Existential sentences

Existential sentences are sentences with the expletive hunaaka ‘there’ like that in (61) below.

(61) kaana hunaaka Taalib-u-n fii l-ħadiiqat-i

be.PFV.3SG.M there student.SG.M-NOM-NN in the-garden.SG-GEN

‘There was a student in the garden’ (Aoun et al., 2010: 70)

Aoun et al. (2010: 69) argue that the expletive hunaaka ‘there’ in (61) is the subject, while the indefinite NP and the PP form a small clause occurring in the complement position of the copula kaana. Now, in order to ensure that this is the right analysis we need to perform

certain tests. First, if the expletive hunaaka was the subject, then we would expect it to be ropicalised because normally subjects can be fronted. However, sentence (62) below conveys that this is not possible.

(62) *hunaaka kaana Taalib-u-n fii l-ħadiiqat-i

there be.PFV.3SG.M student.SG.M-NOM-NN in the-garden.SG-GEN

‘There was a student in the garden’

The ungrammaticality of (62) may be regarded as evidence that the expletive hunaaka is not the subject of the sentence. However, one may argue against this evidence because not all subjects can be topicalised. For example, unlike some other subjects in English, the expletive

there cannot be topicalised as shown below24.

(63) a. I think Kim is clever

b. Kim, I think is clever

(64) a. I think there is raining

b. *There, I think is raining

24

In English, there is clear evidence that the expletive there is the subject (e.g. raising and question tags), as exemplified below:

(i) There seems to be a problem. (ii) There is raining, isn’t there?

On the other hand, it appears that there is no evidence that the expletive hunaaka is the subject of the sentence. Thus, let us move on to the small clause complement.

The analysis that the complement is a small clause is rejected by the fact that the expletive hunaaka may occur between the indefinite NP and the PP, as shown below.

(65) *kaana Taalib-u-n hunaaka fii l-ħadiiqat-i

be>PFV.3SG.M student.SG.M-NOM-NN there in the-garden.SG-GEN

‘There was a student in the garden’

(66) kaana fii l-ħadiiqat-i hunaaka Taalib-u-n

be.PFV.3SG.M in the-garden.SG-GEN there student.SG.M-NOM-NN

‘There was a student in the garden’

The preceding discussion calls for re-determining the subject and the complement in existential sentences. In fact, three facts support the assumption that the indefinite NP is the subject of the sentence. First, subject-verb agreement facts in MSA show that the indefinite NP is the element that agrees with the copula, as the glossing conveys. For example, the copula and the indefinite NP in (61) agree in person and gender. Therefore, if the indefinite NP is, for instance, 3rd person feminine as in (67), the verb needs to agree with it in person and gender as well.

(67) kaanat hunaaka fataat-u-n fii l-maħall-i

be.PFV.3SG.F there girl.SG.F-NOM-NN in the-shop.SG-GEN

Accordingly, if the copula does not agree with the indefinite NP, the sentence will be ungrammatical, as in (68) below.

(68) *kaanat hunaaka Taalib-u-n fii l-ħadiiqat-i

be.PFV.3SG.F there student.SG.M-NOM-NN in the-garden.SG-GEN

‘There was a student in the garden’

However, we know that, for instance, in English the copula agrees with the indefinite NP where it is clear that the indefinite NP is not a subject, as exemplified below:

(69) a. There is a cow in the field.

b. *There are a cow in the field.

c. There are cows in the field.

d. *There is cows in the field.

Therefore, it appears that subject-verb agreement is not convenient because agreement in existential sentences seems to be different from agreement elsewhere.

The second piece of evidence that the indefinite NP is the subject in MSA is the nominative case marking that the indefinite NP has as in (61) above. The nominative case marking, essentially, is the case that the subject has. In other words, if the indefinite NP were a complement of the copula kaana, we would expect it to be accusative.

The third piece of evidence comes from the effect of Ɂinna on the subject in MSA (Ɂinna is a word used to emphasise the speech). First, consider the following sentence:

Now, if Ɂinna occurs in the sentence initial position, the subject must be accusative. Otherwise, the sentence will be ungrammatical, as shown below:

Examples in (71) show that the subject in such a case is the element that is affected by

Ɂinna. Let us now consider the following existential sentences:

(70) fii d-daar-i rajul-u-n

in the-house.SG-GEN man.SG.M-NOM-NN

‘A man is in the house’

(71) a. Ɂinna fii d-daar-i rajul-a-n

indeed in the-house.SG-GEN man.SG.M-ACC-NN

‘A man is in the house’

b. *Ɂinna fii d-daar-i rajul-u-n

indeed in the-house.SG-GEN man.SG.M-NOM-NN

(72) a. hunaaka Taalib-u-n fii l-ħadiiqat-i

there student.SG.M-NOM-NN in the-garden.SG-GEN

‘There is a student in the garden’

b. Ɂinna hunaaka Taalib-a-n fii l-ħadiiqat-i

indeed there student.SG.M-ACC-NN in the-garden.SG-GEN

‘There is a student in the garden’

c. *Ɂinna hunaaka Taalib-u-n fii l-ħadiiqat-i

indeed there student.SG.M-NOM-NN in the-garden.SG-GEN

‘There is a student in the garden’

Examples in (72) show that the indefinite NP in existential sentences is the element affected by the word Ɂinna, just like the subject in (71) above. This suggests that the indefinite NP in existential sentences is the subject.

The latter two pieces of evidence suggest that the indefinite NP in existential sentences is the subject. If this is correct, then what we should know about indefinite NPs in copular sentences is that when they occur in subject position, a complement must precede them, otherwise the sentence will be ungrammatical. This is shown in (73) below.

(73) a. kaana fii d-daar-i rajul-u-n

be.PFV.3SG.M in the-house.SG-GEN man.SG.M-NOM-NN

Now, if we look at the existential sentences presented so far, we will see that existential sentences are grammatical only if the expletive hunaaka precedes the indefinite NP. This implies that the expletive is the complement in existential sentences as is the case with the PP in (73). Based on that, the copula takes its arguments, i.e. an indefinite NP subject and the expletive hunaaka as its complement. Therefore, I consider the PP as an optional complement25. This is confirmed by the grammaticality of (74) below.

(74) hunaaka mawDuʕ-aani muhimm-aani

there topic.M-DU.NOM important.M-DU.NOM

‘There are two important topics’ (Ryding, 2005)

In (74), although the PP is omitted, the sentence remains grammatical. Consequently, I argue that the expletive hunaaka is an AdvP complement but with special word order as a result of having an indefinite NP subject. This emphasises that the complement of the copula cannot be a small clause. It should be noted that there is no overt copula in (74). In fact, this is an example for copula absence in MSA, which will be the focus of the next section.

25 _{This is the second case in which the copula takes an optional complement. The first case is the pronominal}

complement discussed in Section 2.3.3 above.

b. *kaana rajul-u-n fii d-daar-i

be.PFV.3SG.M man.SG.M-NOM-NN in the-house.SG-GEN

2.4.4. Summary

Section 2.4 shows that the copula can take NP, AP, PP and AdvP complements. Although what looks like a verbal complement is similar in some ways to other complements, it is different enough to be excluded from the copula’s possible complements.