Abstract Syllabic scripts have historically been described as transitional and cumbersome, and the Greek syllabic scripts have not escaped such criticism. Scholars continue to question how successfully Linear B and the Cypriot syllabary represent Ancient Greek and which script does so more effectively. The present study leverages information‐theoretic tools to conduct a systematic, quantitative comparison of these two syllabaries and offer an objective basis upon which to compare the scripts' structural properties and efficacy. I calculate each syllabary's mutual information, which quantifies the shared information and dependency between a script's graphemic and phonemic systems. The results of the investigation reveal that—contrary to traditional evaluations—the Cypriot syllabary and Linear B differ only minimally with regard to the amount of information shared between their graphemic and phonemic systems. I offer brief comments on the patterns that emerge from the disaggregation of the data. Many are easily explained by the morphophonological properties of Mycenaean and Cyprian Greek, but others require further investigation. This approach not only provides a replicable framework for comparing the Greek syllabic scripts but also opens pathways for applying the tools of information theory to broader historical linguistic and epigraphic research.
Abstract Thracian, an extinct Paleo‐Balkan language, is traditionally considered to belong to the Indo‐European language family. About 25 Thracian appellatives are known from ancient sources, including basic concepts such as ‘meat’, ‘mouse’ and ‘animal skin’. None of the Thracian words has a direct and reliable Indo‐European (IE) etymology (i.e. with a direct sound match, semantic coincidence and comparanda in more than one language group). To roughly estimate the probability of such a result, two experiments were conducted. In the first experiment, wordlists with the same concepts were compiled for six IE languages (Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin, Standard German, Czech and Albanian) and two non‐IE languages (Basque and Turkish). Unlike Thracian, the tested IE languages have between three and five words with a direct and reliable IE etymology, and even Basque and Turkish have a couple of parasitic (i.e. probabilistically conditioned) matches with the IE data. In the second experiment, Phrygian, Lydian, Carian and Galatian glosses were examined for IE etymologies; each language has words with transparent IE cognates, which contrasts with the Thracian case. This suggests that, first, the null hypothesis should be adopted—namely, that Thracian is a language of unknown origin. Second, Thracian is unlikely to belong to the IE family. A possible scenario is that Thracian is a linguistic remnant of pre‐Indo‐European Europe.
Abstract Few have asked what happens to gender when a noun is heteroclitic – when its inflection draws on more than one inflection class. While heteroclisis has moved from being treated as a marginal irregularity to a theoretically revealing phenomenon, its implications for gender assignment remain largely unexplored. A range of examples, with case studies from Latin, Slavonic, Celtic and Germanic, reveal that the ‘missing’ evidence on heteroclite gender is a window into the internal structure of lexemes. Heteroclites show how grammatical information is distributed across different levels of lexical representation. In many instances, gender is specified at the level of the lexeme, often due to semantic assignment or because the contributing inflection classes converge on the same gender. In other cases, however, gender tracks heteroclisis more closely, being determined at the level of sub‐paradigms – or, rarely, individual paradigm cells. Classic examples like Latin balneum ‘bath’ demonstrate that internal splits in inflection can be mirrored by splits in agreement, while more extreme cases reveal cell‐by‐cell gender alternation. By disentangling heteroclisis from related phenomena such as heterogeneity and overabundance, the paper argues that gender in heteroclites provides uniquely sharp evidence for how lexemes are specified, constrained, and accessed at the morphology–syntax interface.
Abstract The present study investigates the earliest recoverable layer of lexical exchange between the Turkic and Yeniseian language families. A critical reassessment of 26 previously proposed lexical comparisons shows that most are untenable at the proto‐language level. In their place, the paper presents eight new or revised proposals for contact‐induced lexical parallels, identifying one early Turkic loanword in Proto‐Yeniseian and seven Yeniseian loanwords in Turkic, five of them at the Proto‐Yeniseian/Early Proto‐Turkic level and two from Old Arin into Proto‐Common Turkic. The direction of borrowing is determined on the basis of both internal and external evidence, including morphological criteria such as native plural formations in Yeniseian and external attestations such as a Dingling gloss in Chinese historical sources. These lexical exchanges also establish several regular sound correspondences between Early Proto‐Turkic and Proto‐Yeniseian. The analysis suggests that the main period of contact falls in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, implying that varieties of Early Proto‐Turkic and Proto‐Yeniseian were spoken in direct geographical proximity before the formation of the Xiongnu Empire. The speakers involved can most plausibly be identified as the Dingling and the future Xiongnu ruling stratum. The findings further contribute to the refinement of Proto‐Turkic and Proto‐Yeniseian historical phonology.
This paper challenges the traditional conception of the Jespersen Cycle by arguing that no 'pure' first phase of the cycle exists where a single negator operates without reinforcement. Drawing on historical data from Northern Italian dialects (Piedmontese, Lombard, Emilian), we demonstrate that emphatic negative structures systematically co-exist with plain negators from the earliest attestations of each variety. These emphatic forms serve distinct functions-Domain-Widening and discourse-level Rejection or Confirmation-and constitute the source of new plain negators, while plain negators can themselves be reanalysed as emphatic negators. On this basis, we propose to set aside the notion of the cycle as an abstract phenomenon that underlies all observed processes of formation of new negators in our dataset. Instead, these are better conceived as a group of phenomena, which involve descriptively and theoretically distinct shifts in the encoding of different negative functions, including but not limited to 'plain' negation.
A bstract This article presents additional readings of several inscriptions written in the Issyk‐Kushan script, building on the improved system of sound values recently proposed by Sims‐Williams (2025b). We propose that some further lines of Dašt‐i Nāwur inscription DN III and parts of several other inscriptions can now be read as Bactrian, add new first‐hand data from the Almosi inscription site and suggest decipherments for a few previously undeciphered characters of the script.
Abstract In 1883, Henry Sweet took issue with James Platt junior, a 21‐year‐old language enthusiast. At the time, Platt was England's brightest young prospect in Old English linguistic studies. Sweet recognised Platt's talent, but he became convinced that he was also a plagiarist and tried to have him expelled from the Philological Society. Yet Sweet blew out of all proportion mistakes that were largely the result of Platt's lack of experience. In fact, Platt made several original and influential discoveries of his own that were never properly accredited to him. Furthermore, numerous corrections and improvements to the second edition of Eduard Sievers' Old English grammar (1886) are owed to Platt, yet Sievers failed to acknowledge his assistance in the grammar. This article offers a late appreciation of Platt's work on Old English and shows that he made important discoveries as an amateur philologist.
Abstract The history of the case systems of the Eastern Indo‐Aryan languages is characterised by the radical reduction of the set of inherited nominal morphology, leaving only a generic oblique marker in the modern languages. At the same time, the case systems of these languages have been expanded through univerbation of postpositions, typically including a genitive, locative and a dative‐accusative. However, the interaction of these two groups is not straightforward and key questions remain unanswered by existing sources on the topic such as Chatterji (1926; The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language ). This article analyses the Caryāpada corpus, an invaluable record of an early stage of the Eastern Indo‐Aryan languages, in order to resolve some of these issues. It is shown that at this stage the language had already largely transitioned towards the system seen in the modern languages. At the same time some conservative features remain, including agreement for gender and case on the innovative genitive suffix as well as a wide array of usages for the inherited oblique which the modern languages individually reflect only in part. This article contributes to discussions around the development of case paradigms, particularly the complex interactions that come into play between existing forms and innovative forms coalescing into a single system.
This paper presents a first typological study of a particular type of imperative interjections, namely interjections with the meaning 'here, take it!' used by a speaker when they ask the addressee to take something from the speaker's hands (often combined with a gesture of giving). The sample of languages is both geographically and genealogically restricted and includes only the languages spoken in the Caucasus, namely those belonging to the three indigenous Caucasian language families (Nakh-Daghestanian, West Caucasian and Kartvelian) as well as a few Turkic and Indo-European languages of the area. It is shown that dedicated imperative interjections with the meaning 'here, take it!' exist in the majority of the languages of the sample. With respect to their phonological shape, they can be subsumed under three broad types. The analysis of the morphosyntactic behaviour of 'here, take it!'-interjections demonstrates that, in some languages, they combine with certain inflectional or derivational affixes and can become part of compound verbs. Clauses with the interjections 'here, take it!' often include syntactic arguments, namely direct objects and recipients. A range of 'extended' uses of the interjections 'here, take it!' can be found in spontaneous discourse, including signalling of the speaker's emotional reaction.
This article presents additional readings of several inscriptions written in the Issyk-Kushan script, building on the improved system of sound values recently proposed by Sims-Williams (2025b). We propose that some further lines of Da & scaron;t-i N & amacr;wur inscription DN III and parts of several other inscriptions can now be read as Bactrian, add new first-hand data from the Almosi inscription site and suggest decipherments for a few previously undeciphered characters of the script. & Vcy; & dcy;& acy;& ncy;& ncy;& ocy;& jcy; & scy;& tcy;& acy;& tcy;& softcy;& iecy; & pcy;& rcy;& iecy;& dcy;& scy;& tcy;& acy;& vcy;& lcy;& iecy;& ncy;& ycy; & dcy;& ocy;& pcy;& ocy;& lcy;& ncy;& icy;& tcy;& iecy;& lcy;& softcy;& ncy;& ycy;& iecy; & pcy;& rcy;& ocy;& chcy;& tcy;& iecy;& ncy;& icy;& yacy; & ncy;& iecy;& scy;& kcy;& ocy;& lcy;& softcy;& kcy;& icy;& khcy; & ncy;& acy;& dcy;& pcy;& icy;& scy;& iecy;& jcy;, & ncy;& acy;& pcy;& icy;& scy;& acy;& ncy;& ncy;& ycy;& khcy; & icy;& scy;& scy;& ycy;& kcy;-& kcy;& ucy;& shcy;& acy;& ncy;& scy;& kcy;& icy;& mcy; & pcy;& icy;& scy;& softcy;& mcy;& ocy;& mcy;, & ncy;& acy; & ocy;& scy;& ncy;& ocy;& vcy;& iecy; & ucy;& scy;& ocy;& vcy;& iecy;& rcy;& shcy;& iecy;& ncy;& scy;& tcy;& vcy;& ocy;& vcy;& acy;& ncy;& ncy;& ocy;& jcy; & scy;& icy;& scy;& tcy;& iecy;& mcy;& ycy; & zcy;& vcy;& ucy;& kcy;& ocy;& vcy;& ycy;& khcy; & zcy;& ncy;& acy;& chcy;& iecy;& ncy;& icy;& jcy;, & ncy;& iecy;& dcy;& acy;& vcy;& ncy;& ocy; & pcy;& rcy;& iecy;& dcy;& lcy;& ocy;& zhcy;& iecy;& ncy;& ncy;& ocy;& jcy; & Scy;& icy;& mcy;& scy;-& Ucy;& icy;& lcy;& softcy;& yacy;& mcy;& scy;& ocy;& mcy; (2025b). & Mcy;& ycy; & pcy;& rcy;& iecy;& dcy;& lcy;& acy;& gcy;& acy;& iecy;& mcy;, & chcy;& tcy;& ocy; & ncy;& iecy;& kcy;& ocy;& tcy;& ocy;& rcy;& ycy;& iecy; & dcy;& ocy;& pcy;& ocy;& lcy;& ncy;& icy;& tcy;& iecy;& lcy;& softcy;& ncy;& ycy;& iecy; & scy;& tcy;& rcy;& ocy;& kcy;& icy; & ncy;& acy;& dcy;& pcy;& icy;& scy;& icy; & Dcy;& acy;& shcy;& tcy;& icy; & Ncy;& acy;& vcy;& ucy;& rcy;& acy; (DN III) & icy; & chcy;& acy;& scy;& tcy;& icy; & ncy;& iecy;& scy;& kcy;& ocy;& lcy;& softcy;& kcy;& icy;& khcy; & dcy;& rcy;& ucy;& gcy;& icy;& khcy; & ncy;& acy;& dcy;& pcy;& icy;& scy;& iecy;& jcy; & tcy;& iecy;& pcy;& iecy;& rcy;& softcy; & mcy;& ocy;& zhcy;& ncy;& ocy; & chcy;& icy;& tcy;& acy;& tcy;& softcy; & kcy;& acy;& kcy; & bcy;& acy;& kcy;& tcy;& rcy;& icy;& jcy;& scy;& kcy;& icy;& jcy; & yacy;& zcy;& ycy;& kcy;, & dcy;& ocy;& bcy;& acy;& vcy;& lcy;& yacy;& iecy;& mcy; & ncy;& ocy;& vcy;& ycy;& iecy; & dcy;& acy;& ncy;& ncy;& ycy;& iecy; & icy;& zcy; & pcy;& iecy;& rcy;& vcy;& ycy;& khcy; & rcy;& ucy;& kcy; & scy; & mcy;& iecy;& scy;& tcy;& acy; & ncy;& acy;& khcy;& ocy;& dcy;& kcy;& icy; & ncy;& acy;& dcy;& pcy;& icy;& scy;& icy; & Acy;& lcy;& mcy;& ocy;& scy;& icy; & icy; & pcy;& rcy;& iecy;& dcy;& lcy;& acy;& gcy;& acy;& iecy;& mcy; & rcy;& acy;& scy;& shcy;& icy;& fcy;& rcy;& ocy;& vcy;& kcy;& ucy; & ncy;& iecy;&
Baxter & Sagart (2014b) reconstruct *-Vt-s on the basis of Middle Chinese reflexes in -jH (from some OC *-s) coupled with either etymological or graphic connections to words in Middle Chinese -t. This approach, while perfectly sound, can suffer from lack of etymological or graphic data, leading to missed reconstructions. Since Old Chinese *-ts syllables retained an *-s in Late Han Chinese, long after OC *-Vs and *-ks had lost *-s (Baxter 1992: 569), it is possible to use transcriptional (Baley et al. 2023; Baley & Hill, forthcoming) and rhyming evidence (Lu & oacute; & Zh & omacr;u 1958) dated up to the Eastern H & agrave;n (sic)(sic) dynasty to establish an Old Chinese *-ts reconstruction for words, respectively, transcribing a foreign -s or rhyming with other *-ts words. In the present article, using a mix of network graph methods, graphic variants found in received and excavated texts, rhyme book glosses, and cognates in related languages, we demonstrate the validity of using H & agrave;n (sic) rhyming material to reconstruct an OC *-ts final. In the process, we propose new reconstructions for several characters previously reconstructed as *-js by Baxter & Sagart. This proposal, in turn, opens the possibility of revisiting other syllable types and problematic reconstructions. Baxter & Sagart (2014b) (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) -jH ((sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) *-s)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)-t (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic) *-Vt-s (sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) *-ts (sic)(sic)(sic) (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) *-s (sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) *-Vs (sic) *-ks (sic) *-s (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) (Baxter 1992: 569), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) (Baley et al. 2023; Baley & Hill, (sic)(sic)) (sic)(sic)(sic) (sic)(sic) (Lu & oacute; & Zh & omacr;u 1958) (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) *-ts.(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)-s (sic) (sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) *-ts (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic) *-ts. (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) (sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic) (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) *-ts (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic) Baxter & Sagart (sic)(sic)(sic) *-js (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic). (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic) (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).[Chinese]
This article explores the hypothesis that the 'fine-grained' grammatical differences that adult grammars under contact are said to be sensitive to (e.g., Hicks et al. 2023) amount to micro/nanoparametric distinctions, in the sense of Roberts (2019). To test this proposal, the study examines two properties of the present perfect in Ecuadorian Spanish as spoken in the United Kingdom: (i) the expression of evidential/mirative values and (ii) a specific pattern of adverb placement. Data from 28 speakers (18 first-generation migrants, 10 monolinguals in Ecuador) and four tasks provide preliminary support for the hypothesis. With respect to evidentiality, exposure to peninsular Spanish reduced the acceptability and use of the expected forms, whereas exposure to English showed no significant effects. Conversely, exposure to English affected the acceptability and ratings of the adverb placements examined. By modelling both phenomena through parameter hierarchies, it is shown that the 'size' of the parametric distinction between the varieties involved correctly predicts the presence/absence of cross-linguistic influence. In formalizing the size of grammatical differences affected by short-term contact, this approach offers a framework for future research on syntactic vulnerability in language contact. The study also contributes to the documentation of language contact in under-researched Latin American communities in the United Kingdom.
This paper is devoted to a rarely reported function of the verb ge (sic) 'put' as an object marker in the Panshi dialect of Northeastern Mandarin spoken in Jilin Province, China. As in many other dialects of Northeastern Mandarin, the morpheme ge is a multifunctional word in Panshi. It can be realised as [k gamma 44] and [k gamma 213]. While k gamma 44 denotes 'put', instrumental 'with', conditional 'as for' and 'if', k gamma 213 is used to denote 'be at', 'at', 'from', 'according to', and an object marker. The current paper sets out to reconstruct the grammaticalisation pathway Panshi ge has taken from 'put' to an object marker. We propose here that the object marking function of ge in Panshi is derived from its locative use 'at'. Our findings suggest a new lexical source and a new possible pathway of grammaticalisation for Sinitic object markers.
This article examines the syntactic, semantic and sociolinguistic variation in the coding of anticausativisation and lability in Early Medieval Latin in Gaul. Latin originally employed three noncausal strategies: the mediopassive (marked by the synthetic -r morphology or the analytic construction with esse 'be' + past participle), the reflexive (with the pronoun se) and the labile strategy (unmarked active intransitive forms). Drawing on quantitative data from PaLaFraLat, a corpus of Early Medieval Latin in Gaul, this study investigates the syntax of anticausativisation and lability before the transition to Old French. I argue that the formal reorganisation of the mediopassive strategy should be considered as distinct from its functional specialisation as a passive marker. Regarding the alternation of these three strategies, I claim that the mediopassive underwent standardisation and that the distribution of reflexivity and lability is determined by an interplay between subject control and the lexical aspect of the predicate. Cet article examine la variation syntactique, s & eacute;mantique et sociolinguistique du codage de l'anticausativisation et de la labilit & eacute; dans le latin du d & eacute;but du Moyen Acirc;ge en Gaule. Le latin utilisait & agrave; l'origine trois strat & eacute;gies non-causale: la strat & eacute;gie m & eacute;dio-passive (marqu & eacute;e par la morphologie synth & eacute;tique en -r ou par la construction analytique avec esse '& ecirc;tre' + participe pass & eacute;), la strat & eacute;gie r & eacute;fl & eacute;chie (avec le pronom se), et la strat & eacute;gie labile (formes actives intransitives non marqu & eacute;es). En s'appuyant sur les donn & eacute;es quantitatives du PaLaFraLat, un corpus de latin du d & eacute;but du Moyen Acirc;ge en Gaule, cette & eacute;tude explore la syntaxe de l'anticausativisation et de la labilit & eacute; avant le passage & agrave; l'ancien fran & ccedil;ais. Je soutiens que la r & eacute;organisation formelle de la strat & eacute;gie m & eacute;dio-passive doit & ecirc;tre consid & eacute;r & eacute;e comme distincte de sa sp & eacute;cialisation fonctionnelle en tant que marqueur passif. En ce qui concerne l'alternance de ces trois strat & eacute;gies, j'affirme que le m & eacute;dio-passif a subi une standardisation et que la distribution de la r & eacute;flexivit & eacute; et de la labilit & eacute; est d & eacute;termin & eacute;e par une interaction entre le contr & ocirc;le du sujet et l'aspect lexical du pr & eacute;dicat.[French]
Khwarshi, which is distant and geographically separated from the other Tsezic languages and surrounded by Avar- and Andic-speaking villages, combines all three strategies identified by Wohlgemuth (2009) for the integration of borrowed verbs: a light verb strategy is used for Russian borrowings, while both direct and indirect insertion are used for borrowings from Avar and Andic. Combining several strategies in a single language is a rare phenomenon in many languages; the other Tsezic languages make use of only one integration strategy. The paper explains the factors underlying the distribution of verbal borrowing strategies within the Tsezic languages. The crucial factor accounting for this distribution is the variation found across the family in the degree of bilingualism and language contact with donor languages. & KHcy;& vcy;& acy;& rcy;& shcy;& icy;& ncy;& scy;& kcy;& icy;& jcy; & yacy;& zcy;& ycy;& kcy;, & kcy;& ocy;& tcy;& ocy;& rcy;& ycy;& jcy; & gcy;& iecy;& ocy;& gcy;& rcy;& acy;& fcy;& icy;& chcy;& iecy;& scy;& kcy;& icy; & icy;& zcy;& ocy;& lcy;& icy;& rcy;& ocy;& vcy;& acy;& ncy; & ocy;& tcy; & dcy;& rcy;& ucy;& gcy;& icy;& khcy; & tscy;& iecy;& zcy;& scy;& kcy;& icy;& khcy; & yacy;& zcy;& ycy;& kcy;& ocy;& vcy; & icy; & ocy;& kcy;& rcy;& ucy;& zhcy;& iecy;& ncy; & scy;& iecy;& lcy;& acy;& mcy;& icy; & scy; & acy;& vcy;& acy;& rcy;& scy;& kcy;& icy;& mcy; & icy; & acy;& ncy;& dcy;& icy;& jcy;& scy;& kcy;& icy;& mcy;& icy; & yacy;& zcy;& ycy;& kcy;& acy;& mcy;& icy;, & dcy;& iecy;& mcy;& ocy;& ncy;& scy;& tcy;& rcy;& icy;& rcy;& ucy;& iecy;& tcy; & ucy;& ncy;& icy;& kcy;& acy;& lcy;& softcy;& ncy;& ocy;& iecy; & scy;& ocy;& chcy;& iecy;& tcy;& acy;& ncy;& icy;& iecy; & tcy;& rcy;& iecy;& khcy; & scy;& tcy;& rcy;& acy;& tcy;& iecy;& gcy;& icy;& jcy; & icy;& ncy;& tcy;& iecy;& gcy;& rcy;& acy;& tscy;& icy;& icy; & zcy;& acy;& icy;& mcy;& scy;& tcy;& vcy;& ocy;& vcy;& acy;& ncy;& ncy;& ycy;& khcy; & gcy;& lcy;& acy;& gcy;& ocy;& lcy;& ocy;& vcy;, & ocy;& pcy;& icy;& scy;& acy;& ncy;& ncy;& ycy;& khcy; & Vcy;& ocy;& lcy;& softcy;& gcy;& iecy;& mcy;& ucy;& tcy;& ocy;& mcy; (2009). & Dcy;& lcy;& yacy; & rcy;& ucy;& scy;& scy;& kcy;& icy;& khcy; & zcy;& acy;& icy;& mcy;& scy;& tcy;& vcy;& ocy;& vcy;& acy;& ncy;& icy;& jcy; & pcy;& rcy;& icy;& mcy;& iecy;& ncy;& yacy;& iecy;& tcy;& scy;& yacy; & scy;& tcy;& rcy;& acy;& tcy;& iecy;& gcy;& icy;& yacy; & lcy;& iecy;& gcy;& kcy;& ocy;& gcy;& ocy; & gcy;& lcy;& acy;& gcy;& ocy;& lcy;& acy;, & vcy; & tcy;& ocy; & vcy;& rcy;& iecy;& mcy;& yacy; & kcy;& acy;& kcy; & dcy;& lcy;& yacy; & acy;& vcy;& acy;& rcy;& scy;& kcy;& icy;& khcy; & icy; & acy;& ncy;& dcy;& icy;& jcy;& scy;& kcy;& icy;& khcy; & zcy;& acy;& icy;& mcy;& scy;& tcy;& vcy;& ocy;& vcy;& acy;& ncy;& icy;& jcy; & icy;& scy;& pcy;& ocy;& lcy;& softcy;& zcy;& ucy;& yucy;& tcy;& scy;& yacy; & kcy;& acy;& kcy; & pcy;& rcy;& yacy;& mcy;& acy;& yacy;, & tcy;& acy;& kcy; & icy; & ncy;& iecy;& pcy;& rcy;& yacy;& mcy;& acy;& yacy; & vcy;& scy;& tcy;& acy;& vcy;& kcy;& acy;. & Tcy;& acy;& kcy;& ocy;& iecy; & mcy;& ncy;& ocy;& gcy;& ocy;& ocy;& bcy;& rcy;& acy;& zcy;& icy;& iecy; & scy;& tcy;& rcy;& acy;& tcy;& iecy;& gcy;& icy;& jcy; & vcy; & ocy;& dcy;& ncy;& ocy;& mcy; & yacy;& zcy;& ycy;& kcy;& iecy; & yacy;& vcy;& lcy;& yacy;& iecy;& tcy;& scy;&AM & Kcy;& lcy;& yucy;& chcy;& iecy;& vcy;& ycy;& mcy; & fcy;& acy;& kcy;& tcy;& ocy;& rcy;& ocy;& mcy; & yacy;& vcy;& lcy;& yacy;& iecy;& tcy;& scy;& yacy; & scy;& tcy;& iecy;& pcy;& iecy;& ncy;& softcy; & dcy;& vcy;& ucy;& yacy;& zcy;& ycy;& chcy;& icy;& yacy; & icy; & icy;& ncy;& tcy;& iecy;& ncy;& scy;& icy;& vcy;& ncy;& ocy;& scy;& tcy;& softcy; & yacy;& zcy;& ycy;& kcy;& ocy;& vcy;& ycy;& khcy; & kcy;& ocy;& ncy;& tcy;& acy;& kcy;& tcy;& ocy;& vcy; & scy; & dcy;& ocy;& ncy;& ocy;& rcy;& acy;& mcy;& icy; & vcy; & rcy;& acy;& zcy;& lcy;& icy;& chcy;& ncy;& ycy;& khcy; & yacy;& zcy;& ycy;& kcy;& ocy;& vcy;& ycy;& khcy; & scy;& ocy;& ocy;& bcy;& shchcy;& iecy;& scy;& tcy;& vcy;& acy;& khcy;.[Russian]
Based on an analysis of the Old Literary Tibetan corpus-a corpus of the oldest documented Tibetic language-the present study provides evidence that literary Tibetan v3 verb stems (commonly termed 'future') initially encoded passive voice. New arguments put forward in this article range from Trans-Himalayan nominal morphology to early Tibetan practices in translating Sanskrit to the pragmatics of v3 in Old Literary Tibetan and are additionally buttressed by the modern understanding of the passive voice as established by comparative studies and linguistic typology. The reconstructed grammaticalisation path from the Proto-Tibetic nominaliser *g- via resultative participle towards passive marker agrees with a pattern well established cross-linguistically and ultimately confirms the analysis of v3 stems as passive.
In 1883, Henry Sweet took issue with James Platt junior, a 21-year-old language enthusiast. At the time, Platt was England's brightest young prospect in Old English linguistic studies. Sweet recognised Platt's talent, but he became convinced that he was also a plagiarist and tried to have him expelled from the Philological Society. Yet Sweet blew out of all proportion mistakes that were largely the result of Platt's lack of experience. In fact, Platt made several original and influential discoveries of his own that were never properly accredited to him. Furthermore, numerous corrections and improvements to the second edition of Eduard Sievers' Old English grammar (1886) are owed to Platt, yet Sievers failed to acknowledge his assistance in the grammar. This article offers a late appreciation of Platt's work on Old English and shows that he made important discoveries as an amateur philologist. Im Jahr 1883 kam es zu einer Auseinandersetzung zwischen Henry Sweet und dem 21-j & auml;hrigen Sprach-Enthusiasten James Platt junior. Platt galt damals als Englands bester Nachwuchsforscher auf dem Gebiet der altenglischen Sprachwissenschaft. Sweet erkannte zwar Platts Begabung an, warf diesem aber Plagiate vor und versuchte ihn aus der Philological Society auszuschlie ss en. Sweet hatte jedoch mit seinen Anschuldigungen ma ss los & uuml;bertrieben, denn Platts Fehler waren gr & ouml;ss tenteils auf seine mangelnde Erfahrung zur & uuml;ckzuf & uuml;hren. In Wirklichkeit machte Platt mehrere eigenst & auml;ndige und einflussreiche Entdeckungen, die ihm aber nie richtig zugeschrieben wurden. Dar & uuml;ber hinaus sind zahlreiche Korrekturen und Verbesserungen in der 2. Auflage von Eduard Sievers' Angels & auml;chsischer Grammatik (1886) Platt zu verdanken. Jedoch vers & auml;umte es Sievers, Platts Beitr & auml;ge in der Grammatik anzuerkennen. Dieser Artikel ist eine sp & auml;te W & uuml;rdigung von Platts Arbeiten zum Altenglischen und soll zeigen, dass Platt als Amateur-Philologe wichtige Erkenntnisse hervorgebrachte.[German]
Early stages of the Old West Germanic languages differ from the other two branches, Gothic and Norse, by showing remnants of a fifth case in a- and & omacr;-stem nouns. The forms in question, which have the ending -i or -u, are conventionally labelled 'instrumental' and cover a range of functions, such as instrument, means, comitative and locative. Otherwise, Germanic nouns have four major case forms: nominative, accusative, genitive and dative. These early and minor 'instrumental' forms soon merged with the dative. Whereas Old English only shows the ending -i, continental West Germanic languages have frequent -u alongside rare -i (the latter only in locative function). In this paper, I argue for two interacting developments. First, I argue that the source of the rare locative -i forms in continental West Germanic is different from that of the instrumental -i forms found in Old English. I do this by analysing the morphosemantic domain of each of these minor forms on a language-by-language basis. Second, I argue that the divergence of the instrumental morpheme between Old English (-i) and continental West Germanic (-u) has a causal link with the equally divergent paradigmatic structure of the feminine & omacr;-stems of Old English and continental West Germanic.
The history of the case systems of the Eastern Indo-Aryan languages is characterised by the radical reduction of the set of inherited nominal morphology, leaving only a generic oblique marker in the modern languages. At the same time, the case systems of these languages have been expanded through univerbation of postpositions, typically including a genitive, locative and a dative-accusative. However, the interaction of these two groups is not straightforward and key questions remain unanswered by existing sources on the topic such as Chatterji (1926; The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language). This article analyses the Cary & amacr;pada corpus, an invaluable record of an early stage of the Eastern Indo-Aryan languages, in order to resolve some of these issues. It is shown that at this stage the language had already largely transitioned towards the system seen in the modern languages. At the same time some conservative features remain, including agreement for gender and case on the innovative genitive suffix as well as a wide array of usages for the inherited oblique which the modern languages individually reflect only in part. This article contributes to discussions around the development of case paradigms, particularly the complex interactions that come into play between existing forms and innovative forms coalescing into a single system.
This article explores how ordinal numerals (like first, second and third) can help classify languages, focusing on the Semitic language family. Ordinals are often formed according to productive derivational processes, but as a separate word class, they may retain archaic morphology that is otherwise lost from the language. Together with the high propensity of 'first' and, less frequently, 'second' to be formed through suppletion, this makes them highly valuable for diachronic linguistic analysis. The article identifies four main patterns of ordinal formation across different Semitic languages. Together with innovations in the lowest two ordinals, these can be correlated with more and less accepted subgroupings within Semitic as a whole. Concretely, they offer support for the widely accepted West Semitic, Northwest Semitic and Abyssinian (Ethio-Semitic) clades as well as the recently proposed Aramaeo-Canaanite clade and provide new evidence for the further subclassification of Abyssinian that matches other recent proposals. However, no evidence was found to support the debated Central Semitic or South Semitic groupings. Given the accurate identification of accepted subgroupings and high level of detail, this approach holds promise for the classification of other language families, especially where other linguistic data are scarce.
