LINGUIST List 21.4595 Tue Nov 16 2010 Qs: Arabic: Yes/No Questions Editor for this issue: Danielle St. Jean <daniellelinguistlist.org> We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm. Directory         1.     May Mahdi Al-Ramadan , Arabic: Yes/No Questions Message 1: Arabic: Yes/No Questions Date: 16-Nov-2010 From: May Mahdi Al-Ramadan <mal_ramadanhotmail.com> Subject: Arabic: Yes/No Questions E-mail this message to a friend My name is May Mahdi Al-Ramadan, from Saudi Arabia. I am a lecturer and I am studying for a PhD in Applied Linguistics in King Saud University in Riyadh. I am working on a paper about the formation of Yes/No questions in Arabic. What interests me about this subject is the claim that I read in Carnie (2007) that complementizer particles and subject/verb inversion are in complementary distribution. He states that languages can either have this or that but not both. In Standard Arabic, a complementizer (Hal) is used at the beginning of yes/no questions. The verb precedes the subject in Standard Arabic in both sentences and questions. An example for this is as follows: 1) Hal  thahaba  abouka?     C    went       father-your     "Did your father go?" In Saudi Arabic, on the other hand, the complementizer is dropped. Subject/verb inversion is used instead. An example: 2) Obouk          raH?     Father-your   went     "Did your father go?" My question is that, how is it possible to incorporate the view that complementizers vs. subject/verb inversion are in complementary distribution into the analysis of Arabic that obviously has both methods of forming questions? Or possibly is it more valid to assume that the two varieties of Arabic are distinct and no generalization can be made with reference to both of them? I would appreciate any suggestions and resources from the List! Thank you so much, May Mahdi Al-Ramadan Reference: Carnie, A (2007). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Blackwell Publishing. Linguistic Field(s): Syntax                             Typology Subject Language(s): Arabic, Standard (arb)                             Arabic, Gulf Spoken (afb) Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 16-Nov-2010       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.