-finite environments.

2.1.2 Specificity Marking on Direct Objects

Direct Objects in most Indo-Aryan languages (with exception of Kashmiri and Sinhalese)
use the following strategy:
1. Animate proper names must be marked by the postposition ko:

(9)

a. Animate Proper Name:

Madhukar-ne
Madhukar-Erg

Tara*(-ko)
Tara-Acc

dekh-aa
see-Pfv.3MSg

‘Madhukar saw Tara.’

b. Inanimate Proper Name:

Madhukar-ne
Madhukar-Erg

‘Titanic’
Titanic.f

dekh-ii
see-Pfv.F

hai
be.Prs

‘Madhukar has seen ‘Titanic’.

If the ko is omitted, Tara cannot be interpreted as an animate object, only as ‘the blob
‘Tara”.
2. With most other potentially referential objects, ko-marking is an option that correlates
with a ‘specific’ reading (cf. Butt (1993), Singh (1994), among many others).

(10)

a. Rahul

Rahul.m

akhbaar-ko
newspaper-Acc

phaar.

tear

rahaa
Prog.MSg

hai
be.Prs.Sg

‘Rahul is tearing the newspaper.’

b. Rahul

Rahul.m

akhbaar
newspaper

phaar.

tear

rahaa
Prog.MSg

hai
be.Prs.Sg

‘Rahul is tearing newspapers.’/‘Rahul is tearing the newspaper.’

The ‘Rahul is tearing newspapers’ reading can be a given a plausible paraphrase as ‘Rahul
is newspaper-tearing’. For this and other reasons, object incorporation of a non-standard
sort has been proposed for them in Mohanan (1995b). There is also much work on this
topic by Veneeta Dayal (cf. Dayal (1992), Dayal (1999), Dayal (2002a), Dayal (2002b)).
3. Nominals that are clearly non-referential cannot take ko.

(11) Atul

Atul.m

mehnat(*-ko)
hardwork-Acc

kar
do

rahaa
Prog.MSg

hai
be.Prs.Sg

‘Atul is working hard.’

Agreement and Specificity

An issue of terminology:

the ko that appears on some Direct Objects also appears on Indirect Objects and certain
Experiencer Subjects. The unmarked option is also used by Subjects. For this reason,
occasionally certain authors will refer to the unmarked case on the object as ‘Nominative’
and the ko-marked option as ‘Dative’.
I will be using the following labeling strategy:
1. If ko cannot appear: nominative
2. If ko may (but not must) appear: accusative
3. If ko must appear: dative
This strategy is based on the source for case as opposed to the surface form of the case.
Nominative is licensed higher in the tree, above vP. Accusative and Dative are licensed
lower.

2.1.3 Non-nominative Subjects

In addition to Ergative subjects, the Indo-Aryan languages display a wide-range of con-
structions where what seems to be the subject receives a non-nominative case (cf. Mo-
hanan (1995a)). The relevant argument has been called a subject because it meets a subset
of subjecthood tests.
One of the concerns that we will be concerned with is the very notion of ‘subject’. Is
a unitary notion of subject necessary/desirable? Does every sentence have to have a
subject?
The most well-discussed of the non-nominative subjects is the Dative/Experiencer subject
construction (cf. Verma and Mohanan (1990)).

(12)

a. Gajaanan-ko

Gajaanan-Dat

yeh
this

tathya
fact.M

maaluum
known

the
be.Pst.Pl

‘Lit. to Gajaanan, these facts were known.’

b. Naim-ko

Naim-Dat

Rina
Rina

pasand
pleasing

hai
be.Prs

‘Naim likes Rina’. (Lit. To Naim, Rina is pleasing.)

The others are:

(13)

a. Instrumental Subject:

Ram-se
Ram-Instr

per.

tree.m

nah˜ı:
Neg

kat.-aa

cut

Intr

-Pfv.MSg

‘Ram was not able to cut the tree.’ (Lit. By Ram, the tree did not cut.)

b. Locative Subject:

Ravi-par
Ravi-on

bahut
much

bojh
burden.f

hai
be.Prs.Sg

‘Ravi has a big burden.’ (Lit. On Ravi is a big burden.)

c. Genitive Subject:

Anwar-kii
Anwar-Gen.f

ek
one

bet.ii

daughter.f

hai
be.Prs.Sg

‘Anwar has a daughter.’ (Lit. Anwar’s one daughter is.)

2.2 Agreement

Many Indo-Aryan languages display object agreement and default agreement. One com-
mon pattern is the one displayed by Hindi. Most prominent non-overtly case-marked
argument triggers agreement:

(14)

a. Nominative subject, Accusative object, both non-overtly case-marked

Rahul
Rahul.M

kitaab
book.F

par.h-taa

read-Hab.MSg

thaa
be.Pst.MSg

‘Rahul used to read (a/the) book.’

b. Ergative subject, Accusative object, only object is non-overtly case-marked

Rahul-ne
Rahul-Erg

kitaab
book.F

par.h-ii

read-Pfv.F

thii
be.Pst.FSg

‘Rahul had read the book.’

c. Ergative Subject, Overtly marked accusative object

Rahul-ne
Rahul-Erg

kitaab-ko
book-Acc

par.h-aa

read-Pfv.MSg

thaa
be.Pst.MSg

‘Rahul had read the book.’

Long Distance Agreement (LDA):

(15) Vivek-ne

Vivek-Erg

[kitaab
book.f

par.h-nii]

read-Inf.f

chaah-ii
want-Pfv.f

‘Vivek wanted to read the book.’

LDA (as well as the Hindi-Urdu case system) is analyzed in Mahajan (1989), Butt (1995),
and Bhatt (2003) among others.
There is much variation with respect to the particulars of agreement in the Indo-Aryan
languages and some of this is addressed in Subbarao (2001) and Deo and Sharma (2002).

2.3 Passives

Passives in Modern Indo-Aryan tend to be analytical and are composed of the following
elements:
(i) Ablative or Locative form of the infinitive + the verb come (Marathi, Gujarati, Kashmiri)
(ii) Infinitive + the verb receive (Sinhalese)
(iii) Perfective Participle + the verb go (Punjabi, Hindi, Assamese, Bengali, Or.iya)

Gujarati, Kumaoni, Nepali, Lahnda, Marwari, and Sindhi have a morphological passive.

2.3.1 Exceptions to Burzio’s Generalization

Passives in several Indo-Aryan languages present a potential counterexample for Burzio’s
generalization. They seem to involve suppression of the external argument without pro-
motion of an internal argument. (cf. Pandharipande (1982)).

(16)

a. Active:

Rashmi-ne
Rashmi-Erg

Nupur-ko
Nupur-Acc

bazaar-m˜e
market-in

dekh-aa
see-Pfv

‘Rashmi saw Nupur in the market.’

b. Passive, without promotion:

Nupur-ko
Nupur-Acc

(Rashmi-dwaaraa)
Rashmi-by

bazaar-m˜e
market-in

dekh-aa
see-Pfv

gayaa
Pass-Pfv

‘Nupur was seen in the market by Rashmi.’

c. Passive, with promotion:

Nupur
Nupur

(Rashmi-dwaaraa)
Rashmi-by

bazaar-m˜e
market-in

dekh-ii
see-Pfv.f

gayii
Pass-Pfv.f

‘Nupur was seen in the market by Rashmi.’

Passives in the Modern Indo-Aryan languages are distinctive in that they can apply quite
freely to (non-unaccusative) intransitives as well as transitives.

2.3.2 Inabilitative Passives

Passive constructions with the demoted external argument realized by a -se (instrumental)
phrase behave like polarity items. For most speakers, they can only appear in affective
environments. They have a special modal meaning indicating (in)ability.

(17)

a. Vikram-se

Vikram-Instr

sirf
only

ek
one

per.

tree

kaat.-aa

cut-Pfv

gayaa
Pass.Pfv

‘Vikram could only cut one tree.’

b. Saira-se

Saira-Instr

per.

tree.m

ukhaar.-e

uproot.Pfv.MPl

nah˜ı:
Neg

jaa-te
Pass-Hab.MPl

‘Saira is unable (to bring herself) to uproot trees.’

c. mujh-se

I-Instr

Dilli
Delhi

nah˜ı:
Neg

jaa-yaa
go-Pfv

gayaa
Pass.Pfv

‘I couldn’t (bring myself to) go to Delhi.’

2.4 Causatives

The Indo-Aryan languages have a complex system of causative formation where we can
distinguish at least three distinct processes.

2.5 ‘Intransitivization’

In this class of verbs, there is no overt causative affix. The phonological form of the
intransitive is derived from the phonological form of the transitive via shortening.

(18)

a. Jaayzaad

property

b˜at.

divide

rahii
PROG-FEM

hai.
be-PRES

‘The property is dividing.’

b. Ram-ne

Ram-ERG

jaayzad
property

b˜a˜at.

divide

dii.
GIVE-PERF

‘Ram divided the property.’

(19)

a. Madhu

Madhu.f

per.

tree.m

kaat.

cut

rahii
Prog.F

hai
be.Prs.Sg

‘Madhu is cutting a/the tree(s).’

b. per.

tree.m

kat.

cut

intr

rahe
Prog.MPl

h ˜E
be.Prs.Pl

‘The trees are cutting.’

These intransitives differ from passives in that they do not involve any agentivity in their
semantics.

2.6 Direct Causatives

In this class, an intransitive with no overt affix is paired with a transitive showing the
suffix -aa.

(20)

a. Makan

house.M

jal
burn

raha
PROG.M

hai.
be.Prs

‘The house is burning.’

b. D

. akait ˜o-ne

bandits-ERG

makaan
house.M

jal-aa
burn-CAUS

diyaa.
GIVE-PERF.M

‘Dacoits

burned the house.’

2.7 Indirect Causatives

In addition to these two types of derivation, which involve a lower or so-called ‘lexical’
causativization, there are causatives with the affix -vaa, which have an indirect causative
interpretation.

Dacoit, a term used in India for a robber belonging to an armed gang.

The word is de-

rived from the Hindustani dakait, and being current in Bengal got into the Indian penal code.

law, to constitute dacoity, there must be five or more in the gang committing the crime.

(from

http://21.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DA/DACOIT.htm)

(21) zamiindaar-ne

landlord-Erg

(d.akait˜o-se)

bandits-Instr

makaan
house.M

jal-vaa
burn-CAUS

diyaa.
GIVE-PERF.M

‘The landlord had the house burned (by the dacoits).’

In some Indo-Aryan languages, the same exponent is used to mark direct and indirect
causation. Whether we get direct or indirect causation depends upon the predicate the
causative exponent appears on.

(22) (Kashmiri, from Hook and Koul (1984), pg. 102)

a. do + Caus = Indirect Causation:

su
he

ˇchu

no:kras
servant.Dat

athi
by

kE:m
work

kar-Ina:v-a:n
do-Caus-Impfv

‘He is having the work done by the servant.’

b. laugh + Caus = Direct Causation:

mohnI
Mohan

chu
is

aslam-as
Aslam-Dat

as-Ina:v-a:n
laugh-Caus-Impfv

‘Mohan is making Aslam laugh.’

3 Selected ‘Higher in the tree’ Phenomena

3.1 Scrambling and wh-movement

All Indo-Aryan have scrambling. Scrambling in Hindi-Urdu has been analyzed in some
detail in Mahajan (1990), Mahajan (1994), and Kidwai (2000). There seems to be some
variation in the degree to which long scrambling (i.e. out of finite clauses) is deemed
acceptable.
Most Indo-Aryan languages seem to be wh-in-situ. (but see Bhattacharya and Simp-
son (2000) who argue that Bengali should treated as involving overt wh-movement de-
spite apparent wh-in-situ behavior).

(23)

a. Yunus-ne

Yunus-ne

kyaa
what

par.h-aa

read-Pfv

‘What did Yunus read?’

b. Fronting is dispreferred:

??Kyaa
what

Yunus-ne
Yunus-Erg

par.h-aa

read-Pfv

‘What did Yunus read?’

c. (?)kis-ne

who-Erg

Mona-se
Mona-with

baat
talk.f

kii
do-Pfv.F

thii
be.Pst.F

‘Who had talked to Mona?’

d. Mona-se

Mona-with

kis-ne
who-Erg

baat
talk.f

kii
do-Pfv.F

thii
be.Pst.F

‘Who had talked to Mona?’

With the exception of Kashmiri, they have been all claimed to be wh-in-situ.

(24) Kashmiri

a. yi

this

kitaab
book

kem’
who

che
is

pArmIts
read

‘Who has read this book?’

b. *yi

this

kitaab
book

che
is

kem’
who

pArmIts
read

c. kem’

who

che
is

yi
this

kitaab
book

pArmIts
read

‘Who has read this books?’

d. *kem’

who

yi
this

kitaab
book

che
is

pArmIts
read

The wh-in-situ nature disappears once we consider extraction out of finite clauses. Then
one of two strategies needs to be used:

(25)

a. Long Movement:

kis-ko

who-Acc

Ram
Ram.m

soch-taa
think-Hab.MSg

hai
be.Prs.Sg

[ki
that

Sita
Sita.f

pasand
like

kar-tii
do-Hab.f

hai]
be.Prs.Sg

‘Who does Ram think that Sita likes?’

b. Scope Marking:

Ram
Ram.m

kyaa
what

soch-taa
think-Hab.MSg

hai
be.Prs.Sg

[ki
that

Sita
Sita

kis-ko
who-Acc

pasand
like

kar-tii
do-Hab.f

hai]
be.Prs.Sg

‘What does Ram think who does Sita like?’

It is reported that question formation via long movement is unavailable in Kashmiri and
Punjabi.

3.2 Correlatives

Correlative clauses are one of the most distinctive features of the Modern Indo-Aryan
languages. (cf. Srivastav (1991), Dayal (1996)).

(26)

a. [jo

Rel

lar.kii

girl.f

khar.ii

standing.f

hai]
be.Prs.Sg

[vo
Dem

lambii
tall.f

hai]
be.Prs.Sg

‘The girl who is standing is tall.’ (Lit. which girl is standing, she is tall.)

b. [jo

Rel

CD
CD

sale-par
sale-on

hai]
be.Prs.Sg

[mujhe
me.Dat

vo
Dem

CD
CD

chaahiye]
want

‘I want the CD which is on sale.’ (Lit. which CD is on sale, I want that CD.)

In addition to relativization, correlatives are also used to form conditionals, when-clauses,
until-clauses, and comparatives.

(27) conditional

a. If he studies, he will pass.

b. [dzar

ty¯ane
he-Erg

abhy¯as
studying

kel¯a]
do-Pst-3MSg

[tar
then

to
he

p¯as
pass

ho¯ıl]
be-Fut-3Sg

‘If he studies, then he will pass.’

Marathi

(28) when-clauses

a. When Harry met Sally, she was living in Montreal.

b. [jab

when

Harry
Harry

Sally-se
Sally-with

mil-aa]
met

[tab
then

vo
she

Montreal-me
Montreal-in

rah
live

rahii
Prog

thii]
was

‘When Harry met Sally, she was living in Montreal.’

(29) until clauses

a. I will stay here until John arrives.

b. [jab

when

tak
till

John
John

nahii
Neg

aa
come

jaa-taa]
Hab

[tab
then

tak
till

m ˜E
I

yah˜ı:
here

rah ˜ugaa]
stay-will

‘I will stay here until John arrives.’
(Literally: [Till when John hasn’t come], [I will stay here till then])

(30) Comparatives

a. Michael Jordan has more scoring titles than Dennis Rodman has tattoos. (Chicago

Tribune, 7/17/98, Kennedy (2000))

b. [Rodman

Rodman

ke
Gen

jitne
how-many

tattoo
tattoo

h ˜E]
are

[Jordan
Jordan

ke-paas
near

us-se
that-than

jyaadaa
more

khitaab
title

h ˜E]
are

‘Michael Jordan has more scoring titles than Dennis Rodman has tattoos.’ (Lit-
erally: [How many tattoos Dennis Rodman has],

[Michael Jordan has more scoring titles than that])

3.3 Peculiar Extrapositions

In addition to the usual kinds of finite complement clause and relative clause extraposi-
tion, the Indo-Aryan languages permit systematic violations of the Right Roof/Upward
Bounded Constraint of Ross (1967). This constraint is illustrated in (31).

(31)

a. [That the girl [who John likes] is tall] is obvious.

b. [That the girl is tall [who John likes]] is obvious.

c. *[That the girl is tall] is obvious [who John likes].

The fact that the Indo-Aryan (and Dravidian) languages violate this constraint was noted
by Subbarao (1984).

(32)

a. [un

those

jhuut.h˜o-ko

lies-Acc

[jo
Rel

Ram-ne
Ram-Erg

mujhe
me.Dat

bataa-ye
tell-Pfv.MPl

the]
be.Pst.MPl

dohraa-naa]
repeat-Inf

galat
wrong

hai
be.Prs.Sg

‘[To repeat the lies that Ram had told me] is wrong.’

b. [un

those

jhuut.h˜o-ko

lies-Acc

dohraa-naa]
repeat-Inf

galat
wrong

hai
be.Prs.Sg

[jo
Rel

Ram-ne
Ram-Erg

mujhe
me.Dat

bataa-ye
tell-Pfv.MPl

the]

be.Pst.MPl

‘[To repeat the lies that Ram had told me] is wrong.’
(Lit. *[To repeat the lies] is wrong [that John had told me]. )

3.4 Compound Verbs

Compound Verbs are not as much an Indo-Aryan feature as they are an areal feature of
the South Asian sprachbund (cf. Masica (1976)). Given locutions like aa jaa (Lit. come go,
actually: Come in!), they are also initially quite puzzling.
Compound verbs are drawn from a small class of verbs such as jaa ‘go’, le ‘take’, d.aal ‘put’,

de ‘give’, bait.h ‘sit’ and a few others.

(33) (from Hook (1979), pg. 63)

a. jaa ‘go’:

ham
we

steshan
station

pah ˜uch
reach

gaye
GO-Pfv.MPl

‘We got to the station.’

b. le ‘take’:

m ˜E
I

kabaab
kabab

khaa
eat

l ˜u:gaa
TAKE-Fut.1MSg

‘I’ll eat up the kababs.’

c. de ‘give’:

is-ne
s/he-Erg

sabkuchh
eveything

bataa
tell

di-yaa
GIVE-Pfv

‘S/he told all.’

When used in the compound verb construction, the above verbs do not contribute their
lexical meaning. Instead the semantic contribution concerns aspect, manner, and for le
‘take’, modality.
Complex verb construction behave like positive polarity items. They cannot co-occur
with a surface negation, unless that negation is in some sense (that needs to be made
precise) cancelled.

(34) (from Hook (1974), pg. 221)

a. lagaan

land-tax.m

ghat.aa

reduce

di-yaa
GIVE-Pfv.MSg

gayaa
Pass-Pfv.MSg

‘The land tax was reduced.’

b. #lagaan

land-tax.m

ghat.aa

reduce

nah˜ı:
Neg

di-yaa
GIVE-Pfv.MSg

gayaa
Pass-Pfv.MSg

c. ‘Double Negation’:

koi
some

vajah
reason

nah˜ı:
Neg

ki
that

lagaan
land-tax.m

ghat.aa

reduce

nah˜ı:
Neg

di-yaa
GIVE-Pfv.MSg

jaa-e
Pass-Sbjv.MSg

‘There is no reason that the land tax should not be reduced.’

References

Bhatia, T. K. (1993) Punjabi: a cognitive-descriptive grammar, Descriptive Grammars, Routledge, London.

Bhatt, R. (2003) “Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu,” university of Texas Manuscript.

Bhattacharya, T., and A. Simpson (2000) “Wh-CP raising in Bangla,” in M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall,

and J. yung Kim, eds., Proceedings of NELS 30, Amherst, Massachusetts, GLSA, 583–596.

Butt, M. (1993) “Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu,” in Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting

of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago.

Butt, M. (1995) The structure of complex predicates in Urdu, Dissertations in Linguistics, CSLI Publications,

Stanford, California. Doctoral thesis at Stanford University 1994.

Cardona, G. (1965) A Gujarati Reference Grammar, The University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Dayal, V. (1996) Locality in Wh-quantification : Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi, Studies in Linguistics

and Philosophy 62, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Dayal, V. (1999) “Bare NP’s, Reference to Kinds, and Incorporation,” in Proceedings of SALT IX, Cornell

University, Ithaca, NY, Cornell Linguistics Club.

Dayal, V. (2002a) “Bare Nominals: Non-specific and Contrastive Readings under Scrambling,” in S. Karimi,

ed., Word Order and Scrambling, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Dayal, V. (2002b) “Number Marking and (In)definiteness in Kind Terms,” manuscript, Rutgers, on website.

Dayal, V. S. (1992) “The Singular-Plural Distinction in Hindi Generics,” in C. Barker and D. Dowty, eds.,

Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistics Theory, OSU Working Papers in Lin-
guistics 40, Dept. of Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 39–58.

Deo, A., and D. Sharma (2002) “Typological Variation in the Ergative Morphology of Indo-Aryana Lan-

guages,” manuscript, Stanford.

Grierson, G. A. (1883) Seven Grammars of the Dialects and Subdialects of the Bihari Language, Bharatiya Pub-

lishing House, Delhi, India.

Grierson, G. A. (1969) Linguistic Survey of India: Vols. I-XI, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi, India. Reprint of

originals published between 1903-1928.

Hook, P. E. (1974) The Compound Verb in Hindi, Michigan series in South and Southeast Asian languages

and linguistics 1, University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.

Hook, P. E. (1979) Hindi Structures: Intermediate Level, Michigan Papers on South and South-East Asia 16,

Center for South and South-East Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Hook, P. E., and O. N. Koul (1984) “On the Grammar of Derived Transitives and Causatives in Kashmiri,”

in O. N. Koul and P. E. Hook, eds., Aspects of Kashmiri Linguistics, Series in Indian Languages and
Linguistics 12, Bahri Publications, New Delhi, 90–122.

Kennedy, C. (2000) “Comparative (Sub)deletion and Ranked, Violable Constraints in Syntax,” in Proceedings

of NELS 30, Amherst, Massachusetts, GLSA.

Kidwai, A. (2000) XP-adjunction in universal grammar: scrambling and binding in Hindi-Urdu, Oxford studies

in comparative syntax, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Mahajan, A. K. (1989) “Agreement and Agreement Phrases,” in I. Laka and A. K. Mahajan, eds., Functional

Heads and Clause Structure, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA, 217–252.

Mahajan, A. K. (1990) The A/A-bar distinction and Movement Theory, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts In-

stitute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Mahajan, A. K. (1994) “Toward a Unified Theory of Scrambling,” in N. Corver and H. C. van Riems-

dijk, eds., Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-movement approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 301–330.

Masica, C. (1976) Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Masica, C. (1991) The Indo-Aryan Languages, Cambridge Language Surveys, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, England.

Mohanan, T. (1995a) Argument structure in Hindi, Dissertations in Linguistics, CSLI Publications, Stanford,

California. Doctoral thesis at Stanford University 1990.

Mohanan, T. (1995b) “Wordhood and Lexicality: Noun Incorporation in Hindi,” Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory 13:1, 75–134.

Pandharipande, R. V. (1982) Syntax and Semantics of the Passive Construction in Selected South Asian Languages,

Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Urbana, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.

Pandharipande, R. V. (1997) Marathi: a descriptive grammar, Descriptive Grammars, Routledge, London.

Ross, J. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Singh, M. (1994) Perfectivity, definiteness, and specificity: a classification of verbal predicates in Hindi, Doctoral

dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

Srivastav, V. (1991) “The syntax and semantics of correlatives,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9,

637–686.

Strand, R. F. (1973) “Notes on the Nuristani and Dardic languages,” Journal of the American Oriental Society

93, 297–305.

Subbarao, K. V. (1984) Complementation in Hindi Syntax, Academic Publications, Delhi.

Subbarao, K. V. (2001) “Agreement in South Asian Languages and Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,”

in P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbarao, eds., The Yearbook of South Asian Languages 2001, Sage Publica-
tions/Thousand Oaks, London/New Delhi.

Verma, M. K., and K. P. Mohanan, eds. (1990) Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages, CSLI, Stanford,

CA.

Wali, K., and O. N. Koul (1997) Kashmiri: a cognitive-descriptive grammar, Descriptive Grammars, Routledge,

London.