Magin_Edward-thesis

203
(344) te di-vêt ku bi-de-m te mirç u (AN5:23)
2O IPFV-want.PRS-3SG that IRR-give.PRS-1SG 2O kiss and
maç-a
louder.kiss-OBL.PL
‘You want me to give you kisses and smooches.’
me di-vêt-Ø tu bi-de-y me zixt (AN5:24)
1OP IPFV-want.PRS-3SG 2D IRR-give.PRS-2SG 1OP nail.on.end.of.oxgoad
u xişt-î
and staff-OBL.M
‘We want you to give us pressure (pounding heart) and a staff.’
5.4.1.4.3 Synthesis
Thus far in my discussion of parallelisms, I have focused on syntactic parallels. In
this section, I highlight some lines of poetry that are semantically parallel. In the last
example, (344), I mentioned that the lines may be considered as being antithetical, as it
seems that Nalbend was expressing opposing ideas. In discourse terms, this parallel
would be called base-contrast, where the second line contrasts with the first line, the
base.
Turco describes synthesis as a parallel structure of consequence, providing the
example, “I love you; therefore, I am yours” (Turco 2000:9). These two clauses may be
more specifically defined as having the causal semantic relation of ground-conclusion,
where the first clause, ‘I love you,’ provides the basis or evidence for the conclusion in
the second clause, ‘therefore, I am yours.’ Ground-conclusion is just one of many terms
Wendland uses to describe causal relations (Wendland 2002a:98).
The first four lines of Dilê Cegerxwîn, ‘Cegerxwîn’s Heart,’ previously discussed
to illustrate syntactic repetition, contain four examples of synthesis that build on one
another to lay a foundation for the rest of the poem. All four lines are shown in (345).
The discourse term to more specifically describe the semantic relation between each
line’s two clauses would be reason-result, rather than ground-conclusion, the term for
Turco’s example. Wendland (2002a:98) describes a reason-result relation as, “Because
one event happens, therefore another occurs.” The first half of each line speaks of the