- The authors:
Andrey A. Shumkov - Pages: 557-565
- Section: SELECTED TOPICS IN GENERAL AND SPECIFIC LINGUISTICS IN SYNCHRONIC AND DIACHRONIC PERSPECTIVE
- URL: http://science-ifl.rudn.ru/10784-2021-557-565/
- DOI:
10.22363/10784-2021-557-565
Abstract. The article deals with the constructions of subjunctive mood in Yiddish, which are absolute innovations as compared to the tense constructions in Germanic languages. It is also doubtful, that these structural innovations might be caused by interference with Slavic or Baltic languages. Generally speaking the tense system of Yiddish has other specific features, but the most of them get an explanation within the theory of language contacts. So, the composite form of Preterite, consisting of two separate parts, is explained by the influence of one of the periphrastic tense contructions, functioning in the Samogitian dialect of Lithuanian. The double Perfect is sometimes used in Romanic and Germanic languages and finds a solid position in Yiddish. The Yiddish constructions of conditional mood are the result of mixing German conjunctive Preterite and Slavic Future II in the Past.
Taking into account the structural potential or Germanic tense system, the paper undertakes an investigation of Yiddish tenses. For that purpose the theoretical basis of the binomiality idea is used, proclaiming, that a substantive / verbal part of sentence consists of two items – a substantive / verbal semifinitive and a time / space (pra)specifier. The specifier is responsible for the formation of a main part of sentence and can be weak (a flexion), strong or superstrong (a word). The superstrong time specifiers are mostly modal verbs or similar verbal units. The (pra)specifiers can undergo a modification by a semifinitive. The verbal semifimitives can be, like infinitives, I or II (for Yiddish we also assume the existence of semifinitive III).
For the constructions of subjunctive mood a binomial model is proposed, according to which these constructions are the result of fixing a semifinitive I in a weak specifier, modified by the semifinitive I «zayn» (however, this semifinitive transforms itself into the participle II «geven» or «gevesn»). The reason of this transformation might be the structural influence of the constructions of conditional mood on the constructions of subjunctive mood. Mixing German conjunctive Preterite and Slavic Future II in the Past could result in the transformation of semifinitive I into participle II.
Keywords: Yiddish, subjunctive mood, binomiality idea, language contacts
Andrey A. Shumkov
Saint-Petersburg State Electrotechnical University
Saint-Petersburg, Russia e-mail: noizen@mail.ru ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7326-4371
Eckert, R. 1996. The analytic frequentative past in Samogitian and its typological correspondences. Res Balticae 2: 51–63.
Jacobs, N. G. 2005. Yiddish: a Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 348 pp.
Katz, D. 1987. Grammar of the Yiddish Language. Duckworth, London, 290 pp.
Litvinov, V., Radčenko, V., 1998. Doppelte Perfektbildungen in der deutschen Literatursprache. Stauffenburg, Tübingen, 238 pp.
Rejzen, Z. 1908. Yudishe gramatik. Progres, Varshe, 99 pp.
Schäfer, L. 2020. Modus und Tempus im Jiddischen: Analysen zum Konjunktiv in den jiddischen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 87(3): 328–374.
Talmy, L. 1982. Borrowing semantic space: Yiddish verb prefixes between Germanic and Slavic. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society, Berkeley, USA, pp. 231–250.
Ulianitckaia, L.A., Shumkov, A.A. 2018. The physical base of communication on natural language. In: Proceedings of IEEE Communication Strategies in Digital Society Workshop, Saint- Petersburg, Russia, 11 April 2018, pp. 72-75.
Weinreich, U. 1976. College Yiddish: An Introduction to the Yiddish Language and to Jewish Life and Culture. YIVO Inst. for Jewish Research, New York, 399 pp.
Zaretzki, I. 1929. Yidishe gramatik. B. Kletskin, Vilnius, 322 pp.