Drawing on an article by Tristano Bolelli (Alcuni problemi di metodo nella linguistica indoeuropea, 1968), in which the training role of the method of Indo-European studies in linguistic studies is emphasised, this paper proposes a historiographical reconstruction of the origin of the idea that Indo-European linguistics provided a lesson in methodology starting with the work of Franz Bopp.
This paper deals with the ancient month-names of the so-called “Cappadocian Calendar,” which was transmitted by several Byzantine manuscripts: the most relevant are the Laurentianus, Plut. 28.26, the Leidensis BPG 78, and the Vaticanus gr. 1291, but many other codices are known and were described by Western scholars during the last five centuries. The first pieces of information about the Cappadocian Calendar can be found in 16th-century treatises on astronomy and chronological calculations written in Latin. The state-of-the-art of the philological issues concerning the manuscript tradition, the secondary sources, and the former linguistic interpretations of the month-names are thoroughly presented in the first part of the work. In the second part, the etymologies of the philologically ascertained forms are offered. The linguistic results of the research validate the thesis that the “Cappadocian Calendar” dates back to the 4th century BC and contains Proto-Middle-Persian names, which confirm the Mazdaean origins of the Calendar. These terms mostly correspond to Young Avestan and New Persian month-names attested both in Iranian and Western texts.
This paper deals with the expression of plurality in Thai, a classifier language part of the controversial Tai-Kadai family. Although it does not present a specific morphological mark of number, as it is usually the case in classifier languages, Thai has four main morpho-syntactic strategies to express plurality. Apart from the bare nouns, which could function as singular or plural, Thai speakers may use reduplication, albeit only on a limited number of lexical entities, the insertion of the morpheme phûak ‘group’, and the creation of a complex noun structure with either a general quantifier or a numeral. These different strategies will be presented by stressing their correlation with the syntactic structure of the noun phrase and the relation between the number/quantifier and the classifier, by arguing that these strategies correspond to different types of plural markers.
The northern Salentino vowel system, provided with five stressed vowels, is nowadays conceived as an original Sicilian system, later influenced by the Neapolitan one. Indeed, each of the two mid vowels shows two different metaphonic outcomes (/ɛ‒MET/ ~ /i+MET, jɛ+MET/; /ɔ‒MET/ ~ /u+MET, wɛ+MET/), by producing a underlying phonological heptavocalic system. I argue that such a vowel configuration is irregular from a diachronic phonetic development, rather depending as a whole on the rise of morphological patterns. The difference between intra- and inter-paradigmatic morphological schemas can be responsible for the major preservation of the Sicilian vowel system in the 1st class femm. adjectives and nouns, if compared with its rare retention in the 3rd class nouns and 2nd class adjectives.
The paper addresses the relation between the gəzêrāh šāwāh, which is an analogy-based argumentative strategy typical of rabbinic exegesis, and so-called combined citations, that is, combinations of disparate Old Testament passages into a single quotation. Although gəzêrōṯ šāwōṯ and combined citations represent neatly different devices, a clear dividing line is not always traced in the literature, as both exhibits a few similarities. By examining some cases of combined citations in Paul’s letters, I discuss the similarities and the differences between gəzêrōṯ šāwōṯ and combined citations. The investigation reveals that Paul skillfully adapted the rabbinic technique into a citation strategy.
This paper argues that parametric theories should account for statistically significant associations between syntactic variables that are logically and historically independent. Associations, which do not necessarily imply causation, suggest that syntactic variation is limited by abstract constraints (Parameters), which are not categorical rules. Counterexamples, which are always found in microvariation contexts, do not necessarily lead to the refutation of solid associations and, consequently, to the refutation of parametric models. It is argued that parametric models should be sufficiently plastic to adapt to unexpected patterns that are learnt from experience.
In the Indo-European languages, the nominative is generally considered a purely grammatical case, excluded from circumstantial functions. There are, however, in the Baltic languages, circumstantial uses of the nominative in certain temporal expressions, e.g. Lithuanian jau mėnuo tėvas serga ‘the father has been ill for a month; it is one month that the father has been ill’ (nominative singular mėnuo). The aim of this paper is to present the specific uses of the temporal nominative in the Baltic languages and to explain their origin. A comparison with Greek and Latin shows the antiquity of the construction with the nominative. Three explanations of the temporal nominative can be suggested: (1°) ellipsis of a conjunction (‘already one monthNOM.SG [that] the father is ill’), (2°) syntactic contamination (‘already one monthNOM.SG that the father is ill’ x ‘during one monthACC.SG the father is ill’) or (3°) inclusion of a parenthetical structure (‘it is already one monthNOM.SG, the father is sick’). The last explanation would rely on parallels from other Indo-European languages, notably the Latin type nudius tertius ‘two days ago’ < ‘now [it is] the third day’.
Armenian loanwords represent a historically significant part of Early Romani lexicon. The number of loanwords that can be traced back to this exogenous layer consists of about 50 lexemes. The phonetic shape shown by the Armenian loanwords in Romani implies that they have been acquired before the 11th century in a dialectal area that had not undergone the so-called 2nd Armenian consonant shift. The paper discusses some general issues regarding the Armenian layer in Romani and proposes some new observations about the phonological integration of Arm. ǝ and the loanwords endanis 'famliy' and patragi 'Easter, feast'. Finally, an Armenian origin is proposed for the Romani word xem 'edge of the sieve'.
It is argued that Arm. zowr ‘vain’ is the derivational basis of zroyc‘ ‘talk’ with a semantic shift from ‘idle talk’ to ‘talk’. -oyc‘ may be a case-form of a decasuative derivative of the underlying nominal zowr, i.e., *zroy → *zroyk‘, zroyc‘.
This study challenges the alleged parallel between Latin queo ‘I can’ and Sanskrit yā- ‘to be possible’. Though sharing some similarities (e.g., motion as a source domain, negative polarity contexts), they exhibit significant differences. Queo is personally constructed and typically conveys participant-related possibility, while yā-constructions are linked to agent demotion. The passive meaning of yā- in personal constructions and its possible connection to modality are also briefly addressed.
As is well-known, the descriptive grammars of the European languages started to regularly include a chapter on word-formation after Bopp’s work (Lindner 2015). However, the grammars of the Semitic languages, the philosophical grammars of German, the grammars of Sanskrit and some missionary grammars include such chapter even before Bopp. Among these, the German grammars were subject to some recent studies (Alfieri 2018, 2019), while the remaining groups of grammars have never been discussed in this perspective. The present paper aims to fill the gap by analysing the treatment of word-formation in the grammars of Sanskrit written before Bopp (1827).
This paper examines two Greek inscriptions written in Babylon during the Parthian period with specific focus on the sections containing double dating formulas. Unfortunately, both inscriptions – particularly the first – are damaged. This paper shows that strong evidence in favor of one of the text reconstructions proposed by scholars can be obtained by means of an analysis combining the methods and tools of philology and historical (socio)linguistics. Evidence from other languages is also considered.
