Linguistik-Klassifikation: Morphologie / Morphology
35 search hits
-
The Proto-Germanic pluperfect
(2007)
-
Frederik H. H. Kortlandt
- 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.
-
The inclusive-exclusive distinction in Tibeto-Burman languages
(2005)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- 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.
-
On nominal relational morphology in Tibeto-Burman
(2004)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- 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.
-
Valency-changing derivations in Dulong/Rawang
(2000)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
-
On the utility of the concepts of markedness and prototypes in understanding the development of morphological systems
(1995)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- 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.
-
Ergative marking in Tibeto-Burman
(1995)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- 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.
-
Relatives à antécédent interne, nominalisation et focalisation : entre syntaxe et morphologie en bélharien
(1995)
-
Balthasar Bickel
- Par contraste avec le construction prénominales, la relative nominalisée à antécédent interne n'est attestée dans la région himalayenne qu'en tibétain.
-
Naglasak imeničnih i-osnovâ u Orubici
(2010)
-
Mate Kapović
- 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.
-
O- kao fakultativni alomorf glagolskoga prefiksa od-
(2009)
-
Jurica Budja
- 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.
-
Morfonološki model palatalizacije zubnih sonanta u 1. licu jednine prezenta u hrvatskom crkvenoslavenskom jeziku
(2007)
-
Sofija Gadžijeva
- 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.
