400 Sprache
Refine
Year of publication
- 2005 (92) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (30)
- Part of a Book (28)
- Conference Proceeding (15)
- Preprint (9)
- Book (4)
- Report (3)
- diplomthesis (1)
- Other (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (65)
- German (24)
- Danish (1)
- Portuguese (1)
- Turkish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (92)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (92)
Keywords
- Phonetik (7)
- Deutsch (4)
- Englisch (3)
- Indogermanische Sprachen (3)
- Informationsstruktur (3)
- Lexikologie (3)
- Slawische Sprachen (3)
- Übersetzung (3)
- Baltische Sprachen (2)
- Familienname (2)
Institute
- Extern (18)
- Neuere Philologien (2)
- Sprachwissenschaften (1)
Bis heute bildet die Morphologie keinen Schwerpunkt der Dialektlinguistik. Dies wird immer wieder moniert. H. Tatzreiter (1994) kommt nach seinem Streifzug durch die "Bibliographie zur Grammatik der deutschen Dialekte" von P. Wiesinger / E. Raffin (1982) zu dem Ergebnis, "daß die Leistungskurve im grammatischen Bereich ,von der Lautlehre über die Formen- und Wortbildungslehre bis zur Satzlehre' steil abfällt" (S. 30 bzw. P. Wiesinger / E. Raffin 1982, S. XXIX). Ein weiteres Problem sieht er in der besonders durch die angelsächsische Tradition motivierten Vernachlässigung der Morphologie die zwischen der phonologischen, lexikalischen und syntaktischen Ebene ein gefährdetes Dasein fristet" (S. 30): "So lange die Morphologie sich nicht aus der 'Umklammerung' der Phonologie und Syntax lösen kann, um eigenständig als Forschungsobjekt zu gelten, wird es um die umfassende Erforschung und Darstellung schlecht bestellt sein" (S. 34).
Typology and complexity
(2005)
For the Workshop I was asked to talk about complexity in language from a typological perspective. My way of approaching this topic was to ask myself some questions, and then see where the answers led. The first one was of course, "What sort of system are we looking at complexity in - what kind of system is language?"
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.
Chao Yuen Ren (1892–1982)
(2005)
Y. R. Chao is easily the most famous linguist to have come out of China. Born before the end of the last dynasty in China, he received a traditional Confucian education, but was also one of the first Chinese people to be sent to the West for training in modern Western science (under the Boxer Indemnity Fund). The remarkable breadth and scope of his studies included physics, mathematics, linguistics, musical and literary composition, and translation, and he was a pioneer in many of these fields.
Erdvilas Jakulis’ thorough, detailed and comprehensive study (2004) is an important contribution to our reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system. The following remarks are intended to complement his findings from a Slavic perspective. Jakulis demonstrates that the type of Lith. tekèti, teka ‘flow’ is largely of East Baltic provenance. He finds it difficult to identify the same type in Old Prussian.
It is gratifying to see that Jay Jasanoff has now (2004) adopted my theory that "the Balto-Slavic acute was a kind of stød or broken tone" (p. 172), which I have been advocating since 1973. Unfortunately, his acceptance of my view is not based on an evaluation of the comparative evidence (for which see Kortlandt 1985a) but on his desire to derive Balto-Slavic “acute” and "circumflex" syllables from the "bimoric" and "trimoric" long vowels which he assumes for Proto-Germanic as the reflexes of the Indo-European "acute" and "circumflex" tones of the neogrammarians. Since the original "circumflex" was limited to Indo-European VHV-sequences, Jasanoff proposes a whole series of additional lengthenings yielding "hyperlong" vowels in Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, which still do not suffice to eliminate the counter-evidence (cf. Kortlandt 2004b: 14). The reason for this failure is his unwillingness to recognize that lengthened grade vowels are circumflex in Balto-Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 1997a).
The highly successful conference on Balto-Slavic accentology organized by Mate Kapovic and Ranko Matasovic has given much food for thought. It has clarified the extent of fundamental disagreements as well as established areas of common interest where the evidence seems to be ambiguous. In the following I shall comment upon some of the papers presented at the conference which are directly relevant to my own research.
Holger Pedersen’s "Études lituaniennes" reflects the issues under discussion at the time of its publication (1933). Its five unequal chapters deal with the following topics: I. The Lithuanian future and its Indo-European origins: the sigmatic formation, the 3rd person zero ending, the short root vowels e and a, the shortening and metatony in the 3rd person, and the future participle. II. The accentuation of nouns in Lithuanian: accentual mobility in the Indo- European consonant stems and its absence in the o-stems, the origins of accentual mobility in Lithuanian nominal paradigms, the accentuation of separate case forms, and accentual peculiarities of the adjective. III. The acute tone of the root in consonant stems. IV. The past active participle. V. Secondary vocalic alternations: new vowel length and new acute tone.
Hittite ammuk 'me'
(2005)
In the Indo-European department of Leiden University, Alwin Kloekhorst has initiated a discussion on Hittite ammuk ‘me’. The central question is: where did the geminate come from? This has led me to reconsider the origin of the Indo-European personal pronouns against the background of my reconstruction of Indo-Uralic (2002: 221-225). For the historical data I may refer to Schmidt (1978).