# Syriac: omission of subject pronoun



## zaw

Hi,

If the subject is a pronoun, can it be omitted? Like ܥܬܝܕ ܠܡܐܬܐ for "He is going to come."

Or ܩܛܝܠ for "He is being killed."

Or ܩܛܝܠܐ for "She is being killed."

Toda raba


----------



## Ali Smith

I don't think so because by that logic ܛܵܒ݂ would mean "He is good." and ܫܲܦ݁ܝܼܪܵܐ would mean "She is beautiful."


----------



## zj73

Yes, an adjective in the absolute state can be used by itself to convey a full sentence. Both your examples seem to be full sentences.


----------



## radagasty

Technically, that's true, I suppose, but, in practice, not really. In a principal clause, one would expect
a pronominal enclitic (ܛܒ ܗ̄ܘ ‘He is good.’) or a full pronominal subject (ܗܝ ܫܦܝܪܐ ‘She is beautiful.’).

Deletion of the pronominal subject is more common in subordinate clauses, especially relative clauses
and object clauses following verbs of thinking and perceiving:

ܚܙܝܢ ܚܪ̈ܫܐ ܕܡܡܠܠܝܢ ܘܦܫܝ̈ܓܐ ܕܡܬܚܠܡܝܢ
They saw the dumb speaking and the lame healed.


----------



## Ali Smith

radagasty said:


> ܚܙܝܢ ܚܪ̈ܫܐ ܕܡܡܠܠܝܢ ܘܦܫܝ̈ܓܐ ܕܡܬܚܠܡܝܢ
> They saw the dumb speaking and the lame healed.


Doesn't ܚܙܝܢ mean "we saw"?


----------



## radagasty

Ali Smith said:


> Doesn't ܚܙܝܢ mean "we saw"?



Yes, that's possible. The example, however, was a quotation from _Matt _15:31, where ܚܙܝܢ is merely a participle, so the translation ‘they saw’, 3rd pers. in the past, comes from the context. But, vocalised ܚܙܲܝܢ instead, it would mean ‘we saw’, as you suggest.

In fact, ܚܙܝܢ here is the predicate of a subordinate clause whose pronominal subject has itself been omitted, for I abbreviated the quotation. The full(er) sentence is:

ܐܝܟ ܕܢܬܕܡܪܘܢ ܟܢ̈ܫܐ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܚܙܝܢ ܚܪ̈ܫܐ ܕܡܡܠܠܝܢ ܘܦܫܝ̈ܓܐ ܕܡܬܚܠܡܝܢ ܘܚܓܝܪ̈ܐ ܕܡܗܠܟܝܢ ܘܣܡܝ̈ܐ ܕܚܙܝܢ
So that those crowds were astonished (that they were) seeing the dumb speaking, and the cripple healed, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing.


----------

