Magin_Edward-thesis

163
are in parentheses. For the contexts of each line, see the translations of the poems in
Appendix B.
(253) gut-in belê me (ew) dît-Ø (BS6:26)
say.PST-3PL yes we (3D) see.PST-3SG
‘They said, Yes, we saw it.’
(254) Xudê (ew) kir-Ø bû bela bû me (AN1:65)
God (3D) make.PST for problem for us
‘God made her a problem for us.’
(255) taze wesa dil (ew) vîa-Ø (AN2:35)
beautiful like.that heart (3DP) want.PST-3SG
‘The heart wanted them beautiful like that.’
Sindî’s Bila..Bila, ‘OK..OK,’ provides some interesting examples of variation in
pronoun usage. And since we are dealing with issues of participant reference, I have
included a large portion of the poem, shown in (256). The lines in focus in this discussion
are 4, 8 and 10.
Line 4 is a response to the previous line, ‘He’s my friend by love.’ The speaker is
telling God to protect her dust, ‘friend,’ which could also be translated as ‘lover,’ as it is
in line 7. In line 4, the object wî, 3OM, is unexpressed. (The missing pronoun is within the
parentheses.) The verb bihêlit is transitive and the translator knew it was necessary in
English to include the object personal pronoun, the anaphor ‘him,’ in the translation. As
the syllable count for the lines in this poem is seven, Sindî did not need to express the
pronoun wî, 3OM, but depended on the rules of participant reference in Northern Kurdish
that allows for the exclusion of personal object pronouns in certain contextual situations.
Also note that in this instance, the missing 3OM pronoun is not represented in this verb
bihêlit, which agrees with the subject. Hence, this is a case where pronoun ellipsis
depends entirely on the rules of participant reference, receiving no help from the personnumber
ending on the verb.
(256) bila .. bila çi bêj-it (BS3:1-11)
ok ok what say.PRS-3SG
‘Ok .. ok, what he says.’