Latest documents http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/index/index/ Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:35:36 +0100 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:35:36 +0100 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/29573 Das Frühneuhochdeutsche hat ohne Zweifel als die morphologisch aktivste und dynamischste Periode der deutschen Sprachgeschichte zu gelten. Die morphologischen Umstrukturierungen, Neuordnungen und Rationalisierungen wirken bis heute nach. Dagegen sind die vorherigen Perioden Alt- und Mittelhochdeutsch primär durch phonologische Umbrüche gekennzeichnet: Einerseits durch zwei große Umlautphasen, bei denen Merkmale unbetonter Vokale regressiv auf den betonten Vokalismus projiziert wurden, andererseits durch Schwächung und Abbau nichtbetonter Vokale. Dieser phonologische Wandel hat das morphologische System massiv affiziert – nicht nur insofern, als suffigierend realisierte Kategorien in ihrer Realisierung bedroht waren, sondern indem auch "Verzerrungen" stattgefunden haben. So wurden durch den anfänglich rein phonetisch motivierten Umlaut Informationen, die bis dato nur in der Wortperipherie ausgedrückt wurden, "automatisch" in die Wurzel befördert – etwa die Kategorie 'Kasus' (Genitiv und Dativ im Singular) und 'Numerus' (Plural) bei Substantiven oder die Kategorie 'Modus' (Konjunktiv) beim starken Verb. Während manche dieser phonologischen »Angebote« in den folgenden Jahrhunderten von der Morphologie aufgegriffen und grammatikalisiert wurden, hat sie andere abgelehnt: Kasusumlaute beim Substantiv wurden in der sog. ersten (ahd.) und zweiten (mhd.) "paradigmatischen Ausscheidung von Umlautvarianten" (Sonderegger 1979, S. 308–310) per Analogie schon bald wieder aus der Wurzel beseitigt, Plural- und Konjunktivumlaute haben sich dagegen bis heute gehalten bzw. wurden sogar ausgebaut. Die Morphologie reagiert schnell auf phonologischen Wandel – und keineswegs erst dann, wenn sie in ihrem Bestand bedroht ist. Beim Substantiv besteht das wichtigste morphologische Ziel in der Numerusprofilierung, beim Verb in der Tempusprofilierung. Damaris Nübling; Antje Dammel article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/29573 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:35:36 +0100 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/26042 Klaus Eggensperger article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/26042 Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:35:05 +0100 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/26004 Hardarik Blühdorn; Alessandra Castilho Ferreira da Costa article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/26004 Sun, 30 Dec 2012 17:56:59 +0100 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/25983 Maria H. Battaglia article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/25983 Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:02:25 +0100 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/25757 Konrad Klimkowski article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/25757 Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:36:30 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/25611 Olha Bilynska article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/25611 Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:18:01 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/25610 Mykhaylo Bilynsky article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/25610 Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:14:28 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23280 U radu se analiziraju hibridne složenice – tvorenice sastavljene od germanizma i kajkavske riječi − u kajkavskome književnom jeziku. Istražuju se njihova čestotnost i struktura. Raspravlja se je li riječ o prevedenicama. Barbara Štebih article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23280 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:23:56 +0000 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23253 U radu se obrađuju načini tvorbe pridjeva, priloga, prijedloga, zamjenica i veznika na primjerima iz Tadijanovićeva djela „Svašta po malo“. Posebno se upozorava na tipove tvorba koji su neobični zbog značenja koje ima tvorenica, na tvorbu neuobičajenih tvorenica prema već postojećim modelima, na različite pristupe i tumačenja u određivanju tvorbenih načina te na odnos motiviranih i nemotiviranih riječi sa stajališta povijesne i suvremene tvorbe. Analizirani se primjeri uspoređuju s potvrdama iz „Rječnika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika JAZU“. Marijana Horvat; Ermina Ramadanović article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23253 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:41:43 +0000 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23251 U članku se opisuje morfonologija glagolske osnove u prezentskoj paradigmi na građi hrvatsko-crkvenoslavenskih (dalje: HCS) glagola s temeljnom osnovom na -i- u kojih tom završnom -i- prethodi zubni sonant: r, l, n (tj. tipa tvori-ti, moli-ti, brani-ti). U obzir su uzeti svi glagolski leksemi tog tipa iz kartoteke Rječnika crkvenoslavenskoga jezika hrvatske redakcije: 110 li-glagola, 127 ni-glagola i 83 ri-glagola i njihovi prezentski oblici. Metoda opisa je usporedba dotičnog fragmenta HCS gramatike sa staroslavenskim stanjem kao i sa stanjem u starohrvatskim (čakavskim) govorima. U staroslavenskom jeziku u prezentskoj je paradigmi tihglagola osnova okrnjena (tj. okrnjen je sufiks -i-) i pojavljuje se u dvije varijante: palatalnoj (u 1. licu jednine), i tvrdoj (u svim ostalim oblicima). Tako u prezentu nalazimo u osnovi alternacije r ~ ŕ, l ~ ĺ i n ~ ń. U HCS tekstovima morfonološki su najinovativniji ri-glagoli. Kako je u hrvatskom depalataliziran fonem ŕ, kod ri-glagola nije sačuvan staroslavenski morfonološki model. HCS građa ne pokazuje staroslavensku alternaciju r ~ ŕ, tj. kod ri-glagola nema variranja osnove u prezentu (okrnjena osnova u svim oblicima završava nepalatalnim suglasnikom). Kod li-glagola i ni-glagola staroslavenski je morfonološki model očuvan. Međutim, u tekstovima su ipak potvrđene rijetke devijacije od tog modela. Naime, usprkos postojanju grafijskoga sredstva za označavanje palatalnosti fonema ĺ i ń ispred gramatičkog morfema 1. lica jednine -u (tj. uporaba slova ű iza l, n), neki su pisari u rijetkim slučajevima izostavljali označavanje palatalnosti, tj. pisali grafem u (molu, branu). Autorica predlaže različita moguća objašnjenja te pogreške i utvrđuje u kojoj je mjeri ta pojava ograničena na određene HCS tekstove. Sofija Gadžijeva article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23251 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:17:37 +0000 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23266 Autori se u članku bave deklinacijom brojeva dva, oba, tri i četiri u kajkavskim tekstovima pravne regulative od 16. do 18. stoljeća. Kao korpus za jezičnu analizu uzimaju 23 teksta iz 16. st., 40 tekstova iz 17. st. i 19 tekstova iz 18. st. U jezičnoj se analizi posebna pažnja posvećuje usporedbi između oblika dvojine i množine u deklinaciji brojeva dva i oba, kao i razvoju množinskih oblika u deklinaciji brojeva tri i četiri. Autori navode sve zabilježene oblike brojeva dva, oba, tri i četiri, uspoređuju njihovu pojavnost u različitom vremenskom presjeku i na temelju rezultata jezične analize nude deklinacijski tip navedenih brojeva. Deklinacija brojeva u kosim padežima promatra se s obzirom na to jesu li navedeni brojevi dijelom prijedložnih ili neprijedložnih izraza, a posebno je pitanje učestalosti indeklinabilnih oblika. Boris Kuzmić; Martina Kuzmić article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23266 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:04:56 +0000 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23257 U članku se raspravlja o starosti triju “nenarodnih” tvorbenih uzoraka imeničkih složenica u hrvatskom jeziku. Amir Kapetanović article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/23257 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:34:48 +0000 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/22462 Predmet je rada promjena glagolskoga prefiksa od- u o-. Daju se uvjeti te promjene i prostor na kojem se ona događa. Popisuju se glagoli u kojima se ona dogodila. Jurica Budja article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/22462 Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:17:53 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/22431 U članku se podastire građa imeničnih i-osnova prikupljena terenskim istraživanjem u selu Orubica u zapadnoj Posavini. Kratko se predstavlja arhaičan orubički staroštokavski govor te se analiziraju neki naglasni i morfološki aspekti i-sklonidbe u Orubici. Mate Kapović article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/22431 Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:34:00 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/15123 Par contraste avec le construction prénominales, la relative nominalisée à antécédent interne n'est attestée dans la région himalayenne qu'en tibétain. Balthasar Bickel article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/15123 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:25:50 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14866 This paper presents the first results of a comprehensive project on comparative Tibeto-Burman (TB) morpho-syntax. Data on morphological forms and typological patterns were collected from one hundred fifty-one languages and dialects in the TB family. For this paper the data were surveyed for nominal 'ergative' or agentive case marking (postpositions), in an attempt to determine if it would be possible to reconstruct an ergative case marker to Proto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB), and in so doing learn more about the nature of grammatical organization in PTB. Ablative, instrumental, genitive, locative, and other case forms were also surveyed for possible cognacy with ergative forms, as suggested in DeLancey 1984. Randy J. LaPolla article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14866 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:46:23 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14865 In attempting to understand the history of the morphology of a language or group of languages, we occasionally face a problem of isomorphy, where two or more semantic categories evince the same formal marking. We then must decide which use of that particular form of marking is the oldest, and also determine the possible source and path of development of the marking. In languages with written documents of great time depth this is often not a problem, but in unwritten languages it can be quite difficult. This paper discusses two tools that can be used for this purpose: the concepts of markedness and prototypes. Randy J. LaPolla article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14865 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:37:20 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14863 Randy J. LaPolla article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14863 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:21:58 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14855 For this paper, 170 Tibeto-Burman languages were surveyed for nominal ease marking (adpositions), in an attempt to determine ifit would be possible to reeonstruet any ease markers to Proto· Tibeto-Burman, and in so doing leam more about the nature of the grammatieal organization of Proto-Tibeto-Burman. The data were also eross-cheeked for patterns of isomorphy/polysemy, to see ifwe can leam anything about the development ofthe forms we da find in the languages. The results of the survey indicate that although a11 Tibeto-Bunnan languages have developed some sort of relation marking, none of the markers ean be reconstrueted to the oldest stage of the family. Looking at the patterns of isomorphy or polysemy, we find there are regularities to the patterns we find, and on the basis of these regularities we can make assurne that the path of development most probably followed the markedness/prototypicality clines: the locative and ablative use would have arose first and then were extended to the more abstract cases. Randy J. LaPolla article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14855 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:11:50 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14852 A survey of 170 Tibeto-Burman languages showed 69 with a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns, 18 of which also show inclusive- exclusive in Idual. Only the Kiranti languages and some Chin languages have inclusive-exclusive in the person marking. Of the forms of the pronouns involved in the inclusive-exclusive opposition, usually the exclusive form is less marked and historically prior to the inclusive form, and we find the distinction cannot be reconstructed to Proto-Tibeto-Burman or to mid level groupings. Qnly the Kiranti group has marking of the distinction that can be reconstructed to the proto level, and this is also reflected in the person-marking system. Randy J. LaPolla article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14852 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:41:34 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14732 The Germanic perfect presents (Präteritopräsentien) form a past tense by adding the endings of the weak preterit to the stem of the past participle, e.g. Go. wissa ‘knew’. This is a recent formation (cf. Kortlandt 1989). We may therefore ask ourselves if we can reconstruct the earlier formation which was ousted by the weak preterit. We may also try to recover the motivation for the replacement. Frederik H. H. Kortlandt article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14732 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:17:17 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14730 In her discussion of the Japanese adversative passive, Anna Wierzbicka writes (1988: 260): “The problem is extremely interesting and important both for intrinsic reasons and because of its wider methodological implications. It can be formulated like this: if one form can be used in a number of different ways, are we entitled to postulate for it a number of different meanings or should we rather search for one semantic common denominator (regarded as the MEANING of the form in question) and attribute the variety of uses to the interaction between this meaning and the linguistic or extralinguistic context?” Though it “may seem obvious” that the second stand is “methodologically preferable” (261), she takes the first position and concludes that “the Japanese passive has to be recognized as multiply ambiguous” (286). In the following I intend to show that this view is both wrong and fruitful. Frederik H. H. Kortlandt article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14730 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:51:43 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14728 The main difficulty with the Germanic weak preterit is that one cannot endeavor an explanation of its origin without taking into account almost every aspect of the historical phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages. In the following I intend to show how a number of problems receive a natural explanation in a unified treatment on the basis of earlier studies. The theory presented here is not revolutionary, but aims at integrating earlier findings into a coherent whole. There is no reason to give a detailed account of the scholarly literature, which is easily accessible (cf. Tops 1974, Bammesberger 1986). Frederik H. H. Kortlandt article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14728 Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:16:02 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14725 Frederik H. H. Kortlandt article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14725 Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:40:50 +0200 http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14632 A correct interpretation of the genitive plural forms in Slavic and related languages requires a detailed chronological analysis of the material. At every stage of development we have to reckon with both phonetically regular and analogical forms. Analogy operates quite often along the same lines in different periods. Explaining an analogic change amounts to indicating a model, a motivation, and a stage of development for its effectuation. If one of these cannot be indicated, we must look for a phonetic explanation. Frederik H. H. Kortlandt article http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/14632 Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:21:26 +0200