Quantification in Persian Maziar Toosarvandani University of California, Santa Cruz

Hayedeh Nasser Iran University of Medical Sciences∗

December 1, 2015

1

Introduction to Persian

Persian is a member of the Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. It has three main dialects: Dari, a national language of Afghanistan; Farsi, the national language of Iran; and, Tajiki, the national language of Tajikistan. This article covers only the Iranian variety, specifically the standard dialect of Tehran. The informal, spoken register of Persian diverges substantially from its more formal, written register, both because of standardization and influence from earlier forms of the language attested in its long written history. The language is subject-object-verb, though there are several scrambling operations that can permute this basic word order. It has two tenses — present (or nonpast) and past — as well as a three-way aspectual distinction — perfective, imperfective, and perfect. Verbs agree with the subject in person and number. The noun phrase is mostly head initial, with the noun preceding any modifying nouns or adjectives and possessors. But functional elements, such as determiners, precede the head noun. Any original data presented here either represents the judgments of the second author or is drawn from the Internet. While the line between the informal and formal registers of the language is a fuzzy one, the generalizations advanced here are intended only to cover the informal language unless otherwise stated. Examples taken from other sources have been retranscribed, reglossed, and retranslated for uniformity.

1.1

Basic clause structure

While direct objects always precede the verb, they can occur in one of two distinct positions (Karimi 2003, Karimi 2005:104–109). A bare noun occurs immediately preceding the verb (1a). But definite (1b) or simply specific (1c) objects occur to the left of an indirect object. (1)

a.

Kimiyâ aqlab barâ mâ sher mi-xun-e. Kimea often for us poem IMPF-read.PRS-3SG ‘Kimea often reads poems for us.’

∗ We

are grateful to an anonymous reviewer and the editors, whose questions and comments greatly contributed to an improved survey of quantification in Persian.

1

b.

c.

Kimiyâ aqlab hame=ye sher=â=ye tâza=sh=o barâ mâ Kimea often all=EZ poem=PL=EZ new=3SG=ACC for us mi-xun-e. IMPF -read. PRS -3 SG ‘Kimea often reads all her new poems for us.’ Kimiyâ aqlab ye sher az Hâfez=ro barâ mâ mi-xun-e. Kimea often a poem from Hafez=ACC for us IMPF-read.PRS-3SG ‘Kimea often reads a (certain) poem of Hafez’s for us.’ (Karimi 2003:91)

This higher position is dedicated to specific objects, since all definite noun phrases are also specific (Karimi 1999:705). These specific objects obligatorily bear the accusative case enclitic =râ — pronounced as =o or =ro in colloquial speech — which thus functions as a differential object marker. Karimi (2005:81–104) argues that subjects can also occur in two positions, though this is difficult to see with agents. In passives, however, the internal argument of the verb can occur either immediately preceding the verb (2a) or in clause initial position (2b). (2)

a.

b.

Be Parviz gol dâde shod. to Parviz flower give.PTCP become.PST.3SG ‘Flowers were given to Parviz.’ Un gol=â be Parviz dâde shod. that flower=PL to Parviz give.PTCP become.PST.3SG ‘Those flowers were given to Parviz.’

(Karimi 2005:74)

For this reason, Karimi proposes that subjects can stay in situ inside the verb phrase. When they raise higher in the clause, they do so for information structural reasons, e.g. to be a topic or in focus.

1.2

The semantics of bare nouns

In object position, bare nouns have either an indefinite (3a) or a generic interpretation (3b) (Mahootian 1997:203f.). They cannot be interpreted as definite (4c); this is only possible with the accusative case enclitic (see above). (3)

a.

Ketâb xund-am. book read.PST-1SG ‘I read a book/books.’ b. Sib dust na-dâr-am. apple friend NEG-have.PRS-1SG ‘I don’t like apples.’ c. * Ketâb xarid-am. book buy.PST-1SG Intended: ‘I bought the book.’

(Mahootian 1997:203f.)

2

This indefinite interpretation for bare nouns in object position likely arises through semantic incorporation (Modarresi and Simonenko 2007, Modarresi 2014:11–46). They accordingly have several distinctive properties. 1. Bare nouns in object position always take narrow scope with respect to operators like sentence negation (Karimi 2003:111f.). (4)

Kimiyâ ketâb na-xarid. Kimea book NEG-buy.PST.3SG ‘Kimea didn’t buy a book.’ Not possible: ‘There is a book that Kimea didn’t buy.’

¬>∃ ∃>¬ (Karimi 2003:111)

This contrasts with the variable scope that is otherwise available for quantifiers, including some indefinites— see §2.1.1. 2. They also do not introduce a discourse referent (Karimi 1999:705). In 5, there is no apple in the discourse for the null subject in the second sentence to refer to. (5) # Man sib xarid-am. Xeyli xosh-maze ast. I apple buy.PST-1SG very good-taste be.PRS.3SG Intended: ‘I bought an apple. It is very tasty.’

(Modarresi 2014:25)

3. Finally, a bare noun in object position exhibits number neutrality. While 6 entails that speaker brought at least one pencil, it is ambiguous whether this was exactly one pencil or more. (6)

Barâ=t medâd âvord-am. for=2SG pencil bring.PST-1SG ‘I brought you one or more pencils.’

(Modarresi and Simonenko 2007:183)

To derive these properties, Modarresi and Simonenko (2007) adopt a special compositional rule (Chung and Ladusaw 2004), though type shifting would also be an option (van Geenhoven 1998, Dayal 2011). Bare nouns in subject position often have either a definite (7a) or generic (7b) interpretation. It has been claimed that they never have an indefinite interpretation (Mahootian 1997:196), but this is sometimes possible (7c) (see also Windfuhr 1994:11). (7)

a.

b.

Mâshin tu gârâzh=e. car in garage=be.PRS.3SG ‘The car is in the garage.’ Varzesh barâ=ye behbudi lâzem=e. exercise for=EZ health necessary=be.PRS.3SG ‘Exercise is necessary for health.’

3

(Mahootian 1997:196)

c.

Mâshin tasâdof kard=e. car accident become.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘A car had an accident.’

It may be that when the subject receives an indefinite interpretation, it stays in situ inside the verb phrase, within the domain of existential closure (Modarresi 2014:128–152).

1.3

The structure of the noun phrase

Dependents that follow the head noun are linked together in the ezafe construction (Samiian 1983, 1994). The enclitic =(y)e occurs before each modifying adjective, modifying noun, or possessor. (8)

sâat=e talâ=ye jadid=e Râmin clock=EZ gold=EZ new=EZ Ramin ‘Ramin’s new gold clock’

While the ezafe leans phonologically on the element to its left, it forms a syntactic constituent with the dependent to its right (Philip 2012:37, Toosarvandani and van Urk 2014). The ezafe does not link nominal elements that precede the head, e.g. demonstrative determiners (9). (9)

in mâshin this car ‘this car’

It also does not appear with superlative adjectives (10a), except when they receive a partitive interpretation (10b). (10)

a.

b.

jadid-tar-in mâshin new-COMP-SUPR car ‘the newest car’ jadid-tar-in=e mâshin=â new-COMP-SUPR=EZ car=PL ‘the newest of the cars’

There are, in addition, two enclitics that occur inside noun phrases. First, there is a definite enclitic =e, which only occurs in final position, after any modifying adjectives. (11)

a.

b.

c.

dâman=e skirt=DEF ‘the skirt’ dâman meshki=ye skirt black=DEF ‘the black skirt’ dâman meshki boland=e skirt black long=DEF ‘the long black skirt’ 4

Crucially, when the definite enclitic is present, the ezafe no longer occurs inside the noun phrase, linking the head noun and its dependents. Second, there is the plural enclitic =(h)â, which can attach to the head noun itself (12a). It can also follow a modifying adjective; in this case, the ezafe connecting it to the head noun is absent (12b). (12)

a.

b.

dâman=â=ye boland skirt=PL=EZ long ‘long skirts’ dâman boland=â skirt long=PL ‘long skirts’

It has been claimed that the plural enclitic can only follow a single attributive adjective (Ghomeshi 2003:70). But it is possible for it to follow more than one adjective. (13)

Dâman meshki boland=â=ro mi-xâ-m be-bin-am. skirt black long=PL=ACC IMPF-want.PRS-1SG SUB-see-1SG ‘I want to see the long black skirts.’

As the translation in 13 indicates, the plural enclitic gives rise to a definite interpretation. This may be the default, but an indefinite interpretation is also possible (Ghomeshi 2003:59f.). (14)

Bachche=hâ=ye bâhush=i unjâ bâzi mi-kard-an. child=PL=EZ clever=IND there game IMPF-do.PST-3PL ‘Clever children were playing there.’

(Ghomeshi 2003:59)

Crucially, this is only possible in the presence of indefinite morphology, such as the indefinite enclitic =i.

2

Generalized existential quantifiers

Persian has several morphologically simple lexical expressions that convey existential quantification over arguments. These D-quantifiers fall into five classes: indefinites, negative indefinites, cardinal numerals, value judgment quantifiers, and interrogative quantifiers. While there are a few morphologically simple A-quantifiers that express existential quantification, most of them are complex.

2.1 2.1.1

D-quantifiers Indefinites

An indefinite noun phrase can be formed with the determiner ye ‘a’ (15a). It is also possible to convey existential quantification with just the indefinite enclitic =i (15b) or with both the determiner and the enclitic (15c). (To better illustrate the subtle differences amongst these indefinites, naturally occurring examples have been provided below.) 5

(15)

a.

b.

c.

Xeyli be xod=et saxt na-gir ye dâneshgâh=e xub mi-r-i very to self=2SG hard NEG-take.IMP a university=EZ good IMPF-go.PRS-2SG dars mi-xun-i ye shoql=e xub peydâ mi-kon-i va class IMPF-read.PRS-2SG a occupation=EZ good finding IMPF-do.PRS-2SG and pul=e xub shohar bachche xune zendegi va. . . money=EZ good husband child house life and ‘Don’t be so hard on yourself. You will go to a good university, find a good job and a good salary, a husband, a child, a house, a life, and . . .’1 ‘In my major, industrial engineering, there are a number of educational institutes that have announced acceptances. Does anybody know if these institutes are good for studying and have good opportunities?’ Yâ behtar=e age dâneshgâh=i qabul na-shod-am or better=be.PRS.3SG if university=IND acceptance NEG-become.PST-1SG in pazhohesh-kade=hâ na-r-am va be-mun-am vâs=e sâl=e this research-center=PL NEG-go.SUB-1SG and SUB-stay-1SG for=EZ year=EZ bad? next ‘Or if I don’t get accepted to any university, is it better for me not to go to one of these institutes and wait until next year?’2 ‘But you can go teach a couple of classes at a university, where your advisor still has to talk with you and tell them to hire you,’ yani hamun=ham in tor=i nist ke shomâ boland I.mean that.same=also this way=IND NEG.be.PRS.3SG that you tall sh-in be-r-in ye dâneshgâh=i be-g-in man become.SUB-2PL SUB-go-2PL a university=IND SUB-say-2PL I mi-xâ-m in dars=ro dars be-d-am[. . .] IMPF-want. PRS -1 SG this class= ACC class SUB -give-1 SG ‘I mean, it’s not like you can just get up and go to some university and tell them that you want to teach a certain class[. . .]’3

The indefinite determiner and enclitic are sometimes taken to be equivalent, both in traditional grammars (Lambton 1953:45) and by contemporary linguists (Mahootian 1997:203, Ghomeshi 2003:64). But they have distinct distributions and distinct meanings. To start, ye ‘a’ is a determiner, because it is in complementary distribution with other determiners, such as hich ‘no’ (16a), che ‘what’ (16b), and har ‘every’ (16c). (16)

a. * Hich ye/Ye hich ostâd be xâter=e siyâsi budan exrâj no a/a no instructor to reason=EZ politics be firing na-shod=e. NEG -become. PTCP=be. PRS .3 SG Intended: ‘No professor has been fired because of politics.’

1 http://forum.ubuntu.ir/index.php?action=recent;start=40, 2 http://goo.gl/VpEudv,

August 6, 2014. 3 http://goo.gl/1fsfnv, August 6, 2014.

6

August 6, 2014.

b. * Az nazar=e shomâ che ye/ye che ostâd xub=e? from opinion=EZ you what a/a what instructor good=be.PRS.3SG Intended: ‘In your opinion, which instructor is good?’ c. * Har ye/ye har shâgerd bâyad nomre=ye xub bi-yâr-e. every a/a every student must number=EZ good SUB-bring-3SG Intended: ‘Every student must get a good grade.’ By contrast, the indefinite enclitic cannot itself be a determiner because it cooccurs with these same elements (17a–c). (17)

a.

b.

c.

Hich ostâd=i be xâter=e siyâsi budan exrâj no instructor=IND to reason=EZ politics be firing na-shod=e. NEG -become. PTCP=be. PRS .3 SG ‘No professor has been fired because of politics.’ Az nazar=e shomâ che ostâd=i xub=e? from opinion=EZ you what instructor=IND good=be.PRS.3SG ‘In your opinion, which instructor is good?’ Har shâgerd=i bâyad nomre=ye xub bi-yâr-e. every student=IND must number=EZ good SUB-bring-3SG ‘Every student must get a good grade.’

In the formal language, the indefinite enclitic can occur by itself, as in 18b, where Lambton (1953:4 fn. 1) reports that it “implies ‘some book or other’ or ‘a particular book, from among the class of articles known as book.’” In contrast, a bare noun, as in 18a, expresses “no differentiation of number or particularization.” (18)

a.

b.

Ketâb be man dâd. book to me give.PST.3SG ‘She/he gave a book to me.’ Ketâb=i be man dâd. book=IND to me give.PST.3SG ‘She/he gave a book to me.’

(Lambton 1953:4)

In today’s spoken language, however, Lambton’s example in 18b is marginal, if not infelicitous. When the indefinite enclitic occurs by itself, it is restricted to downward entailing contexts. In contrast to a positive episodic sentences (19a–b), it is completely well formed in the scope of negation (20a–b) or in a polar question (21a–b).4 (19)

a. ?? Pesar=i un ketâb=o xarid. boy=IND that book=ACC buy.PST.3SG Intended: ‘A boy bought that book.’

4 There

may be some variation in how acceptable the indefinite enclitic is in the subject position of questions. A reviewer finds 21b perfectly acceptable, but 21a awkward at best.

7

b. ?? Man ketâb=i xarid-am. I book=IND buy.PST-1SG Intended: ‘I bought a book.’ (20)

a.

b.

(21)

a.

b.

Pesar=i tâ hâlâ un ketâb=o na-xarid=e. boy=IND until now that book=ACC NEG-buy.PST.3SG=be.PRS.3SG ‘No boy has bought that book yet.’ Man ketâb=i na-xarid-am. I book=IND NEG-buy.PST-1SG ‘I didn’t buy any books.’ Pesar=i un ketab=o xarid=e? boy=IND that book=ACC buy.PTCP=be.PRS-3SG ‘Has any boy bought that book?’ Ramin ketâb=i xarid=e? Ramin book=IND buy.PTCP=be.PRS-3SG ‘Has Ramin bought any books?’

Deal and Farudi (2007) propose that the indefinite enclitic does not itself have any quantificational force. Instead, it simply constrains the domain of quantification by restricting it “to contextually relevant members of the extension of its NP predicate” (p. 5). In other words, the indefinite enclitic introduces a domain that is salient in the context, which is quantified over by an external operator. To give rise to an indefinite interpretation, the domain would be quantified over by a sentence-level existential operator or negation, as Kratzer and Shimoyama (2002) propose for German and Japanese. It is possible under this view, at least in principle, for the indefinite enclitic to occur with other types of quantification, including universal quantification (17c). It is unclear how exactly this contextually relevant domain is selected. But there is some evidence that the indefinite enclitic functions as a domain widener. It requires that the set of individuals being quantified over to be larger than what would otherwise be provided by context. This domain widening effect is particularly clear in the naturally occurring example in 15, where the author is emphasizing that is not possible to get hired at just any university. This would derive the restricted distribution of the indefinite enclitic when it occurs by itself. In downward entailing contexts, the domain widening effect of the indefinite enclitic yields a stronger utterance, compared to the parallel sentence without the enclitic, cf. any in English (Kadmon and Landman 1993). Indefinites containing just the determiner ye ‘a’ show variable scope with respect to other operators in the sentence (see also Modarresi 2014:26–30). In object position, they can take scope under sentence negation (Karimi 2003:112), a reading that is brought out by adding hattâ ‘even’ and/or =ham (22a). But they can also take inverse scope over negation when the accusative case is added (22b). (22)

a.

b.

Context: There are three possible books that I could buy. I didn’t buy any of them. Man (hattâ) ye ketâb(=ham) na-xarid-am. I even a book=also NEG-buy.PST-1SG ‘I didn’t buy any books.’ ¬>∃ Context: There are three possible books that I could buy. I bought two of them but not the third. 8

Man ye ketâb=o na-xarid-am. I a book=ACC NEG-buy.PST-1SG ‘There is a book that I didn’t buy.’

∃>¬

This contrasts with the scopal behavior of other D-quantifiers, which generally exhibit fixed scope (see §3.1). The apparent wide scope for these indefinites may not arise through any scoping mechanism per se, but for independent reasons (see Fodor and Sag 1982 and much subsequent work). Noun phrases containing the indefinite enclitic have more restricted scope possibilities. When a noun phrase contains only the enclitic, it must take narrow scope under negation (23a). Inverse scope over negation is predictably impossible (23b), because it is not in a downward entailing context. (23)

a.

Context: There are three possible books that I could buy. I didn’t buy any of them. Man ketâb=i na-xarid-am. I book=IND NEG-buy.PST-1SG ‘I didn’t buy any books.’ ¬>∃ b. Context: There are three possible books that I could buy. I bought two of them but not the third. # Man ketâb=i=ro na-xarid-am. I book=IND=ACC NEG-buy.PST-1SG Intended: ‘There is a book that I didn’t buy.’ ∃>¬

When a noun phrase contains both the indefinite enclitic and the indefinite determiner, however, it must take wide scope over negation. The surface scope interpretation is completely ruled out (24a), while the inverse scope interpretation is obligatory (24b). (24)

a.

Context: There are three possible books that I could buy. I didn’t buy any of them. # Man ye ketâb=i na-xarid-am. I a book=IND NEG-buy.PST-1SG Intended: ‘I didn’t buy any books.’ ¬>∃ b. Context: There are three possible books that I could buy. I bought two of them but not the third. Man ye ketâb=i=ro na-xarid-am. I a book=IND=ACC NEG-buy.PST-1SG ‘There is a book that I didn’t buy.’ ∃>¬

In questions, too, these indefinites appear to take wide scope, since only a rhetorical question interpretation is possible. (25)

Ye pesar=i un ketâb=o xarid=e? a boy=IND that book=ACC buy.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘A boy bought that book, didn’t he?’

In other words, with both the enclitic and determiner, the quantifier is a positive polarity item that cannot appear in downward entailing environments. This parallels the behavior of free choice indefinites in other languages, including some in English: e.g. *I won’t buy some car. 9

Both the indefinite determiner and the indefinite enclitic are compatible with plural marking. By default, the plural enclitic =hâ gives rise to a definite interpretation (26). (26)

(27)

Ketâb=â=ro xund-am. book=PL=ACC read.PST-1SG ‘I read the books.’

(Ghomeshi 2003:57)

Man ye ketâb=â=yi=ro xund-am. I a book=PL=IND=ACC read.PST-1SG ‘I have read certain books.’

But this definite interpretation disappears in an indefinite noun phrase. While in 27 it is interpreted as specific — the speaker may have some books in mind — these do not have to be given in the context or familiar to the hearer. With mass nouns, such as yax ‘ice’, the indefinite determiner easily coerces a count interpretation (28a). In contrast, it is harder to use the indefinite enclitic with mass nouns, at least in an out-of-the-blue context (28b). (28)

Ye yax bas=e. a ice enough=be.PRS.3SG ‘One cube of ice is enough.’ b. ?? Mâ yax=i na-dâr-im. we ice=IND NEG-have.PRS-1PL Intended: ‘We don’t have any ice.’ a.

In a context where the indefinite enclitic can occur with a mass noun, it is difficult to tell whether it coerces a count interpretation or not. In 29, B emphasizes that there is no ice in her house. (29)

A:

B:

Yax dâr-im? ice have.PRS-1PL ‘Do we have ice?’ Na, na-dâr-im. Barq rafte bud. Vâse hamin tu ferizer no NEG-have.PRS-1PL electricity go.PTCP be.PST.3SG for this in freezer hanuz yax=i na-bast=e. still ice=IND NEG-close.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘No, we don’t. There was a power outage, so no ice has been made in the freezer yet.’

Because of negation, there is no amount of ice whose existence is entailed, regardless of whether it is in discrete units or not. 2.1.2

Negative indefinites

Persian has a negative indefinite determiner — hich ‘no’ — which can cooccur with the indefinite enclitic.

10

INDEFINITE

NEGATIVE INDEFINITE

yeki ‘someone’ hichki ‘no one’ *yechi hichchi ‘nothing’ yejâ ‘somewhere’ hijjâ ‘nowhere’ yevaqt ‘sometime’ hichvaqt ‘never’ *yerâ *hichrâ *yetor hichtor ‘no way’

INTERROGATIVE

ki ‘who’ chi ‘what’ kojâ ‘where’ kei ‘when’ cherâ ‘why’ chetor ‘how’

Table 1: Indefinite quantifiers morphologically related to interrogative pronouns (30)

Hich ostâd=i be xâter=e siyâsi budan exrâj no instructor=IND to reason=EZ politics be firing na-shod=e. NEG -become. PTCP=be. PRS .3 SG ‘No professor has been fired because of politics.’

The negative indefinite determiner exhibits negative concord, since it must be accompanied by sentential negation, both in subject position (31a) and in object position (31b). (31)

a.

b.

Hich pesar=i ketâb *(na-)xarid. no boy=IND book NEG-buy.PST.3SG ‘No boy bought a book.’ Man hich ketâb=i *(na-)xarid-am. I no book=IND NEG-buy.PST-1SG ‘I bought no books.’

With count nouns, hich ‘no’ prefers to coocur with the indefinite enclitic (32a). But with a mass noun, such as yax ‘ice’, it can be absent (32b). (32)

a.

b.

Man hich ketab*(=i) na-xarid-am. I no book=IND NEG-buy.PST-1SG ‘I bought no books.’ Hich yax(=i) tu=ye ferizer nist. no ice=IND in=EZ freezer NEG.be.PRS.3SG ‘There is no ice in the freezer.’

Again, as with positive indefinites in the scope of negation, it is hard to tell whether the indefinite enclitic coerces a count interpretation with mass nouns. It is possible to form negative indefinite quantifiers that are morphologically related to an interrogative pronoun— see Table 1. For ki ‘who’ and chi ‘what’, the determiner hich ‘no’ is simply added (33a–b). Some of the other negative indefinite quantifiers share the same root as an interrogative pronoun: kojâ ‘where’ (33c) and chetor ‘how’ (33e). The negative indefinite quantifier hichvaqt ‘never’ (33d) is formed from the noun vaqt ‘time’. (33)

a.

Hichki unjâ na-bud. no.one there NEG-be.PST.3SG ‘No one was there.’ 11

b.

c.

d.

e.

Sohrâb hichchi na-xarid. Sohrab nothing NEG-buy.PST.3SG ‘Sohrab didn’t buy anything.’ Hijjâ na-raft-am. nowhere NEG-go.PST-1SG ‘I didn’t go anywhere.’ Hichvaqt pâris na-raft-am. no.time Paris NEG-go.PST-1SG ‘I have never gone to Paris.’ Hichtor ne-mi-sh-e. no.way NEG-IMPF-become.PRS-3SG ‘Nothing will happen.’ (lit. ‘It will not happen in any way.’)

By contrast, there is only one positive indefinite quantifiers that is formed from an interrogative pronoun: yeki ‘someone’. 2.1.3

Cardinal numerals

The cardinal numeral yek ‘one’ appears in its bare form, while the remaining numerals— do ‘two’, se ‘three’, etc.— take a classifier suffix -tâ. (34)

Rais-jomhur emruz be yek/do-tâ/se-tâ keshvar=e urupâyi mosâferat leader-republic today to one/two-CL/three-CL country=EZ European travels kard. do.PST.3SG ‘The president today travelled to one/two/three European country/ies.

In more formal or written language, the classifier suffix is not used at all (Gebhardt 2009:153 fn. 34). But in the colloquial spoken language, it can be left off only when there is a more descriptive classifier. (35)

a.

b.

se kilo gusht three kilo meat ‘three kilos of meat’ se livân âb three glass water ‘three glasses of water’

(Ghomeshi 2003:55)

With mass nouns, a cardinal numeral plus the classifier coerces a count interpretation, e.g. cubes of ice for yax ‘ice’. (36)

Do-tâ yax bas=e. two-CL ice enough=be.PRS.3SG ‘Two cubes of ice are enough for me.’

12

It is not obligatory to have plural marking with cardinal numerals of two or greater. When the plural enclitic is present, however, it gives rise obligatorily to a definite interpretation (37b). (37)

Context: You work in a book store and are surprised that a certain book finally sold. Not knowing any of the customers, I ask, ‘Who bought that book?’ a. Do-tâ moallem un ketâb=o xarid-an. two-CL teacher that book=PL buy.PST-3PL ‘Two teachers bought that book.’ b. # Do-tâ moallem=â un ketâb=o xarid-an. two-CL teacher=PL that book=PL buy.PST-3PL Intended: ‘The two teachers bought that book.’

(38)

Context: You are talking to the principle, and he’s talking about two specific teachers that we had mentioned already. a. Do-tâ moallem un ketâb=o xarid-an. two-CL teacher that book=PL buy.PST-3PL ‘The two teachers bought that book.’ b. Do-tâ moallem=â un ketâb=o xarid-an. two-CL teacher=PL that book=PL buy.PST-3PL ‘The two teachers bought that book.’

But the absence of the plural enclitic does not rule out a definite interpretation, at least not in subject position. The cardinal numeral in 38a has the same meaning as the one in 38b with the plural suffix.5 Cardinal numerals can float in Persian to nearly any position in the sentence (39a–c). They can be anteceded by arguments of any syntactic role, including subjects (39) and direct objects (40). (39)

a.

b. c.

Do-tâ ketâb vâred shod=e. two-CL book inside become.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘Two books were imported.’ Ketâb do-tâ vâred shod=e. Ketâb vâred shod=e do-tâ.

5A

reviewer reports difficulty in interpreting dotâ moallem ‘two teachers’ as definite in 38a. We suspect this is because these written examples may be prosodically ambiguous and prosody helps to disambiguate the indefinite and definite interpretations for the subject. (i)

Do-tâ moallem un ketâb=o xaríd-an. two-CL teacher that book=PL buy.PST-3PL ‘Two teachers bought that book.’

(ii)

Do-tâ moallém un ketâb=o xarid-an. two-CL teacher that book=PL buy.PST-3PL ‘The two teachers bought that book.’

When the nuclear stress falls on the verb, the subject is interpreted as indefinite (i). When the nuclear stress instead falls on the subject, it is interpreted as definite (ii). No doubt there are other patterns of stress and intonation, which also contribute to the interpretation of the subject.

13

(40)

a.

b. c. d. e. 2.1.4

Man do-tâ ketâb be Sohrâb dâd-am. I two-CL book to Sohrab give.PST-1SG ‘I gave two books to Sohrab.’ Do-tâ man ketâb be Sohrâb dâd-am. Man ketâb do-tâ be Sohrâb dâd-am. Man ketâb be Sohrâb do-tâ dâd-am. Man ketâb be Sohrâb dâd-am do-tâ.

Value judgment quantifiers

Persian has two value judgment D-quantifiers. First, there is chand ‘several, a couple, a few, a number’. It is accompanied by the classifier suffix -tâ; omitting it is perhaps slightly more formal. (41)

Chand(-tâ) pesar unjâ istâd=an. several(-CL) boy there stand.PTCP=be.PRS.3PL ‘Several boys are standing there.’

As with the cardinal numerals, chand ‘several, a couple, a few, a number’ plus the classifier suffix induces a count interpretation in mass nouns. (42)

Chand-tâ yax bas=e. several-CL ice enough=be.PRS.3SG ‘A few cubes of ice are enough.’

Also, again just like a cardinal numeral, chand ‘several, a couple, a few, a number’ can float from an argument to essentially any position in the sentence. (43)

a.

b. c. d.

Man chand-tâ ketâb xarid-am. I several-CL book buy.PST-1SG ‘I bought several books.’ Chand-tâ man ketâb xarid-am. Man ketâb chand-tâ xarid-am. Man ketâb xarid-am chand-tâ.

Second, there is kam ‘little’, which can combine either with mass nouns (44a) or count nouns (44b). It never takes the classifier suffix -tâ. (44)

a.

b.

Kam yax barâ=m be-riz! little ice for=1SG IMP-pour.2SG ‘Give me little ice!’ Kam ketâb be-xar! little book IMP-buy.2SG ‘Buy few books!’

14

Though it is not a cardinal numeral, kam ‘little’ appears to be able to float to nearly any position in the sentence (45a–d). Somewhat surprisingly, though, it is ungrammatical in sentence final position (45e). (45)

a.

b. c. d. e.

Sohrâb barâ=m kam yax rixt. Sohrab for=1SG little ice pour.PST.3SG ‘Sohrab gave me little ice.’ Kam Sohrâb barâ=m yax rixt. Sohrâb kam barâ=m yax rixt. Sohrâb barâ=m yax kam rixt. * Sohrâb barâ=m yax rixt kam.

This suggests that it is not really the quantifier that floats in 45b–d, but rather the homophonous adverb— see §2.2. In 46a-c, where there is no possible analysis for it as a D-quantifier because the only noun phrase is a proper name, kam ‘little’ also cannot occur in sentence final position. (46)

Sohrâb kam mi-xand-e. Sohrab little IMPF-laugh.PRS-3SG ‘Sohrab laughs little.’ b. Kam Sohrâb mi-xand-e. c. * Sohrâb mi-xand-e kam. a.

Both of these value judgement quantifiers can combine with the indefinite determiner: ye chandtâ ‘several, a few, a number’ (47a) and ye kam ‘a little, a bit’ (47b). (47)

a.

b.

Ye chand-tâ dastmâl barâ=m bi-yâr! a several-CL napkin for=1SG IMP-bring.2SG ‘Bring me a few napkins! Ye kam pul be man be-de! a little money to me IMP-give.2SG ‘Give me a little money!’

Unlike the corresponding value judgment quantifiers, ye kam ‘a little’ is only compatible with mass nouns (47b); it is ungrammatical with a count noun like ketâb ‘book’ (48). (48) * Ye kam ketâb barâ=m be-xar! a little book for=1SG IMP-buy.2SG Intended: ‘Buy a few books for me!’ 2.1.5

Interrogative quantifiers

Persian has three interrogative quantifiers. The two in 49a–b ask about the elements in the intersection of two sets, while the one in 50 asks about their cardinality. (49)

a.

Az nazar=e shomâ che ostâd=i xub=e? from opinion=EZ you what instructor=IND good=be.PRS.3SG ‘In your opinion, what instructor is good?’ 15

b.

(50)

Kudum mard un ketâb=o xarid? which man that book=ACC buy.PST.3SG ‘Which man bought that book?’

Chand-tâ shâgerd ketâb xarid-an? how.many-CL student book buy.PST-3PL ‘How many students bought a book?’

The interrogative quantifier kudum ‘which’ presupposes a contextually salient domain that is being quantified over. This contrasts with the interrogative quantifier che ‘what’, which cooccurs with the indefinite enclitic and does not come along with such a presupposition.

2.2

A-quantifiers

Persian has many A-quantifiers that express existential quantification. Below are the ones that are used most frequently in the colloquial language. There are others, mostly borrowed from Arabic, that are not included because they are used exclusively in very formal speech or in writing. (51)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Sohrâb Jang=o Solh=o ye/do/se bâr/dafe xund=e. Sohrab War=and Peace=ACC one/two/three time/time read.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘Sohrab has read War and Peace once/twice/three times.’ Sohrâb baz=i vaqt=â/gâh=i oqât/baz=i moqe=hâ shatranj Sohrab part=IND time=PL/time=IND times/part=IND occasion=PL chess bâzi mi-kon-e. game IMPF-do.PRS-3SG ‘Sohrab occasionally plays chess.’ Sohrâb bish-tar=e moqe=hâ/xeyli vaqt=â/aqlab=e oqât shatranj Sohrab more-COMP=EZ time=PL/a.lot time=PL/most=EZ times chess bâzi mi-kon-e. game IMPF-do.PRS-3SG ‘Sohrab plays chess most of the time/often/a lot of the time.’ Sohrâb xeyli/ziyâd/kam/be nodrat mi-xand-e. Sohrab a.lot/muchlittle/to rareness IMPF-laugh.PRS-3SG ‘Sohrab laughs a lot/much/little/rarely.’ Sohrâb hargez/hichvaqt be xune bar=na-gasht. Sohrab never/never to home back=NEG-search.PST.3SG ‘Sohrab never went back home.’

While some of these expressions are morphologically simple adverbs, most are morphologically complex adverbial noun phrases or prepositional phrases. The final set in 51e exhibits negative concord and must cooccur with sententional negation.

16

3

Generalized universal quantifiers

Persian has a much smaller inventory for experessing universal quantification: just one simple D-quantifier and one simple A-quantifier.

3.1

D-quantifiers

The only simple D-quantifier is the determiner har ‘every’, which occurs with the indefinite enclitic in episodic contexts. The absence of the enclitic in 52 is felt to be bookish or formal. (52)

Har pesar=i ye ketâb xarid. every boy=IND a book buy.PST.3SG ‘Every boy bought a book.’

In object position, a universal quantifier with har ‘every’ must take the accusative case marker, which occurs on definite or specific noun phrases. (53)

Man har ketâb=i*(=ro) do bâr xund-am. I every book=IND=ACC two time buy.PST-1SG ‘I read every book twice.’

The determiner har ‘every’ — or perhaps the indefinite enclitic, with which it occurs — is only compatible with count nouns, not mass nouns, such as yax ‘ice’.6 (54) * Har yax=i âb shod=e. every ice=IND water become.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG Intended: ‘All the ice melted.’ There is also one morphologically complex universal quantifier. The noun hame ‘all’ can be combined by the ezafe with another noun that serves as its restrictor. (55)

Hame=ye shâgerd=â ye gorbe xarid-an. all=EZ student=PL a cat buy.PST-3PL ‘All the students bought a cat.’

For a count noun like shâgerd ‘student’, the plural suffix on the restrictor is obligatory. In 55, this produces a definite interpretation. But a generic interpretation is also possible (56). (56)

6A

(i)

Hame=ye shir=â dom dâr-an. all=EZ lion=PL tail have.PRS-3PL ‘All lions have tails.’ mass noun can, however, be coerced into a kind reading. Har yax=i birun=e ferizer âb mi-sh-e. every ice=IND outside=EZ freezer water IMPF-become.PRS-3SG ‘Any ice melts outside of the freezer.’

17

UNIVERSAL

INTERROGATIVE

harki ‘whoever’ harchi ‘whatever’ harjâ ‘wherever’ harvaqt ‘whenever’ *harrâ hartor ‘however’

ki ‘who’ chi ‘what’ kojâ ‘where’ key ‘when’ cherâ ‘why’ chetor ‘how’

Table 2: Universal quantifiers morphologically related to interrogative pronouns Unlike the universal determiner, hame ‘all’ is compatible with a restrictor that is a mass noun. In this case, it does not bear plural marking. (57)

Hame=ye yax âb shod=e. all=EZ ice water become.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘All the ice melted.’

Even though it is a noun, hame ‘all’ can float. When it is separated from its antecedent, it no longer bears the ezafe. Interestingly, it may not be able to float to sentence initial or sentence final position.7 (58)

Man hame=ye ketâb=â=ro xarid-am. I all=EZ book=PL=ACC buy.PST-1SG ‘I bought all the books.’ b. * Hame man ketâb=â=ro xarid-am. c. Man ketâb=â=ro hame xarid-am. d. ?? Man ketâb=â=ro xarid-am hame. a.

Its distribution is thus different from floated cardinal numerals, which can occur in any position, as well as from the adverb kam ‘little’, which cannot occur in sentence final position. The universal quantifier does not exhibit scopal ambiguity, suggesting that Persian is a fixed scope language. When it occurs in object position, it can only take surface scope under an indefinite in subject position (59a), not inverse scope (59b). (59)

a.

b.

Context: There are many dishes at a wedding banquet. Most guests become too full to try all of them. But there is one guest who manages to taste every single one of them. Ye mehmun har qazâ=yi=ro emtehân kard. a guest every food=IND=ACC test do.PST.3SG ‘A guest tasted every dish.’ ∃>∀ Context: There are many dishes at a wedding banquet. Nobody manages to try all of them, though each dish is tasted by at least one guest.

7 While

58b is clearly ungrammatical, there is more variability in judgements when hame ‘all’ occurs in sentence final position. For some speakers, 58d is only somewhat degraded, while for others, including a reviewer, it is ungrammatical.

18

# Ye mehmun har qazâ=yi=ro emtehân kard. a guests every food=IND=ACC test do.PST.3SG ‘Every dish was tasted by a guest.’

∀>∃

For the universal quantifier to take wide scope, it must be in surface subject position, as in the passive-like structure in 60. (60)

Context: There are many dishes at a wedding banquet. Nobody manages to try all of them, though each dish is tasted by at least one guest. Har qaza=yi be vasile=ye ye mehmun emtehân shod. every food=IND to means=EZ a guest test become.PST.3SG ‘Every dish was tasted by a guest.’

∀>∃

It is possible to form universal quantifiers that are morphologically related to interrogative pronouns— see Table 2. While these can sometimes occur all by themselves in argument position, their domain is usually further restricted by a relative clause. (61)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Harki savâr=e utubus shod bilit xaride bud. whoever on=EZ bus become.PST.3SG ticket buy.PTCP be.PST.3SG ‘Whoever got on the bus had bought a ticket.’ Harchi man mi-g-am gush kon! whatever I IMPF-say. PRS -1 SG ear do. IMP .2 SG ‘Listen to whatever I tell you!’ Harjâ mi-r-am yâd=e pedar=am mi-yoft-am. wherever IMPF-go.PRS-1SG memory=EZ father=1SG IMPF-fall.PRS-1SG ‘Wherever I go I am reminded of my father.’ Har vaqt to=ro mi-bin-am yâd=e pedar=am every time you=ACC IMPF-see.PRS-1SG memory=EZ father=1SG mi-yoft-am. IMPF -fall. PRS -1 SG ‘Whenever I see you I am reminded of my father.’ Hartor mi-xâ-y fekr kon! however IMPF-want.PRS-2SG though do.IMPF.2SG ‘Think however you like!’

As with the parallel negative indefinite quantifiers, the determiner har ‘every’ is simply added to ki ‘who’ and chi ‘what’ (61a–b). For the other quantifiers, they share the same root as an interrogative pronoun: i.e. kojâ ‘where’ (61c) and chetor ‘how’ (61e). The universal quantifiers harvaqt ‘whenever’ is built on the noun vaqt ‘time’ (61d).

3.2

A-quantifiers

Persian has one universal A-quantifier — hamishe ‘always’ — which is a morphologically simple adverb. 19

Sohrâb hamishe qabl az xâb dandun=â=sh=o mesvâk mi-zan-e. Sohrab always before from sleep tooth=PL=3SG=ACC brush IMPF-hit.PRS-3SG ‘Sohrab always brushes his teeth before bed.’

(62)

4

Proportional quantification

There are no morphologically simple D-quantifiers in Persian that express proportional quantification.8 Like the A-quantifiers, they are all morphologically complex.

4.1

D-quantifiers

The proportional D-quantifier is bazi ‘some’, which is composed of the noun baz ‘part’ and the indefinite enclitic. It is not clear what syntactic relationship it bears to the the noun serving as its restrictor. But it does require that noun to bear the plural suffix. Baz=i ruz=â xeyli shuluq=e. part=IND day=PL very busy=be.PRS.3SG ‘Some days are hectic.’

(63)

In addition, there are a number of nouns that express proportional quantification, which combine with another noun in the ezafe construction: nesf ‘half’ (64a), aksar, aksariyyat, or aqlab ‘majority’ (64b), and bishtar ‘more’ (64c). 8 There

is one proportional D-quantifier — chandin ‘many’ — that we have not included here because it is part of the formal language. It is a determiner, since it never takes the classifier suffix -tâ. (i)

Chandin(*-tâ) doxtar unjâ istâd=an. many-CL girl there stand.PTCP=be.PRS.3PL ‘Many girls are standing there.’

Given its translation, it is reasonable to suspect that chandin ‘many’ might be an existential quantifier. But it is not intersective; the two sentences in ii are not equivalent (see Keenan 1996:56). (ii)

Context: An international conference in Turkey where most speakers are American. a. Chandin soxanrân âmrikâyi hastan. many speaker American be.PRS.3PL ‘Many speakers are American.’ b. Chandin nafar soxanrân=EZ âmrikâyi hastan. many individual speaker=EZ American be.PRS.3PL ‘Many people are American speakers.’

In the context provided, iia is true, but iib is false, because many people at a conference are not speakers. Interestingly, chandin ‘many’ can be conjoined with chand ‘several, a couple, a few, a number’. (iii)

Chandin=o chand maqâle harruz be dast=e mâ mi-res-e. many=and several article every.day to hand=EZ us IMPF-arrive.PRS-3SG ‘We receive many articles every day.’

20

(64)

a.

b.

c.

Nesf=e shâgerd=â qâyeb=an. half=EZ student=PL absent=be.PRS.3PL ‘Half of the students are absent.’ Aksar=e/Aksariyyat=e/Aqlab=e shâgerd=â qâyeb=an. majority=EZ/majority=EZ/majority=EZ student=PL absent=be.PRS.3PL ‘The majority of the students are absent.’ Bishtar=e shâgerd=â qâyeb=an. more=EZ student=PL absent=be.PRS.3PL ‘Most of the students are absent.’

These proportional quantifiers also require plural marking on the noun serving as the restrictor. A variety of different kinds of proportional quantification can also be conveyed with partitive structures — see §5.1.6. A noun conveying the proportion combines with the restrictor by the preposition az ‘from’. (65)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

4.2

Kam=i/Tedâd=e kam=i/Edde=ye kam=i az pesar=â little=IND/amount=EZ little=IND/number little=IND from boy=PL sigâr=i hast-an. cigarette=ADJ be.PRS-3PL ‘A few of the students smoke.’ Baz=i/Tedâd=i az pesar=â sigâr=i hast-an. part=IND/amount=IND from boy=PL cigarette=ADJ be.PRS-3PL ‘Some of the boys smoke.’ Nim=i/Nesf=i az pesar=â sigâr=i hast-an. half=IND/half=IND from boy=PL cigarette=ADJ be.PRS-3PL ‘Half of the students smoke.’ Xeyli/Besyâri az pesar=â sigâr=i hast-an. a.lot/many.people from boy=PL cigarette=ADJ be.PRS-3PL ‘Many of the boys smoke.’ Tedâd=e ziyâd=i az pesar=â sigâr=i hast-an. amount=EZ large=IND from boy=PL cigarette=ADJ be.PRS-3PL ‘A large number of the boys smoke.’

A-quantifiers

It is difficult to distinguish existential quantification from proportional quantification for Aquantifiers. But several adverbs or adverbials from §2.2 can occur in the same sentence frame that corresponds to proportional quantification for an adverb like often in English. (66)

a.

Shirin baz=i vaqt=â/gâh=i oqât/baz=i moqe=hâ bâ utubus Shirin part=IND time=PL/time=IND times/part=IND moment=PL with bus mi-r-e sar=e kâr. IMPF-go. PRS -3 SG head= EZ work ‘Shirin occasionally goes to work with the bus.’ 21

b.

c.

Shirin bish-tar=e moqe=hâ/xeyli vaqt=â/aqlab=e oqât bâ utubus Shirin more-COMP=EZ time=PL/a.lot time=PL/most=EZ times with bus mi-r-e sar=e kâr. IMPF -go. PRS -3 SG head= EZ work ‘Shirin most of time/often/a lot of the time goes to work with the bus.’ Shirin ziyâd/kam/be nodrat bâ utubus mi-r-e sar=e kâr. Shirin much/little/to rareness with bus IMPF-go. PRS -3 SG head= EZ work ‘Shirin goes to work with the bus much/little/rarely.’

For instance, the sentence in 66b conveys that, of the times when Shirin went to work, in most of them she went to work on the bus.

5

Morphosyntactically complex quantifiers

5.1 5.1.1

Complex D-quantifiers Cardinal quantifiers

New cardinal quantifiers can be productively formed through a number of different syntactic means. First, there is a range of adverbs and adverbial phrases that modify cardinal numerals. (67)

Daqiqan/Faqat/Hadd=e aqal/Hadd=e aksar/Taqriban/Hududan panj-tâ shâgerd exactly/only/limit=EZ least/limit=EZ most/approximately/about five-CL student qâyeb bud-an. absent be.PST-3PL ‘Exactly/Only/At least/At most/Approximately/Around five students were absent.’

Second, it is possible for an adjective to take a quantifier as its argument, e.g. bishtar ‘more’ and kamtar ‘less’ (68a) or nazdik ‘near’ (68b). (68)

a.

b.

Bish-tar/Kam-tar az panj-tâ shâgerd qâyeb bud-an. more-COMP/less-COMP from five-CL student absent be.PST-3PL ‘More than/Less than five students were absent.’ Nazdik be panj-tâ shâgerd qâyeb bud-an. near to five-CL student absent be.PST-3PL ‘Almost five students were absent.’

Finally, the noun beyn ‘between’ can be used to combine two quantifiers. One serving as its argument in the ezafe construction introduces a lower bound; another that is the argument of the preposition tâ ‘until’ introduces an upper bound. (69)

Beyn=e panj tâ dah-tâ shâgerd qâyeb bud-an. between=EZ five until ten-CL student absent be.PST-3PL ‘Between five and ten students were absent.’

22

5.1.2

Value judgment cardinals

In Persian, value judgement quantifiers do not allow intensional modification, e.g. too many or surprisingly few. But chand ‘several, a couple, a few, a number’ can be modified in some of the same ways that cardinal numerals can. (70)

a.

b.

c.

5.1.3

Faqat/Hadd=e aqal/Hadd=e aksar/Taqriban/Hududan exactly/only/limit=EZ least/limit=EZ majority/approximately/about chand-tâ shâgerd qâyeb bud-an. several-CL student absent be.PST-3PL ‘Only/At least/At most/Approximately/Around several students were absent.’ Bish-tar/Kam-tar az chand-tâ shâgerd qâyeb bud-an. more-COMP/less-COMP from several-CL student absent be.PST-3PL ‘More than/Less than several students were absent.’ Nazdik be chand-tâ shâgerd qâyeb bud-an. near to several-CL student absent be.PST-3PL ‘Almost several students were absent.’

Exception modifiers

Exception modifiers can be formed either with the noun qeyr ‘except’ or the noun joz ‘except’; in either case, they serve optionally as a complement of the preposition be ‘to’. (71)

a.

b.

c.

Hich shâgerd=i (be) qeyr az/(be) joz Sohrâb be soxanrâni no student=IND to except from/to except Sohrab to speech nay-umad. NEG -come. PST .3 SG ‘No student except Sohrab came to the speech.’ Hame=ye bachche=hâ (be) qeyr az/(be) joz Sohrâb be soxanrâni all=EZ child=PL to except from/to except Sohrab to speech umad-an. come.PST-3SG ‘All the students except Sohrab came to the speech.’ Har bachche=yi (be) qeyr az/(be) joz Sohrâb be soxanrâni every child=IND to except from/to except Sohrab to speech umad. come.PST.3SG ‘Every student except Sohrab came to the speech.’

An exception phrase is possible with a variety of different quantifiers, including the negative indefinite determiner hich ‘no’ (71a) and the universal quantifiers hame ‘all’ (71b) and har ‘every’ (71c). The exception phrase does not have to form a constituent with the rest of the quantifier, as it can occur in sentence initial position (72a) or sentence final position (72b). 23

(72)

a.

b.

5.1.4

(Be) qeyr az/(Be) joz Sohrâb hame=ye bachche=hâ be soxanrâni to except from/to except Sohrab all=EZ child=PL to speech umad-an. come.PST-3PL ‘All the students except Sohrab came to the speech.’ Hame=ye bachche=hâ be soxanrâni umad-an (be) qeyr az/(be) joz all=EZ child=PL to speech come.PST-3PL to except from/to except Sohrâb. Sohrab ‘All the students except Sohrab came to the speech.’

Proportional quantifiers

All proportional D-quantifiers in Persian are complex— see §4.1. In addition, they can be modified in many of the same ways that cardinal numerals can. (73)

a.

b.

c.

Daqiqan/Faqat/Hadd=e aqal/Hadd=e aksar/Taqriban/Hududan nesf=e exactly/only/limi=EZ least/limit=EZ most/approximately/about half=EZ shâgerd=â qâyeb bud-an. student=PL absent be.PST-3PL ‘Exactly/Only/At least/At most/Approximately/Around half of students were absent.’ Bish-tar/Kam-tar az nesf=e shâgerd=â qâyeb bud-an. more-COMP/less-COMP from half=EZ student=PL absent be.PST-3PL ‘More than/Less than half of students were absent.’ Nazdik be nesf=e shâgerd=â qâyeb bud-an. near to half=EZ student=PL absent be.PST-3PL ‘Almost half of students were absent.’

There are a variety of other novel morphologically complex proportional D-quantifiers. (74)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Haft-tâ az dah-tâ âmrikâyi raft=an urupâ. seven-CL from ten-CL American go.PTCP=be.PRS.3PL Europe ‘Seven out of ten Americans have gone to Europe.’ Shast darsad=e javun=â=ye âmrikâyi châq=an. sixty percent=EZ youth=PL=EZ American fat=be.PRS.3PL ‘Sixty percent of American youths are fat.’ Ye sevvom=e irâni=hâ dozabâne=an. a third=EZ Iranian=PL bilingual=be.PRS.3PL ‘A third of Iranians are bilingual.’ Har do-tâ mâshin dar miyun bâyad chek be-sh-e. every two-CL car in between must checked SUB-become-3SG ‘Every third car must be inspected.’ 24

e.

5.1.5

Har se-tâ mâshin yek=i bâyad chek be-sh-e. every three-CL car one=IND must checked IMPF-become.PRS-3SG ‘Every third car must be inspected.’

Boolean compounds

The possibilities for negating a quantifier are somewhat limited. Adding negation to a universal quantifier is not generally allowed (75a), though it does seem permitted in a coordination structure with vali ‘but’ (75b). (75)

a. * Na-har shâgerd=i qabul shod=e. NEG -every student= IND accepted become. PTCP=be. PRS .3 SG Intended: ‘Not every student was accepted.’ b. Mâ chand-tâ shâgerd vali na-har shâgerd=i=ro entexâb we several-CL student but NEG-every student=IND=ACC choice mi-kon-im. IMPF -do. PRS -1 PL ‘We will select several students but not every student.’

Coordination of quantifiers is, however, freely allowed, both with overt coordinators, e.g. (75b) or (76a–b), and with asyndetic coordination (76c). (76)

a.

b.

c.

Bish-tar az do-tâ va kam-tar az dah-tâ dâneshju more-COMP from two-CL and less-COMP from ten-CL university.student emsâl burs mi-gir-an. this.year scholarship IMPF-get.PRS-3PL ‘More than two and less than ten university students will get a scholarship this year.’ Do(-tâ) yâ se-tâ parande tu=ye bâq neshaste bud-an. two-CL or three-CL bird in=EZ garden sit.PTCP be.PST-3PL ‘Two or three birds were sitting in the garden.’ Sohrâb se châhâr-tâ six kabâb xord. Sohrab three four-CL skewer kebab eat.PST.3SG ‘Sohrab ate three or four skewers of kebab.’

While in 76a–c, it is just the cardinal numerals themselves that are coordinated, it also possible to coordinate quantificational determiners along with their restrictors. (77)

5.1.6

Hich shâgerd=i va hich moallem=i qâyeb na-bud-an. no student=IND and no teacher=IND absent NEG-be.PST-3PL ‘No student and no teacher was absent.’ Partitives

There are two ways of forming partitives in Persian. First, for quantifiers that are determiners, the partitive is formed with the interrogative pronoun kudum ‘which’ and az ‘from’. The restrictor must bear the plural suffix. 25

(78)

a.

b.

Hich kudum az pesar=â ketâb na-xarid-an. no which from boy=PL book NEG-buy.PST-3PL ‘None of the boys bought a book.’ Har kudum az pesar=â ye gorbe xarid. every which from boy=PL a cat buy.PST.3SG ‘Each of the boys bought a cat.’

Second, for the other quantifiers, the partitive is formed simply with the preposition az ‘from’. Again, the restrictor bears the plural suffix. (79)

a.

b.

c.

Mâ do-tâ az ketâb=â=ro xund-im. we two-CL from book=PL=ACC read.PST-1PL ‘We read two of the books.’ Faqat chand-tâ az pezeshk=â giyâhxâr=an. only several-CL from physician=PL vegetarian=be.PRS.3PL ‘Only some of the doctors are vegetarians.’ Kam az berenj tu qâblame mund=e. little from rice in pan remain.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘Little of the rice is left in the pan.’

Almost all the proportional quantifiers have this latter kind of partitive structure.

5.2 5.2.1

Complex A-quantifiers Modifying cardinal quantifiers

The same range of adverbs and adverbials that modify cardinal D-quantifiers can also be used to modify cardinal A-quantifiers. (80)

a.

b.

c.

Sohrâb be urupâ daqiqan/faqat/hadd=e aqal/hadd=e Sohrab to Europe exactly/only/limit=EZ least/limit=EZ aksar/taqriban/hududan châhâr bâr/dafe mosâferat raft=e. most/approximately/about four time/time travel go.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘Sohrab has gone to Europe exactly/only/at least/at most/approximately/about four times.’ Shirin taqriban hichvaqt/hargez bâ utubus ne-mi-r-e Shirin approximately never/never with bus NEG - IMPF -go. PRS -3 SG sar=e kâr. head=EZ work ‘Shirin almost never goes to work on the bus.’ Shirin faqat baz=i vaqt=â/gâh=i oqât bâ utubus mi-r-e Shirin only time=IND time=PL/time=IND times with bus IMPF-go. PRS .3 SG sar=e kâr. head=EZ work ‘Shirin goes to work on the bus only sometimes.’ 26

5.2.2

Boolean compounds

A-quantifiers in Persian can be coordinated with va ‘and’ (81a), yâ ‘or’ (81b), and vali ‘but’ (81c), as well as by asyndetic coordination (81d). (81)

a.

b.

c.

d.

6

Sohrâb bish-tar az ye dafe va kam-tar az panj dafe Jang=o Sohrab more-COMP from a time and less-COMP from five time War=and Solh=o xund=e. Peace=ACC read.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘Sohrab has read War and Peace more than one time and less than five times.’ Râmin do bâr yâ se bâr konkur dâd=e. Ramin two time and three time entrance.exam give.PTCP=be.PRS.3SG ‘Ramin has taken the entrance exam two times or three times.’ Tu entexâbât=e rais-jomhur Sohrâb baz=i oqât vali na-hamishe ray in election=EZ leader-republic Sohrab part=IND times but NEG-always vote mi-d-e. IMPF -give. PRS -3 SG ‘In the presidential elections, Sohrab votes sometimes but not always.’ Mâ pish=e mâdar-bozorg=emun do se bâr raft-im. we next=EZ mother-big=1PL two three time go.PST-1PL ‘We went to my grandmother’s two or three times.’

Summary and future directions

Persian has morphologically simple indefinite and universal D-quantifiers, but no simple proportional D-quantifiers. It has morphologically simple indefinite A-quantifiers, which may also have proportional interpretations. There is only one simple universal A-quantifier. Complex quantifiers can be formed through various syntactic means, including adverbial modification and combination with a noun or adjective. This survey of quantification in Persian, we believe, raises several interesting questions about the language that merit further attention. 1. How does the structural position of a bare noun affect its interpretation? Those in subject position can have an indefinite or definite interpretation (7a–c). But this variation in interpretation may correspond to a difference in their abstract hierarchical position. 2. What is the semantics of the indefinite enclitic, such that it can occur on its own and with the indefinite determiner, as well as with other quantificational determiners, such as har ‘every’ and hich ‘no’? The discussion in §2.1.1 points towards a compositional account, though there are many details that remain to be worked out. 3. What is the class of elements that exhibit negative concord, occurring obligatorily with sentential negation? How is their dependency on negation established, and does it differ from the licensing relation for negative polarity items? 27

4. How does the plural suffix contribute compositionally to the semantics of noun phrases? Compared to plural morphology in better studied languages, it appears in some unexpected environments, including in indefinite noun phrases. 5. What is the syntax of quantifier float, and how does it interact with or reveal the structure of noun phrases and the clause? And, why do different quantifiers exhibit different float options? With further investigation, some of these questions will hopefully receive answers, yielding a better understanding of Persian and of language more generally.

References Chung, Sandra and William A. Ladusaw. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dayal, Veneeta. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:123–167. Deal, Amy Rose and Annahita Farudi. 2007. Alternatives for Persian indefinites. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Fodor, Janet Dean and Ivan A. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5:355–398. Gebhardt, Lewis. 2009. Numeral classifiers and the structure of DP. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University. van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57:47–74. Kadmon, Nirit and Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16:353–422. Karimi, Simin. 1999. A note on parasitic gaps and specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 30:704–713. Karimi, Simin. 2003. On object positions, specificity, and scrambling in Persian. In Word order and scrambling, ed. Simin Karimi, 91–124. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Karimi, Simin. 2005. A Minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Keenan, Edward L. 1996. The semantics of determiners. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Shalom Lappin, 41–63. Oxford: Blackwell. Kratzer, Angelika and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 1–25. Hituzi Syobo. Lambton, A. K. S. 1953. Persian grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1997. Persian. London: Routledge. Modarresi, Fereshteh. 2014. Bare nouns in Persian: Interpretation, grammar, and prosody. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ottawa. Modarresi, Fereshteh and Alexandra Simonenko. 2007. Quasi noun incorporation in Persian. Oxford Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics (LingO) 2:181–186. URL http://www.ling-phil.ox. ac.uk/events/lingo/papers/modarresi.simonenko.pdf. 28

Philip, Joy. 2012. Subordinating and coordinating linkers. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College London. Samiian, Vida. 1983. Origins of phrasal categories in Persian: An X-bar analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Samiian, Vida. 1994. The ezafe construction: Some implications for the theory of X-bar syntax. In Persian studies in North America: Studies in honor of Mohammad Ali Jazayery, ed. Mehdi Marashi, 17–42. Bethesda, MD: Iranbooks. Toosarvandani, Maziar and Coppe van Urk. 2014. The syntax of nominal concord: What ezafe in Zazaki shows us. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 43:209–220. Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1994. Notes on motivations in the study of Persian. In Persian studies in North America: Studies in honor of Mohammad Ali Jazayery, ed. Mehdi Marashi, 1–16. Bethesda, MD: Iranbooks. Maziar Toosarvandani University of California, Santa Cruz Department of Linguistics 1156 High St. Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [email protected] Hayedeh Nasser Iran University of Medical Sciences Department of English Yassemi St., Vali Asr Ave., Tehran Iran [email protected]

29