Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (55)
- Part of a Book (21)
- Working Paper (7)
- Review (6)
- Preprint (3)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Book (1)
- Report (1)
Language
- German (44)
- English (31)
- Croatian (17)
- mis (3)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (96)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (96)
Keywords
- Deutsch (21)
- Kroatisch (12)
- Dialektologie (6)
- Lautwandel (6)
- Schweizerdeutsch (6)
- Sprachstatistik (6)
- Sprachwandel (6)
- Historische Sprachwissenschaft (5)
- Mittelhochdeutsch (5)
- Sprachgeschichte (5)
Institute
- Extern (16)
U radu se analizira sintaktička funkcija participa u hrvatskome jeziku 15./16. st. jer su se otprilike u to vrijeme u sintaktičkom ustrojstvu (staro)hrvatskoga jezika događale vrlo krupne jezične promjene, koje su posljedica “departicipijalizacije” participa, tj. preobrazbe naslijeđenih participnih oblika u glagolske priloge.
Autorica donosi osnovne informacije o knjizi Kinch oſzebuini i njegovu autoru, osvrće se na onimiju, antroponimiju i osobna imena osoba koje se u djelu spominju. Središnji dio rada posvećen je prezimenima zasvjedočenim u Kinchu oſzebuinome – prikazuju se tipovi identifikacijskih formula dio kojih su prezimena, ilustrira posredan način imenovanja pojedinca te promatra pojavnost prezimena iz Kincha oſzebuinog u Leksiku prezimena.
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.
U članku se prikazuje razvoj miljevačkoga prezimenskoga sustava od prvih prezimena zabilježenih u matičnim knjigama potkraj 17. stoljeća do prezimena koja se javljaju tek potkraj 19. stoljeća. Utvrđuje se koja su prezimena u međuvremenu ugašena, tj. koja su nestala zbog izumiranja loze ili zamjene novim prezimenom, najčešće dotadašnjim obiteljskim nadimkom. Analiziraju se motivacijsko-strukturna svojstva današnjih miljevačkih prezimena i njihovo jezično podrijetlo.
Književnojezična norma franjevačkih pisaca 18. St. : sastavnica jezičnostandardizacijskih procesa
(2007)
Važnom sastavnicom hrvatskoga predstandardnoga jezika smatra se koine franjevačke književnosti 18. st. Izrasla iz pisane prakse bosanskih franjevaca 17. st., obogaćena u jeziku hrvatskih franjevaca izraznim sredstvima pučkeknjiževnosti, već je u 18. st. pokazivala obilježja standardiziranosti: polifunkcinonalnost, preskriptivnost i neovisnost o organskim idiomima. Koine je opisana u franjevačkim gramatikama, što je naznaka normativnih tendencija.
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“.
This paper discusses the use of comparative data when describing a particular language. That is, even tho ugh we might be describing one variety, we can gain insights into the development of that variety from comparisons with related varieties. The examples presented are from the Rawang and Dulong languages. two closely related Tibeto-Burman languages in Myanmar and China respectively. We see that comparison with Dulong data can help us to understand the development of the applicative benefactive in Rawang. and comparison with Rawang can help us understand the development of the verbal first-person plural long vowels and nominal agentive marking long vowels in Dulong.
In this paper, we will argue for a novel analysis of the auxiliary alternation in Early English, its development and subsequent loss which has broader consequences for the way that auxiliary selection is looked at cross-linguistically. We will present evidence that the choice of auxiliaries accompanying past participles in Early English differed in several significant respects from that in the familiar modern European languages. Specifically, while the construction with have became a full-fledged perfect by some time in the ME period, that with be was actually a stative resultative, which it remained until it was lost. We will show that this accounts for some otherwise surprising restrictions on the distribution of BE in Early English and allows a better understanding of the spread of HAVE through late ME and EModE. Perhaps more importantly, the Early English facts also provide insight into the genesis of the kind of auxiliary selection found in German, Dutch and Italian. Our analysis of them furthermore suggests a promising strategy for explaining cross-linguistic variation in auxiliary selection in terms of variation in the syntactico-semantic structure of the perfect. In this introductory section, we will first provide some background on the historical situation we will be discussing, then we will lay out the main claims for which we will be arguing in the paper.
Aramaic is not among the oldest Semitic languages in a strictly chronological sense, but among those languages which are still spoken today, it has the longest continuous written tradition. The existing written documents span a period of three millennia and thus enable us to study language history in a long-term perspective. It is very important, in this respect, that the latest stage of development of Aramaic, Neo-Aramaic, still exists in a multitude of spoken varieties which can be studied in vivo. We can thus describe the phonetics and phonology of the modern varieties with more precision than is possible for the older language stages, which in turn enables us to draw conclusions on diachronic sound change. Likewise, we can study morphology and syntax not only from recorded texts, but we also have recourse to native speakers in order to clarify doubtful points. Thus the latest stage of Aramaic casts a strong light back into the past. It is therefore most unfortunate that many Aramaicists and Syrologists show so little interest in this living heritage.
In the course of the ME period, HAVE began to encroach on territory previously held by BE. According to Rydén and Brorström (1987); Kytö (1997), this occurred especially in iterative and durational contexts, in the perfect infinitive and modal constructions. In Early Modern English (henceforth EModE), BE was increasingly restricted to the most common intransitives come and go, before disappearing entirely in the 18th and 19th centuries. This development raises a number of questions, both historical and theoretical. First, why did HAVE start spreading at the expense of BE in the first place? Second, why was the change conditioned by the factors mentioned by Rydén and Brorström (1987) and Kytö (1997)? Third, why did the change take on the order of 800 years to go to completion? Fourth, what implications does the change have for general theories of auxiliary selection? In this paper we’ll try to answer the first question by focusing on one the earliest clearly identifiable advance of HAVE onto BE territory – its first appearance with the verb come, which for a number of reasons is an ideal verb to focus on. First, come is by far the most common intransitive verb, so we get large enough numbers for statistical analysis. Second, clauses containing the past participle of come with a form of BE are unambiguous perfects: they cannot be passives, and they did not continue into modern English with a stative reading like he is gone. Third, and perhaps most importantly, come selected BE categorically in the early stages of English, so the first examples we find with HAVE are clear evidence for innovation. We will present evidence from a corpus study showing that the first spread of HAVE was due to a ban on auxiliary BE in certain types of counterfactual perfects, and will propose an account for that ban in terms of Iatridou’s (2000) Exclusion theory of counterfactuals.