Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Other (41) (remove)
Language
- English (41) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (41)
Keywords
- Abraham Geiger (1)
- Atomic force microscopy (1)
- Blackall (1)
- Brauch (1)
- Brownian dynamics simulation (1)
- Chanukka (1)
- Disticha Catonis (1)
- Eric Albert (1)
- Freude (1)
- Gluckel von Hameln (1)
Institute
- Universitätsbibliothek (6)
- Extern (3)
- Biochemie und Chemie (1)
- Präsidium (1)
- Rechtswissenschaft (1)
Yiddish Theatre Forum
(2002)
The Yiddish Theatre Forum (YTF), published under the auspices of Mendele, was founded in 2002 to foster greater interaction among scholars, artists, librarians, and lay people interested in the history of Yiddish theatre and drama. In addition to serving as a clearing house for queries about Yiddish theatre personnel, plays, and productions, the YTF publishes a variety of articles, reviews, and guides. So far these have included brief articles analyzing individual plays; guides to library and archival resources in the United States, Europe, and South Africa; and book reviews. Recent years have brought a number of important new studies of Yiddish theatre. New books and scholarly articles have examined Yiddish theatre and drama in the Americas, Eastern and Western Europe, and more distant hubs like Australia and South Africa. Such works have been undertaken by scholars based in many different countries, working in a variety of fields, and with a corresponding range of methodological approaches. The central purpose of the Yiddish Theatre Forum is to provide a place online where professional and lay students of Yiddish theatre can exchange ideas and information. Queries and other postings to the YTF can be sent directly to the Editor at yankl@albany.edu. Editorial Board Joel Berkowitz (University at Albany), Editor Leonard Prager (Haifa University), Senior Advisor Zachary Baker (Stanford University Libraries) Miroslawa Bułat (Jagiellonian University, Cracow) Avrom Greenbaum (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) Barbara Henry (University of Washington, Seattle) David Mazower (BBC / Independent Scholar) Nina Warnke (University of Texas at Austin) Seth Wolitz (University of Texas at Austin)
Yedies - YIVO News
(1999)
Each issue of Yedies includes articles about exciting new YIVO projects, major grants received, and new materials received by the Archives and Library, as well as letters from readers and news about upcoming events.
Women and Halakha Shiur
(2008)
In this paper I will discuss the formation of different types of yes/no questions in Serbian (examples in (1)), focusing on the syntactically and semantically puzzling example (1d), which involves the negative auxiliary inversion. Although there is a negative marker on the fronted auxiliary, the construction does not involve sentential negation. This coincides with the fact that the negative quantifying NPIs cannot be licensed. The question formation and sentential negation have similar syntactic effects cross-linguistically. This has led to various attempts to formulate a unifying syntactic account of the phenomena (ever since Klima 1964). One striking fact about the two syntactic contexts is that both license weak NPIs (Negative Polarity Items). It has been suggested (cf. Laka 1990, Culicover 1991) that the derivation of both interrogatives and negatives involves the same type of functional projection PolP (polarity phrase). One such account of the formation of negative interrogatives in Serbo- Croatian is offered by Progovac (2005). She proposes that there are two PolPs optionally cooccurring in the same clause, in which both positive and negative polarity items check their positive or negative features (following Haegeman and Zanuttini (1991) feature-checking account of negative structures, and the insights of Brown(1999) on the negation in Russian). On her account, the negative auxiliary question in (1d), is the case when both polarity phrases are present. The higher has [-pos +neg] features, and the lower one (below TP) is [-pos -neg]. Although her account correctly predicts the ungrammaticality of (2a) in contrast with (1c), it wrongly predicts the (2b) to be grammatical. I will argue that Progovac’s theory regarding the nature of the PolP is wrong. It employs both the binary feature valuation on the polarity head and the hierarchical ordering of the two polarity phrases, which eventually leads to overgeneration. On the account presented here the nature of the question marker (li vs zar) is highly relevant. Notice that (1b) and (1d) express presuppositions regarding the truth value of the propositions. In this way they contrast with (1a) and (1c). In addition, the type (1b) (with the question particle zar) can introduce both the positive and negative presupposition as shown in (3), which, semantically, makes this construction compatible with negative auxiliary questions in English (4a). The polarity items licensed in the relevant structures are also of the same type in both languages. The fronted-negative-auxiliary questions (1d) in Serbian are only possible with the particle li. In this case the presupposition is exclusively positive. The peculiar question/focus marking function of li (in Bulgarian and Russian) is well known. However, it is always assumed that its focus marking role is not relevant for the formation of yes/no questions. This I believe is not correct. The syntactic explanation of the interpretational facts points to the following: A) The possibility of the separate lexical encoding (particle zar) of the ‘rhetorical’ yes/no questions in Serbian allows the embedding of both positive and negated sentences, in which case the (weak) NPIs can remain in local relation with the negated verb. B) Recall that Serbian is an NC language, which requires local/c-command relation between the verbal negative marker and the NPI. With the negative inverted auxiliary questions this condition is not met, and the licensing of an n-word is not possible. C) The impossibility of licensing a weak NPI (i-words in the examples below) is due to the nature of the question marker li. (1) a. Da li je Vera videla ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? DA Q aux Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Did Vera see anyone/someone/noone?” b. Zar je Vera videla ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? ZAR aux Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Is it really the fact that Vera saw anyone/someone?” c. Je li Vera videla ikoga / nekoga /*nikoga? aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Did Vera see anyone/someone/noone?” d. Nije li Vera videla *ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Didn’t Vera see someone?”/ “Vera saw someone, didn’t she?” (2) a. *Nije li Vera videla nikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg noone b. *Nije li Vera videla ikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone (3) a. Zar je Vera videla nekoga / ikoga? ZAR aux Vera see.part.F.Sg someone/anyone b. Zar Vera nije videla nekoga/nikoga? ZAR Vera neg+aux see.part.F.Sg someone/anyone (4) a. Didn’t Vera (NOT) see someone/anyone? b. Vera saw someone, didn’t she?