Abbasov A. M. Syntactic- semantic comparison of common person sentence with non-personal and indefinite person sentences // International scientific journal "Internauka". - 2017. - №14.
Филологические науки
Abbasov Adalat Mahammadali
Candidate of Philology, Assistant professor
Head of the chair of “Azerbaijan language”
Azerbaijan State University of oil and industry
SYNTACTIC- SEMANTIC COMPARISON OF COMMON PERSON SENTENCE WITH NON-PERSONAL AND INDEFINITE PERSON SENTENCES
Summary: The predicate of general finite sentences is expressed mainly by the second person singular and the third person singular in the Azerbaijani language. The first, second and third persons forming the predicate of general finite sentences can't be concerned to a concrete person.
Key words: semantics, formal qrammar, paremic unit, structural tupe, morphological pecnliarities.
We think comparative clarification with non-personal and indefinite person sentences has a significant place in reveal of peculiarities of common person sentences and their accurate explanation:
Unlike non-personal sentences, it is possible to put a question who? pronounced in nominative case to the predicate of common person sentences and as a reply to get one of personal pronouns (I, you, they) matching with the predicate of the sentence.
But I, you, they used in these questions are not used in their real-special meanings, but in general (all) meaning they have recently obtained.
For example:
It is possible to put a question who? pronounced in a nominative case to the predicate of the sentence of the first group and to get an answer, as we have already mentioned, one of the personal pronouns matching with the predicate of the sentence to some extent. But they are used in the meaning different from their real meanings, in the meaning of general (all) which they have acquired recently. And it is compatible with formal character of personal semantics of common person sentence. That is, the first, second and third personal forms forming predicate of the common person sentence cannot be referred to a concrete person.
Taking into consideration all the above stated, it can be concluded that in common personal sentences either personal or time semantics carry formal character. It would be to the point to visualize it with the below shown scheme.
Picture 1
Common personal sentence is multi-functional due to its multi-targeting. Because of it, the information in a sentence creates intellectual generalizing content due to targeting. That is:
Picture 2
As the indefinite person sentences, common person sentences have also been set up on grammatical-structural basis of the sentences with definite persons, but without a subject. The predicate of the common person sentence is mainly expressed with the third person plural and the second person singular. According to formal-grammatical origin of the person and peculiarity in its composition, common personal sentences can be divided into the following structural types:
For example:
For example:
Although, these sentences, according to their grammatical structure look like as the sentences with definite person the subject of which is determined in the predicate of it (I read a book, I write an article, etc.), according to the content, they cover singular and plural of all persons. If to approach from logical point of view, it is possible to state that there is no concept of commonness separately. Commonness is a concept coming from the definite, individual and single. That is, it means generalizing similar and different peculiarities of separate things and individuals. From this point of view, it can be concluded that the common person sentences have derived from the sentences with definite persons.
We can show the structure of such type of a sentence by means of such a table:
Picture 3
The predicate of the common person sentences in Azerbaijan language is, mainly, expressed by the second person singular or third person plural of the verb. Therefore, the second person singular of the verb plays a special role in formation of such sentences. As the common person sentences the predicate of which carry morphological peculiarities of the first person singular, the common person sentences the predicates of which are expressed by the second person singular also look like as the sentences with definite person (two-member) from the point of view of syntactical structure.
For example:
"Say why are you lonely, why are you alone?
Storms are your sighs; rivers are your blood.
You did not know that you would remain for ever
In the heart of native Azerbaijan!"
(M. Araz)
In the sentences of the first group, according to the content of the sentence, the executer of the work cannot be you. Although in such sentences all persons are meant, in the second group of sentences as the concrete subject is expressed, the second person singular is meant.
In comparison with the first person, the second person singular is more actively used in the common person sentence.
“According to communicative content, as the second person is in the position of the listener, the possibility to expand abstractly the content coordination and to achieve functional generality within etymological concreteness is quite high”.
In common person sentences the predicate of which is in the second person plural neither classic- book, nor speaking- folklore style is observed. However, in our modern language, in order to concretize generalizing semantics structures like
“What you sow, that you will reap” are used and it is fully a stylistic event.
4. Over the third person:
Common person sentences the predicates of which are used in the third person singular are met only among paremic units:
Expansion of semantic coordination of the third person singular is not constant, so, this type of common person sentences is not active.
Common person sentences the predicate of which is used in the third person plural have been spread more widely. This structure type of common person sentences is often met in live colloquial speech. According to this grammatical peculiarity, this structure type is similar with the sentence with indefinite person.
For example:
A cock crowing not in time, should be cut. (Proverb)
Subject of the verdict expressed in the first group sentences is indefinite “they”. Therefore, the predicate of this sentence is possible to be matched with an indefinite subject (they). On another hand, the thoughts coming out of it, do not refer to everybody, it refers just to a certain group of people. But the work in the second group of sentences do not refer to a certain group of people, it refers to everybody, to all persons (general).
The work, the action conveyed in common person sentences in positive form refers to everyone, in negative form to no one. But in the sentences with indefinite person it is impossible to carry out such an operation.
References
