Except for personal clitics in past transitive forms, Sorani Kurdish has three verbal prefixes; næ- for negation, be- for subjunctive, and (d) æ- for imperfective. This article starts with bringing forth the question of why subjunctive marker in this language cannot appear with verbal negative or aspect prefixes while there is no problem with the co-occurrence of negative and aspect prefixes. After proposing some possible analyses, the author tries to analyze the question based on DM theory, saying that negation head moves downward, merges with the mood head, and the merged form gets one phonological content by vocabulary items. For imperfective appearing in the final position in past subjunctives, she analyzes that this aspect head moves to the final position of the verb in the presence of subjunctive marker. Both these movements happen in the morphological structure of PF –the first operates in terms of hierarchical structure and before the linearizational rules being applied and the second operates in terms of linear order and after linearization- hence they are named phonological rules, which are language-specific. As these rules changes –or sometimes add to- the syntactic structure, they are called readjustment rules too.

The Subjunctive mood is one of the verb moods in Middle Persian, like many other languages. This mood has had usage both in the present and also in the past, but in the extant texts just a few of its inflectional forms are available. The past subjunctive has a considerable less frequency in comparison with the present subjunctive, and it is confined to some of verbs which are made with the past stem and the auxiliary verb hād. Nevertheless, in the existing texts there is another form of the past subjunctive which is made by the past stem and the present inflection of the verb būdan. In the grammars of Middle Persian there is no mention of this latter construction. The use of this construction is continued in New (=Dari) Persian and it is possible to find its origins in the Ancient languages (Avestan and Old Persian).

Each verb carries markers of grammatical categories such as tense, person, mood, and aspect. Each marker has syntactic and semantic significance which refer to an action or state. Conjugation is the way in which a particular verb changes (conjugates) for tense, person, or number. Stem signifies the tense and action. Mood refers to a set of contrasts which are often shown by the form of the verb and which express the speaker"s or writer"s attitude to what is said or written. This occurs as a result of the factors included in the verb and in the sentence. Some of these factors are syntactic and some are semantic, and in grammar are known as the semantic and syntactic markers of the mood. Recognition of the mood depends upon the recognition of the verb, its meaning, and the factors that influence them Because of the extensibility of the semantic aspect of the mood. the definitions in this regard are varied. Scholars have defmed mood as verb, as an aspect of the verb, as grammatical derivation of verbs, as a method of verb"s usage, as the speaker"s attitude towards verb, as the speaker"s relation towards the form of the verb, etc. In the present survey, the nature of the subjunctive mood in Persian grammar is analysed.

Auxiliation is a subfield of grammaticalization which deals with the way the complex lexical verb structures, in some contexts, develope into auxiliary grammatical structures over time. Most auxiliaries in New Persian (Farsi) were used just as lexical verbs in Old or Middle Persian and converted into auxiliaries through grammaticalization. The present study deals with the process of auxiliation of three auxiliaries including "astidan", "bashidan" and "budan" (meaning "to be") which are used in Present Prepect, Past Subjunctive and Past Perfect structures in New Persian respectively; the question arises here is “ whether the usage of "astidan", "bashidan" and "budan" as auxiliaries in these structures goes back to the Old Persian or has been the outcome of grammaticalization” ? This paper tries to answer this question by scrutinizing instances of the aforementioned grammatical structures in Old and Middle Persian. According to existing evidence, the grammatical functions of these verbs as axiliray verbs in mentioned structures (Present Prepect, Past Subjunctive and Past Perfect) are due to the process of auxiliation in Middle Persian or Dari (early New Persian). The auxiliaries "astidan", "bashidan", "budan" don`t have a common root; the roots of mentioned auxiliaries are and meaning "to be" in Old Persian. Although in New Persian "ast" and "bash" are the present and imperative forms of "budan" respectively, "astidan" stems from while "budan" and "bashidan" stem from. The various forms of "astidan" which are used as lexical and linking verb as well as Present Prepect auxiliary in New Persian, didn't have auxiliary function in Middle or Old Persian. Although the auxiliation of this verb goes back to Middle Persian, its usage as Present Perfect auxiliary has been peculiar to New Persian or Dari. Infact "istadan" was substituded for "astidan" as Present Perfect axiliary in late Middle Persian or early Dari. "Bashidan" is used in various forms as lexical and linking verb as well as Past Subjunctive auxiliary in New Persian. But the auxiliary function of this verb has been the product of auxiliation in Dari. "Bashidan" had no usage in Old Persian and there has been found just one imperative form of it, "bash", as lexical and linking verb in Midde Persian. The auxiliary usage of "bashidan" in Past Subjunctive structure has been peculiar to New Persian or Dari. Past Subjunctive structures in Middle Persian texts had been formed by using "astidan" as auxiliary. Before being used as Present Perfect auxiliary in Dari, "astidan" was used as Past Subjunctive auxiliary in Middle Persian. Then "Bashidan" was substituded for "astidan" in Past Subjunctive structures in Dari. "Budan" not only is used as lexical and linking verb in various forms in New Persian, but also as an auxiliary verb in Past Perfect structures. The late function didn`t exist in Old Persian and "budan" was just a lexical and linking verb. The auxiliary "budan" is a grammatialized verb which was formed through auxiliation process in Middle Persian. Following a revolution in the manner of expressing the aspect of verb in Middle Persian, "budan" was used to express Perfect Aspect in Past Perfect structures. As mentioned, the auxiliaries "astidan", "bashidan" and "budan" as infinitives in New Persian stemmed from two different roots each of which passed through certain grammaticalization processes from Old Persian to Middle and New Persian, especially with regard to auxiliation. "Bashidan" went through this process later than two other auxiliaries and its auxiliary usage has been peculiar to Dari. "Astidan", "bashidan" and "budan" have been used as auxiliaries in grammatical structures of Present Prepect, Past Subjunctive and Past Perfect through reanalysis of predicative structures; they have lost their lexical category and meaning through "decategorialization" and "desemantization" process while their functions as lexical and linking verbs have been preserved. The later phenomenon is called "divergence" and is one of the grammaticalization principals which is common among many Indo-European languages. It is worth mentioning that conversion of existential verbs into auxiliaries in Present/Past Perfect structures have also been a very common tendency in grammaticalization process in many languages. According to Lehman (2002: 29) the existential "be" in English have gone through such auxiliation process. There have also been numerous evidences in different languages indicating linking verbs used as auxiliaries in structures with one Past Participle, such as Present Prepect, Past Subjunctive and Past Perfect structures. What we called resultative structure in this article seems very much like predicative structure in Persian. According to Bybee (1994: 69) evolution of resultative structures in to perfect structures can be an instance of "semantic generalization".

Among non-indicative verbal forms, subjunctive is of most uses. This form not only plays the most important functions in expressing modal concepts, but also has a close relationship with 'aspect'. In this paper, the ways in which subjunctive concepts are expressed different uses of subjunctive forms are studeid. Based on the findings of the research, there are at least six ways in which modal concepts are expressed in Persian all of which carry subjunctive forms. Subjunctive forms play at least fifteen different functions which are divided into two categories, namely, prototypical vs non-prototypical. All these functions share one feature: there is no guarantee for the actualization of the event or situation in question. As far as meaning is concerned all subjunctive forms function within a single network in center of which there exists a prototypical meaning. All other non-prototypical meanings are derived from this prototypical meaning.

IntroductionEver since the onset of generative tradition in the nineteen fifties, probing into the nature of the theory of grammar received its greatest impact from the English-type accounts. Finite theory of control, as such, was not considered a mainstream approach at the time (Landau, 2004; Landau, 2013; Landau, 2024) with PRO appearing only in nonfinite clauses, receiving no case (Chomsky, 1981). As a result, this study aims at investigating control constructions in Persian in their finite subjunctive clauses and comparing and contrasting them to the infinitive control constructions typically found in languages like English.To do so, we juxtapose the clausal architecture of finite subjunctive control as seen in Persian and the clausal architecture of non-finite infinitive control as found typically in a language like English. Whereas control constructions in a language like English appear in their bare infinitive clauses, with no overt manifestation of formal properties, the same type of constructions in Persian appear productively in non-bare finite clauses of the subjunctives. This dissimilarity in clausal architecture of English and Persian can be compared and contrasted in (1) and (2) respectively.Sara tæsmim=gereft ke    æz   talar  birun be-r-e.Sara decision=took.3Sg. that from hall   out    Sbj-go-3Sg.[1]“Sarah decided to leave the hall.”Generally, these differences amount to saying that the two constructions in the two languages have two different types of embedded clause architectures, i.e. infinitive vs. finite complementation for the relevant embedded clause. The architecture, interestingly includes several properties that mark these clauses absolutely different from the infinitives. In what follows, we will demonstrate these differences by contrasting the two types of constructions in English and Persian as seen typically in examples (1) and (2) above.The juxtaposition of the two types of embedded constructions, as seen in the two types of languages above, provides us with two relevant types of architectures for the embedded clause cross-linguistically, i.e. the non-finite infinitive clause and the finite subjunctive complementation. While the embedded clause in (1) is a typical non-finite clause of the type bare infinitive construction found in a language like English, the parallel construction in (2) is a finite construction in Persian (Darzi, 2008; Karimi, 2008a; Ilkhanipour, 2014; Pirooz, 2010; 2016). As a result of the finite complementation, the embedded clause in (2) includes person and number endings, and as such introduces a TP projection in the embedded clause with [parson], [number], and [tense], similar to that of the matrix clause. As such, these embedded clauses are finite clauses (Cowper, 2016) as the verbal element obligatorily receives person and number ending completely similar to that of the matrix clause verbal element. This divorces the infinitival nature of the embedded control construction in these constructions, and as a result, integrates finite complementation into the embedded control constructions, as found similarly in other languages (Landau, 2004; 2013; 2024; Terzi, 1997). This is interesting when we also find non-finite control in the Persian with nominal infinitives, or gerunds in this language as well (Darzi, 2001; Pirooz, 2011; 2021).Interestingly, PRO actively appears in finite control constructions, similar to the non-finite, infinitive found typically in a language like English, contra the GB approach of the time (Chomsky, 1981) and as such, values/checks structural Nominative in the course of the embedded clause derivation, contra the Null Case approach (Martin, 2001), divorcing the PRO Theorem (Chomsky, 1981) in these finite environments (Landau, 2006; Sigurdsson, 2008; Pirooz, 2016). The construction of an embedded control construction in a sentence like (2) above has a TP, with the [person], [number], and [tense] actively present in the derivation, where the verbal element obligatorily receives person and number ending. As such, PRO base-generated within vP moves Spec;TP to check Nominative structurally (Pirooz, 2016). These appear in (2) above, repeated as (3) below with the relevant elements added to the derivation, shown in boldface for the convenience sake.Sara tæsmim=gereft …[TP PRONom. [vP PRO æz talar birun be-r-e]].Secondly, whereas the embedded clause in (1) typically appears in a bare infinitive construction, the embedded clause in (2) appears in the subjunctive construction, with the subjunctive clitic be- prefixed to the verbal element. This makes it possible to introduce a mood phrase (i.e. MoodP) into the derivation, headed by the subjunctive clitic be- prefixed ultimately to the beginning of the verbal element. These elements that appear in (2) above, are included in the derivation (4) below in boldface the for convenience sake.Sara tæmim=gereft … [MoodP [TP PRO [vP PRO æz talar birun be-r-e]]].Thirdly, whereas the embedded clause in a control construction in a language like English does not hold a CP projection, the embedded clause in (2) inadvertently includes a CP projection, with the complementizer ke “that” appearing as the head of the CP (Darzi, 2008; Hashemipour, 1989; Ilkhanipour, 2014; Karimi, 2008a; Pirooz, 2010; Pirooz, 2016). The CP projection and its relevant complementizer head ke in (2) above, are added to the derivation shown in in boldface in (5) below:Sara tæsmim=gereft [CP ke [MoodP [TP PRO [vP PRO æz talar birun be-r-e]]]].Therefore, the difference between the infinitive-type English complementation for a language like English and the finite-subjunctive complementation in embedded control constructions can be linearized below.Finite vs. Infinitive ComplementationInfinitive complementation (English)… [InfP PRO …]Finite complementation (Persian)… [CP ke [MoodP be- [TP PRONom. [vP [ PRO … be-v …]]]]]]These differences undoubtedly show a change of the idea of the control constructions from the early English-type accounts of non-finite control complementation, to the inclusion of finite and/or subjunctive complementation in the minimalist accounts. More specifically, the finite-subjunctive theory of control, as we see here, and as we see cross-linguistically, results in a shift of attention from merely considering finite and/or subjunctive control constructions as something marginal to the mainstream control constructions of the GB-type era, to embracing them as a new typology of control constructions with a new clausal architecture that shares its architectural properties with those ones in the matrix clause architecture (Landau, 2004; 2013; 2024).  Conclusion In what follows, we will demonstrate how this theory of finiteness, as we illustrated here and as are found in the relevant literature of control complementations in other languages, resulted in the development and/or extensions in the theory of control, starting from the pre-GB era to the most recent minimalist accounts.Firstly, as the theory of generative grammar took its earliest explanations from the English-type languages, the earlier accounts of the theory of control and PRO dissociated finiteness from control constructions altogether, and related them to infinitive complementation found in a language like English. Therefore, a language like Persian at the time with the finite,  non- infinitive control construction (Hashemipour, 1988; 1989) or having a subjunctive clause having merely a bare vP (Wurmbrand, 2001) to lack a CP projection (Ghomeshi, 2001) was considered exceptional, or marginal to the conception of the infinitive control, found in the mainstream-type languages like English. Secondly, since English does not typically utilize the subjunctive complementation, or alternatively, since the class of subjunctives in English does not generate control constructions, the earlier accounts of control in subjunctive constructions in the languages that have these constructions appeared marginal to the mainstream generativist accounts, though these studies have a history of their own, beginning in the 1980s and the 1990s (1998; Terzi, 1997; Hashemipour, 1988; 1989), among many others.Thirdly, the earliest accounts of infinitive-type control constructions considered the empty category PRO to be ungoverned with no Case, appearing only in the subject position of the infinitive clause (Chomsky, 1981). This was again to the exclusion of this empty category PRO in the finite clauses in the theory of syntax. Subsequently, at the time PRO was considered an exceptional nominal empty category, appearing only in the subject position of a non- finite infinitive construction, and not in that of a finite construction. However, with the development of the idea that PRO is a regular empty category, checking regular structural Case, and having regular morphological case similar to any other nominal elements elsewhere in the sentence (Sigurdsson, 2008; Landau, 2008), a regular Case/case was valued/checked for the PRO, and was received morphologically by PRO in languages like Persian that show PRO having regular Case/case (Pirooz, 2016).Finally, with the overt manifestation of the CP, and with the overt complementizer head ke “that” in these control constructions (Darzi, 2008; Ilkhanipour, 2014; Pirooz, 2016; Karimi, 2008a), Persian illustrates that the presence of a controlled CP is a possibility in control constructions. This makes the language similar to other languages that have this type of projection in their embedded control construction (Witkos, 2010; Sevdali, 2012), and dissimilar to the infinitive-type languages with no CP in their control environments. Nonetheless, as these control CPs in Persian are porous to a matrix probe, they allow for the ϕ-features of PRO to be controlled, i.e. valued/checked phase-externally, the theory of finite control in Persian provides challenges for the Phase Impenetrability of Condition. [1]. 3Sg.: third person singular, Sbj.: subjunctive, tæsmim=gereft: a complex-predicate control verb

The phonetic forms of morphemes may undergo changes depending on the phonetic context they are situated in. These changes are more prominent in verbal structures. The present article investigates two processes of vowel elision and assimilation in Kalhori Kurdish subjunctive/imperative prefix. To this end, after collecting relevant data through interviewing 10 Kalhori Kurdish speakers living in Eslamabad-e Gharb, the alternating forms of this prefix were extracted, and the underlying form was obtained. The phonological changes were analyzed in Optimality Theory, with the phonological form as the input. The results from the collected data show that of the subjunctive/imperative morpheme /bə,-/, three phonetic forms of [bə,-], [b-], and [bu-] are obtained, with the last two formed by elision and assimilation processes, respectively,and for them to be formed, markedness constraints have to dominate faithfulness constraints. It was also revealed through the analyses that for explaining assimilation in Optimality Theory, the whole place of articulation must be targeted rather than the individual phonological features.

The Arabic grammar tradition is one of the most important linguistic schools in history-a school whose achievements in many cases are as important as the achievements of the modern linguistic studies. The present study, by explaining the conformity of the threefold divisions of the verbal mood (declarative, subjunctive, and imperative) with the triple subdivision of the verbs into marfu’ , mansub and majzum in Arabic grammar, attempts to explain how the Arabic language grammarians have described the functions of subjunctive mood through the elements they have referred to. The results of this study indicate that Sibawayhi, the leader of the school of Basra and the writer of the oldest book on the Arabic grammar, has been aware of the role of realis/irrealis distinction in the uses of the mansub (subjunctive) and marfu’ (declarative). Moreover, through some of his comments, it is possible to derive the importance of the speaker’ s view in determining whether or not the proposition is definite. On the other hand, the study reveals how al-Farra, the most prominent grammarian of the Kufa School, has emphasized the role of time and temporal implications in explaining the applications of the subjunctive mood. Subsequent grammarians, following their syntactic views, have supplemented this discussion and, for instance, have mentioned the distinction between absolute time and relative time to determine temporal implications of the present subjunctive mood. Currently, linguists without having access to the findings of this tradition, have discovered the importance of these two components in the applications of the subjunctive mood; On the basis of the findings of the present study, such an achievement can be traced its origin back to more than a thousand years ago in the books of Arabic grammarians.

Accurate diction is an aspect attributing to the unsurpassed beauty of the Qur'an. Particle "Lā" is an influential Arabic word that can take on different functions. This aarticle, depending on its position the sentence, has been called "Redundant Lā" by some grammarians and commentators. One of these positions where the above particle is used is after the 'subjunctivizing An' in the form of 'Alla' and 'lealla'. Some grammarians have considered it redundant but some others have not. This article attempts to clarify, through a descriptive-analytic approach, those verses in which both 'Redundant Lā' and 'Subjunctivizing An' occur along with those verses from which this 'Redundant Lā' has been removed. It also tries to analyze it’s the esthetic functions and purposiveness plus this point that wherever this 'Lā' is used in the Qur'an there are rhetorical points in line with the conditions of those particular verses and their linguistic context. It's being considered redundant by grammarians has turned out to be the result of not heeding the semantics of the verses in which it occurs. Of the aims behind the use of this 'Redundant Lā' is deterring and forbidding people from evils deeds, expressing anger powerfully, negating a done action determinedly, showing how base and wrong a deed can be and also the extreme inability and weakness in the opposite side.

Grammar instruction is a crucial topic of debate in foreign language development. This study aimed at investigating the impact of focus on form (FonF) and focus on forms (FonFs) instruction on grammar acquisition of the subjunctive by Iranian advanced EFL learners. To this end, 40 Iranian advanced EFL learners were selected within the age range of 16-20 from a language school in Karaj, Iran. Initially, the Preliminary English Test was run to ensure that the students were homogenous with respect to their language proficiency. Before any treatment, a pretest was administered to determine the participants’ knowledge of the subjunctive. Afterwards, the researchers taught the subjunctive to one group through FonF instruction and the second group received FonFs instruction. After five weeks of instruction, the researchers administered a posttest to investigate the effectiveness of FonF and FonFs instruction. Then, paired samples statistics, the independent samples t-test, and Mann Whitney U test were run to test the null hypotheses. The findings revealed that although FonF and FonFs instruction have significant positive impacts on grammar acquisition of the subjunctive by Iranian advanced EFL learners, the students who were taught through FonFs instruction significantly outperformed the ones who received FonF instruction.