Pashto, a major language of Afghanistan and Pakistan, has a pattern of split-ergativity similar to that in Hindi/Urdu, except that Pashto has generally been thought to define the split on tense, rather than on aspect. This article examines Pashto's compound verbs rather closely, revealing that Pashto's ergative split is more intricate than has hitherto been noted, being determined by both tense and aspect. This dual criterion for ergativity can result in verbal agreement that is 'split' in a single sentence, one element of the verb agreeing with the object, and the other element of the verb agreeing with the subject. Although 'simple' ergativity itself poses considerable difficulties for formal accounts of sentence structure, split-ergativity obviously compounds these difficulties.1 The implication for Indo-Iranian diachrony is that Pashto has surely inherited its more complicated system from Proto-Iranian, while other languages have simplified or lost it entirely.
Section 1 offers a brief sketch of Pashto morphology, before examing agreement in compound verbs in section 2. Ergativity in Pashto has been outlined in greatest detail by Tegey (1979), although he did not not discuss compound verbs. For broader information on the language, such works as Penzl (1955), MacKenzie (1987), Tegey and Robson (1996), and Babrakzai (1999) may be consulted.
(1)
| sg | pl | direct | patlun | patlanúna | oblique | patlaane | patlanúno |
|---|
The four-way distinction exemplified by (1) is not made by all nouns; many nouns do not distinguish direct and oblique singular forms, for example. The class membership of nouns is determined largely arbitrarily, and there is little consensus on how to divide them. Tegey and Robson (1996) posit four classes of masculine nouns and three classes of feminine, while recognizing a good number of irregular forms.
The two cases encode a variety of grammatical functions and, as mentioned above, display an ergative pattern in past tense. In the chart below, 'subject' is meant to refers to subjects of transitive and unergative verbs only, since subjects of unaccusative verbs behave as objects:
(2)
| direct | oblique | |
|---|---|---|
| present | subject; object | object of adposition2 |
| past | object | subject; object of adposition |
Some members of the set of singular strong pronouns initially appear to show an additional case distinction, differentiating direct objects from objects of adpositions, as shown in the paradigm in (3) (adapted from Tegey and Robson 1996: 69). As will be explained below, however, 'accusative' is not a distinct case; the term is intended merely to identify the direct object in a present tense sentence, in order to show how case-assignment is split according to person.
(3)
| direct | accusative | oblique (obj. of P) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1sg | ze | maa | maa | ||
| 2sg | te | taa | taa | ||
| 3sg | vis | masc | day | day | de |
| fem | daa | daa | dee | ||
| invis | masc | agha | agha | aghe | |
| fem | agha | agha | aghee |
The identity of form of the pronouns in red suggests that—like full NPs—strong pronouns likewise only show two case distinctions, direct and oblique. Third-person pronouns are like full NPs (which are also, of course, third-person) in receiving direct case when they are the direct object of a present tense sentence. In contrast, first- and second-person pronouns, when they are objects, receive oblique case in present tense. (The split between first- and second-person nominals vs. third-person nominals may be defined simply as being between discourse participants and non-participants—a split familiar from many languages.) As shown below, the so-called accusative 1sg and 2sg pronouns in (3) are restricted to direct object position in present tense:
| (4) | a. | ze taa/*te daftar ta leeg-em |
| PN1SG(DIR) PN2SG(ACC)/PN2SG(DIR) office to send-1SG | ||
| 'I am sending you to the office' | ||
| b. | te maa daftar ta leeg-ee | |
| PN2SG(DIR) PN1SG(ACC) office to send-2SG | ||
| 'you are sending me to the office' (Babrakzai 1999: 60) |
Direct case is used for third-person subjects and objects in present tense, and for objects in past tense. And, also like full NPs, pronominal subjects appear in oblique (ergative) case in past tense:
| (5) | a. | minee ze pe baagh kee we lid-em |
| Meena(OBL) PN1SG(DIR) at garden in PERF saw-1SG | ||
| 'Meena saw me in the garden' | ||
| b. | maa mina pe baagh kee we lid-a | |
| PN1SG(OBL) Meena(DIR) at garden in PERF saw-FEM3SG | ||
| 'I saw Meena in the garden' (Babrakzai 1999: 61) |
If the person-split is borne in mind, the chart in (3) may therefore be simplified as follows:
(6)
| direct | oblique | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1sg | ze | maa | ||
| 2sg | te | taa | ||
| 3sg | vis | masc | day | de |
| fem | daa | dee | ||
| invis | masc | agha | aghe | |
| fem | agha | aghee |
Whereas singular strong pronouns bear two cases, plural strong pronouns have a single form, regardless of their function in a sentence:
(7)
| all functions | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1pl | mung | |
| 2pl | táasee | |
| 3pl | vis | duy |
| invis | aghuy |
Strong pronouns appear in the same positions as full NPs (i.e., in unmarked SOV order), as illustrated by the above sentences. A strong pronoun is used when its referent is emphasized; discourse-neutral (topic) pronouns take the form of second-position clitics. In addition to pronominals, second-position clitics include some modals and adverbials (Tegey 1977: 81):
| (8) | Second-position clitics | |
|---|---|---|
| Pronominal (ergative, accusative, genitive) | ||
| mee | 1SG | |
| dee | 2SG | |
| yee | 3SG, 3PL | |
| am | 1PL, 2PL | |
| mo | 1PL, 2PL | |
| Modal | ||
| ba | FUTURE, 'will', 'might', 'must', 'should', 'may' | |
| dee | 'should', 'had better', 'let' | |
| Adverbial | ||
| kho | 'indeed', 'really', 'of course' | |
| no | 'then' | |
The following paradigms illustrate that these clitics occur, informally speaking, in second position of the clause. As optional, sentence-initial items are removed, the clitics take as a host whatever other element appears initially. Here and throughout, the second-position clitics are underlined.
| (9) | a. | kushal mee zyaati ne wah-i |
| Khoshal 1SG anymore NEG hit-PRES3SG | ||
| 'Khoshal does not hit me anymore' | ||
| b. | zyaati mee ne wah-i | |
| anymore 1SG NEG hit-PRES3SG | ||
| 'He doesn't hit me anymore' | ||
| c. | ne mee wah-i | |
| NEG 1SG hit-PRES3SG | ||
| 'He doesn't hit me' | ||
| d. | wah-i mee | |
| hit-PRES3SG 1SG | ||
| 'He hits me' (Tegey 1977: 132) |
| (10) | a. | tor dee nen khar ne raawal-i |
| Tor should today donkey NEG bring-PRES3SG | ||
| 'Tor should not bring the donkey today' | ||
| b. | nen dee khar ne raawal-i | |
| today should donkey NEG bring-PRES3SG | ||
| 'He should not bring the donkey today' | ||
| c. | khar dee ne raawal-i | |
| donkey should NEG bring-PRES3SG | ||
| 'He should not bring the donkey' | ||
| d. | ne dee raawal-i | |
| NEG should bring-PRES3SG | ||
| 'He should not bring it' | ||
| e. | raawal-i dee | |
| bring-PRES3SG should | ||
| 'He should bring it' (Tegey 1977: 82–83)3 |
Pashto is fairly rigidly verb-final, and so (9d) and (10e) are of particular interest, as they illustrate that the clitic's need to have a host to its left is strong enough that it compels the verb to appear non-finally in a sentence containing only one word (the verb) other than the clitic. As we shall see in section 2, in sentences containing only a compound verb in addition to the clitic, the clitic may actually divide the parts of the compound verb when it is in perfective aspect.
| (11) | [V # aspect # negation # stem – agreement # ] (Babrakzai 1999: 51) |
Verbs have different forms depending on their tense (past vs. present) and aspect (perfective vs. imperfective), and show both subject and object agreement. Perfective aspect is productively marked by the stressed proclitic we (the vowel of which is rounded when followed by a labial consonant), while past tense is marked (on regular verbs) by the stressed suffix -el, which is also the infinitive marker. Thus, the four possible tense/aspect stems for the simple verb tarrel 'to tie' are as follows (Tegey and Robson 1996: 99):
(12)
| present | past | |
|---|---|---|
| impf | tarr- | tarr-él- |
| perf | wé-tarr- | wé-tarr-el- |
Many intransitive verbs bear the suffix -eeg in present tense, and -eed(él) in past tense. A common transitive/causative suffix is -aw. These suffixes are reduced forms of the intransitive and transitive auxiliaries, for which see (15–16) below. The final element of any verb is one of the suffixes from the paradigm in (13), which agrees with relevant arguments (depending on tense and aspect) in person and number. The third-person suffixes also show gender agreement in past tense.
(13)
| sg | pl | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -em | -u | ||
| 2 | -ee | -ey | ||
| 3 | present | -i | -i | |
| past | masc | -e | -e | |
| fem | -a | -ee | ||
These suffixes license pro-drop in subject position in present tense, and in object position in past tense.
As mentioned earlier, past tense sentences are inflected on an ergative/absolutive pattern:
| (14) | a. | sarr-ay mann-a khwr-i |
| man(MASC)-DIR SG apple(FEM)-DIR SG eat-PRES3SG | ||
| 'the man is eating the apple' | ||
| b. | sarr-i mann-a khwar-él-a | |
| man(MASC)-OBL SG apple(FEM)-DIR SG eat-PAST-FEM3SG | ||
| 'the man was eating the apple' (Tegey and Robson 1996: 182) |
Both sentences have the same form of the direct object, in the unmarked direct case. The subject in present tense (14a) is also in direct case, resulting in a fairly rigid SOV order for some speakers, since the subject and object are not morphologically disambiguated. The ergative subject in (14b), however, appears in the marked, oblique case. The form of the verb also changes in these sentences, agreeing with the subject in (14a), but with the object in (14b): the classic ergative 'split'. In sentences with simple verbs, case and agreement are therefore correlated. For speakers having a rigid word order, past tense sentences are also SOV, as in (14b), mirroring the word order of present tense clauses. Many speakers have a freer word order, however, permitting OSV order.
The stems of intransitive and transitive auxiliaries, to which the agreement suffixes in (13) are added, are listed below (Tegey 1977: 95). Although they are most commonly used to form compound verbs (the subject of the next section), they may also be used as main verbs with the respective meanings 'to become' and 'to do, to make'.
(15)
| present | past | |
|---|---|---|
| imperfective | (k)éeg- | (k)eed- |
| perfective | s- | sw- |
(16)
| present | past | |
|---|---|---|
| imperfective | (k)aw- | (k)aw(él) |
| perfective | k- | krr- |
Some forms of 'to be' and the auxiliaries have optional variants containing the past tense suffix el, which appears as the penultimate syllable in forms that do not already contain el (Tegey and Robson 1996: 96–98).
These somewhat idealized paradigms are based on the 'central' dialect of Habibullah Tegey, but in actual speech there is considerable variation, especially for vowels, both in individual speakers (due to vowel harmony and rate of speech), and in different dialects. The same is true of all languages, of course, and so Pashto is not unusual in this regard.
| (17) | Mamaad fíker kewi [CP tshi de4 Sur Gwel day khwaass dey] |
| Mamaad thought do COMP POSS Sur Gwel him like be | |
| 'Mamaad thinks Sur Gwel likes him' (Kandahar) |
| (18) | a. | hagheey hagha mayshem [CP tshi uda dee] khkol krro |
| she DET baby COMP sleep be kiss do | ||
| b. | hagheey hagha mayshem khkol krro [CP tshi uda dee] | |
| she DET baby kiss do COMP sleep be | ||
| 'she kissed the baby who is sleeping' (Yusufzai) |
Although complex predicates in Indo-Iranian languages have received some attention (see Ramchand 1991 for Bangla, Butt 1995 for Urdu, and Karimi 1997a,b for Persian), such predicates in Pashto have different properties that offer insight into the language's unusual patterns of agreement and clitic placement. Compound verbs show that aspect plays a crucial role in determining syntactic and morphological constituency in Pashto. In particular, compound verbs in perfective aspect behave as two units rather than one. Three types of evidence from the behavior of compound verbs support this analysis: a morphophonological process of merger and its consequences for clitic placement (treated together in section 2.2), and split agreement (section 2.3).
| (19) | Present imperfective |
| dzhobl-áw-em dee | |
| injure-TRANS(PRES IMPF)-1SG 2SG | |
| 'I am injuring you' |
| (20) | Past imperfective |
| dzhobl-awél-em dee | |
| injure-TRANS(PAST IMPF)-1SG 2SG | |
| 'you were injuring me' |
| (21) | Present perfective5 | |
| a. | dzhóbel k-em dee | |
| injured do(PRES PERF TRANS)-1SG 2SG | ||
| 'I injure you' | ||
| b. | dzhóbel dee k-em | |
| injured 2SG do(PRES PERF TRANS)-1SG | ||
| 'I injure you' | ||
| (22) | Past perfective | |
| a. | dzhóbel krr-em dee | |
| injured do(PAST PERF TRANS)-1SG 2SG | ||
| 'you injured me' | ||
| b. | dzhóbel dee krr-em | |
| injured 2SG do(PAST PERF TRANS)-1SG | ||
| 'you injured me' | ||
In the imperfective sentences of (19–20), the initial k of the auxiliary is omitted, and the compound verb forms a single word, which must be followed by the second-position 2sg clitic dee. (The clitic cannot precede the verb unless there is a sentence-initial constituent to host the clitic; see the following two chapters for ample illustration of clitic placement.) In the perfective sentences of (21–22), however, the initial k of the auxiliary is retained; the two parts of the verb remain separate, and the 2sg clitic dee may either follow the complex verb or appear between its two parts.
Initially, it might appear that the possibility of dropping the initial consonant of the auxiliary and fusing the compound verb into a single verb is nothing more than an artifact of the particular phonological forms within the auxiliary paradigm. In particular, fusion could not apply to the perfective auxiliaries, since their stems generally comprise a single consonant (see their forms in (15–16) above), and so deletion of those onset positions would render the perfective forms identical for all the auxiliaries. In contrast, the imperfective auxiliary stems retain distinct vowels and consonants even after their initial k is deleted. Nevertheless, aspect itself may be seen more clearly to play a role in morphological fusion when the placement of second-position clitics is considered. As was shown in (21–22), the second-position 2sg clitic dee may appear between the constituents of a compound verb when they form separate words. If this behavior were solely the result of morphology or phonology determining when the initial k of the auxiliary must be retained, it would be expected that in compound verbs derived from an adjective ending in a vowel (which never permit the initial k of the auxiliary to be deleted), the clitic would similarly be able to divide the constituents of the compound verb. As the following sentences show, however, this is not the case. The clitic may divide the constituents of a compound verb only when it is in perfective aspect:
| (23) | Present imperfective | |
| a. | khaaysta kaw-em dee | |
| beautiful do(PRES IMPF TRANS)-1SG 2SG | ||
| 'I am making you beautiful' | ||
| b. | *khaaysta dee kaw-em | |
| beautiful 2SG do(PRES IMPF TRANS)-1SG | ||
| 'I am making you beautiful' | ||
| (24) | Past imperfective | |
| a. | khaaysta kawél-em dee | |
| beautiful do(PAST IMPF TRANS)-1SG 2SG | ||
| 'you were making me beautiful' | ||
| b. | *khaaysta dee kawél-em | |
| beautiful 2SG do(PAST IMPF TRANS)-1SG | ||
| 'you were making me beautiful' | ||
| (25) | Present perfective | |
| a. | khaaysta k-em dee | |
| beautiful do(PRES PERF TRANS)-1SG 2SG | ||
| 'I make you beautiful' | ||
| b. | khaaysta dee k-em | |
| beautiful 2SG do(PRES PERF TRANS)-1SG | ||
| 'I make you beautiful' | ||
| (26) | Past perfective | |
| a. | khaaysta krr-em dee | |
| beautiful do(PAST PERF TRANS)-1SG 2SG | ||
| 'you made me beautiful' | ||
| b. | khaaysta dee krr-em | |
| beautiful 2SG do(PAST PERF TRANS)-1SG | ||
| 'you made me beautiful' | ||
Imperfective compound verbs thus behave as a single unit with respect to clitic placement, irrespective of whether the initial k of their auxiliary is deleted. Aspect itself thus plays a role in the formation of compound verbs, with imperfective (but not perfective) compound verbs being impenetrable to second-position clitics.6
| (27) | Past perfective: object agreement | |
| a. | sangin kerkey maat-a krr-a | |
| Sangin(MASC) window(FEM SG) broken-FEM SG do(PAST PERF)-FEM3SG | ||
| 'Sangin broke the window' | ||
| b. | sangin kerkey maat-ee krr-i | |
| Sangin(MASC) windows(FEM PL) broken-FEM PL do(PAST PERF)-FEM3PL | ||
| 'Sangin broke the windows' | ||
| c. | sangin war maat krr-o | |
| Sangin(MASC) door(MASC SG) broken(MASC SG) do(PAST PERF)-MASC3SG | ||
| 'Sangin broke the door' | ||
| d. | sangin warúna maat krr-el | |
| Sangin(MASC) doors(MASC PL) broken(MASC PL) do(PAST PERF)-MASC3PL | ||
| 'Sangin broke the doors' | ||
At this point, the two parts of the compound verb could be regarded as a single lexical item that agrees with the object. Such a conclusion would also be supported by the agreement pattern in the present and past imperfective examples below, in which the two parts of the compound verb form a single word, and the adjectival portion is uninflected:
| (28) | Present imperfective: subject agreement | |
| a. | sangin kerkey maat-aw-i | |
| Sangin(MASC) window(FEM) broken-TRANS(PRES IMPF)-3SG | ||
| 'Sangin is breaking the window(s)' | ||
| b. | sangin war maat-aw-i | |
| Sangin(MASC) door(MASC SG) broken-TRANS(PRES IMPF)-3SG | ||
| 'Sangin is breaking the door' | ||
| c. | sangin warúna maat-aw-i | |
| Sangin(MASC) doors(MASC PL) broken-TRANS(PRES IMPF)-3SG | ||
| 'Sangin is breaking the doors' | ||
| d. | táaso warúna maat-aw-ey | |
| 2PL doors(MASC PL) broken-TRANS(PRES IMPF)-2PL | ||
| 'you (PL) are breaking the doors' | ||
| (29) | Past imperfective: object agreement | |
| a. | Sangin kerkey maat-aw-éla | |
| Sangin(MASC) window(FEM SG) broken-TRANS-FEM3SG(PAST IMPF) | ||
| 'Sangin was breaking the window' | ||
| b. | Sangin kerkey maat-aw-éli | |
| Sangin(MASC) windows(FEM PL) broken-TRANS-FEM3PL(PAST IMPF) | ||
| 'Sangin was breaking the windows' | ||
| c. | Sangin war maat-aw-u | |
| Sangin(MASC) door(MASC SG) broken-TRANS-MASC3SG(PAST IMPF) | ||
| 'Sangin was breaking the door' | ||
| d. | Sangin warúna maat-aw-el | |
| Sangin(MASC) doors(MASC PL) broken-TRANS-MASC3PL(PAST IMPF) | ||
| 'Sangin was breaking the doors' | ||
As explained in the previous section, since the adjectival stem of the compound verb ends in a consonant (maat 'broken'), the initial k of the transitive auxiliary kaw- is omitted, and the final consonant of the adjective forms the onset of the following syllable. The invariant form of the adjective shows that it does not agree with the object in either present or past imperfective, although the entire (derived) verb agrees with the subject in present tense (28), and with the object in past tense (29)—the familiar pattern of tense-split ergativity.
Evidence for disassociating subject and object agreement in a single sentence, however, comes from perfective aspect in non-past tense sentences, in which the adjectival portion of the compound verb agrees with the object, while the perfective auxiliary agrees with the subject. Present tense sentences are given in (30). The paradigm in (31) gives future tense sentences, which are created from a past perfective auxiliary and the second-position future clitic ba. These sentences show that the auxiliary verb behaves independently, and according to the usual, ergative pattern, agreeing with the object in past tense, and with the subject in non-past tense.
| (30) | Present perfective: split agreement | |
| a. | táaso kerkey maat-a key | |
| 2PL window(FEM SG) broken-FEM SG do(PRES PERF 2PL) | ||
| 'you (PL) break the window' | ||
| b. | táaso kerkey maat-ee key | |
| 2PL windows(FEM PL) broken-FEM PL do(PRES PERF 2PL) | ||
| 'you (PL) break the windows' | ||
| c. | táaso war maat key | |
| 2PL door(MASC SG) broken(MASC SG) do(PRES PERF 2PL) | ||
| 'you (PL) break the door' | ||
| d. | táaso warúna maat key | |
| 2PL doors(MASC PL) broken(MASC PL) do(PRES PERF 2PL) | ||
| 'you (PL) break the doors' | ||
| (31) | Future: split agreement | |
| a. | sangin ba kerkey maat-a krr-i | |
| Sangin FUT window(FEM SG) broken-FEM SG do(PAST PERF)-MASC3SG | ||
| 'Sangin (MASC) will break the window' | ||
| b. | sangin ba kerkey maat-ee krr-i | |
| Sangin FUT windows(FEM PL) broken-FEM PL do(PAST PERF)-MASC3SG | ||
| 'Sangin (MASC) will break the windows' | ||
| c. | sangin ba war maat krr-i | |
| Sangin FUT door(MASC SG) broken(MASC SG) do(PAST PERF)-MASC3SG | ||
| 'Sangin (MASC) will break the door' | ||
| d. | sangin ba warúna maat krr-i | |
| Sangin FUT doors(MASC PL) broken(MASC PL) do(PAST PERF)-MASC3SG | ||
| 'Sangin (MASC) will break the doors' | ||
| e. | táaso ba warúna maat krr-ey | |
| 2PL FUT doors(MASC PL) broken(MASC PL) do(PAST PERF)-2PL | ||
| 'you (PL) will break the doors' | ||
This split agreement pattern also appears in the imperative mood of compound verbs, which are similarly formed from both present and past perfective auxiliaries. When the imperative has a single addressee, the singular imperative suffix -a appears on the auxiliary, regardless of the gender or number of the object, while the adjectival portion of the compound verb varies with the gender and number of the intended object:8
| (32) | Imperative: split agreement | |
| a. | dzhorr k-a | |
| built(MASC SG) do(PRES PERF)-2SG(IMP) | ||
| 'build it(MASC SG)!' | ||
| b. | dzhórra k-a | |
| built(FEM SG) do(PRES PERF)-2SG(IMP) | ||
| 'build it(FEM SG)!' | ||
| c. | dzhorr k-a | |
| built(MASC PL) do(PRES PERF)-2SG(IMP) | ||
| 'build it(MASC PL)!' | ||
| d. | dzhórri k-a | |
| built(FEM PL) do(PRES PERF)-2SG(IMP) | ||
| 'build it(FEM PL)!' | ||
When the imperative has a plural addressee, the auxiliary bears the 2pl suffix -ey, while the adjective continues to agree with the intended object:
| (33) | Imperative: split agreement | |
| a. | dzhorr krr-ey | |
| built(MASC SG) do(PAST PERF)-2PL | ||
| 'build it(MASC SG)!' | ||
| b. | dzhórra krr-ey | |
| built(FEM SG) do(PAST PERF)-2PL | ||
| 'build it(FEM SG)!' | ||
| c. | dzhorr krr-ey | |
| built(MASC PL) do(PAST PERF)-2PL | ||
| 'build it(MASC PL)!' | ||
| d. | dzhórri krr-ey | |
| built(FEM PL) do(PAST PERF)-2PL | ||
| 'build it(FEM PL)!' | ||
Unlike agreement in indicative compound verbs, the tense of the auxiliary verb is irrelevant to agreement.
| (34) | Agreement in compound verb | Mood | Aspect | Tense | Example | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a. | Adj + AuxSUBJECT | Indicative | Imperfective | Present | (28) | |
| b. | Adj + AuxOBJECT | Indicative | Imperfective | Past | (29) | |
| c. | AdjOBJECT AuxOBJECT | Indicative | Perfective | Past | (27) | |
| d. | AdjOBJECT AuxSUBJECT | Indicative | Perfective | Present | (30) | |
| Indicative | Perfective | Future | (31) | |||
| Imperative | Perfective | Present | (32) | |||
| Imperative | Perfective | Past | (33) | |||
As suggested in the previous section, imperfective compound verbs (34a–b) behave as a single lexical item, which is why their adjectival portion is invariably uninflected. The choice of subject vs. object agreement on the auxiliary is the usual one determined by tense: subject agreement in present tense, and object agreement in past tense. In past perfective compounds (34c), both the adjective and auxiliary agree with the object, as is to be expected in past tense, which always shows ergativity. The fact that the adjective in perfectives is inflected at all, though, distinguishes it from its counterpart in imperfectives, and shows that the two parts of the compound verb are inflected separately. Although both parts here agree with the object (since the verb is past tense), evidence for their separate status comes from non-past perfectives and imperatives (34d), since in those constructions, the two parts of the compound verb agree with different constituents of the sentence.
Until now, Pashto has seemed unlike Hindi/Urdu in defining its ergative split on tense, rather than aspect. Agreement in compound verbs shows that Pashto nevertheless retains an element of aspect-driven ergativity, since adjectival object agreement is indeed defined on perfective aspect (as in Hindi/Urdu), rather than on tense. It is only the auxiliary component of the compound verb that exhibits ergativity in past tense. Agreement and case-marking thus do not exhibit a single pattern of ergativity in Pashto, as the behavior of simple verbs would suggest.
2 The term adposition refers as a group to prepositions, postpositions, and ambipositions.
3 In isolation, the (d) and (e) sentences are not grammatical, as they do not contain an object, either in the form of a nominal, or in the form of a clitic or verbal agreement. Jan Mohammad (p.c.) observes that these sentences are well-formed in the context of a paradigm, just as in English, one may say, for example, 'I love, you love, he loves' in order to illustrate verbal agreement, but without repeating an (irrelevant) grammatical object. Another interpretation of these sentences (Farooq Babrakzai, p.c.), which would render them grammatical (and illustrate the same pattern as above), would be to assume that they contained the 3sg accusative clitic yee (underlyingly /ee/), which would merge with the preceding 2sg clitic dee by a regular phonological process.
4 The embedded subject appears in possessive form (de Sur Gwel) because 'like' is a psych-predicate (Tegey and Robson 1996: 184–188). Still other predicates require their subjects to appear as complements of locative, dative, or ablative adpositions, although the subject NPs themselves still appear in oblique case (Babrakzai 1999: ch. 7).
5 There is no good explanation at present for why the clitic may follow either the first or second word of the perfective forms, but the crucial point is illustrated by the (b) variants: simply that perfective compounds may be divided by clitics, whereas imperfective compounds may never be divided. This point will be more strikingly illustrated in the next set of sentences.
6 Tegey (1977: 98–99) notes the perfective/imperfective distinction, imputing it solely to stress, but the adjectival portion of all of these verbs bears final stress.
7 Thanks to Jan Mohammad for suggesting these paradigms.
8 This paradigm is suggested by Tegey and Robson (1996: 131–132), but the actual forms are from Yusufzai. The use of a past- rather than a present-tense verb for a plural addressee appears to be a quirk of Yusufzai, as the reference above states that the present perfective stem of the verb takes both singular (-a) and plural (-ey) imperative suffixes.
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Karimi, Simin. 1997a. Persian complex verbs: idiomatic or compositional? Lexicology 3: 273–318.
———. 1997b. Persian complex predicates and LF incorporation. In CLS 33: Papers from the Main Session, ed. Kora Singer, Randall Eggert, and Gregory Anderson, 215–229. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
MacKenzie, D. N. 1987. Pashto. In The world's major languages, ed. Bernard Comrie, 547–565. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Penzl, Herbert. 1955. A grammar of Pashto: a descriptive study of the dialect of Kandahar, Afghanistan. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 1991. Complex predicate formation in Bangla. In The proceedings of the ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Aaron L. Halpern, 443–458. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Roberts, Taylor. 2000. Clitics and agreement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Tegey, Habibullah. 1977. The grammar of clitics: evidence from Pashto and other languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
———. 1979. Ergativity in Pushto (Afghani). In Linguistic method: essays in honor of Herbert Penzl, ed. Irmengard Rauch and Gerald F. Carr, 369–418. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Tegey, Habibullah, and Barbara Robson. 1996. A reference grammar of Pashto. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.