Abstract:
This article attempts, for the first time, to examine the pattern(s) of agreement in the Sohi language. To this end, first the pronominal system of this language is described, and then based on the interaction of pronouns and other nominal groups, patterns of concord and inflection are analyzed in this language. The outcome of the present analysis is that in the Sohi language, in the present tense, concord and inflection follow a pervasive subject-object pattern. However, in the past tense, concord exhibits a three-part pattern and inflection exhibits an absolute-metonymic pattern. The result of the present study, on one hand, sheds new light on the linguistic studies of the Sohi language as a less studied language, and on the other hand, adds to the richness of the typological literature of Iranian languages.
Machine summary:
In terms of cross-reference, the subject of the intransitive clause has the ability to trigger agreement on the verb, whereas the subject of the transitive clause and the object do not possess this ability (for further study regarding this pattern in Iranian languages, see Dabirmoghaddam (1392).
The following examples from the Sahi language demonstrate the neutralization of case distinction among noun groups in three positions: ergative subject, transitive subject, and object: (Refer to page image) It is evident from the above data that where the case system of the Sahi language and its typological determination are concerned, examining full noun groups and independent personal pronouns does not significantly contribute to the clarity of the subject.
From the perspective of descriptive-traditional typology, as far as the behavior of full noun groups is concerned, the Sahi language possesses a neutral category/system in the case domain, because the behavior of the ergative subject, transitive subject, and object is similar in terms of case-marking and, in other words, neutral regarding case distinctions.
Now the question is: why, in the grammatical system of case and agreement in the past tense, does the reciprocal reference with the transitive subject manifest unusually through a non-agentive clitic rather than an agentive/marker inflectional affix (see Table 2)?
Case patterns are determined based on observing similar or different behaviors of three noun groups: intransitive subject, transitive subject, and object, in terms of how they are marked (Primus 2010).
(
, 
, 
)
