Morphosyntactic alignment

Abstract

Abstract The Classical Armenian periphrastic perfect, unlike the synthetic tenses, does not construe along nominative-accusative lines; instead of the nominative, the agent of transitive verbs is most commonly expressed by the genitive, and there is no copula agreement. This construction has given rise to a number of different explanations over the course of the 20th century: Meillet proposed an originally nominal construction, Benveniste an analogy to ‘have’-perfects in other Indo-European languages. Other suggestions include prototypical genitive agents, Caucasian influence, and analogical change. This chapter reviews and rejects these previous explanations systematically and in detail. In their stead, it proposes that, given the established contact relationship with Parthian, a closer investigation of their alignment patterns will also shed light on the origin of the Armenian construction.