490 Andere Sprachen
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (13) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (13)
Keywords
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen (2)
- Arabisch (1)
- Dialekt (1)
- Marker <Linguistik> (1)
- Nungisch (1)
- Phonetik (1)
- Retroflex (1)
- Slawische Sprachen (1)
- Standardsprache (1)
Institute
- Extern (6)
- Neuere Philologien (1)
Ḥoveret taḳtsirim : kenes ha-Ḥevrah ha-Geologit 2018 : Yiśraʿel-Ḳafrisin 25.03.2018 - 29.03.2018
(2018)
In terms of the direction of development, I referred to Johanna Nichols' work on head-marking vs. dependant marking. Nichols did not make reference to any languages in Tibeto-Burman, but all of the Tibeto-Burman languages that do not have verb agreement systems are solidly dependent-marking (i.e., they have marking on the nouns for case or pragmatic function); those languages with verb agreement systems, a type of head marking, also have many dependent-marking features (of the same types as the non-pronominalized languages). The question, then, is which is older, the dependent-marking type or the headmarking (actually mixed) type?
Rawang (Rvwàng) is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in the far north of Myanmar (Burma), and is closely related to the Dulong language spoken in China. Rawang manifests a kind of hierarchical person marking on the predicate which marks first person primarily (in several different ways - suffixes, change of final consonant, vowel length - and up to five times within one verb complex), and second person indirectly with a sort of marking similar to the inverse marking found in some North American languages: it appears when there is a first person participant, but that referent is not the actor, and when the second person is a participant. This system is quite different from those that reflect semantic role (e.g. Qiang) or grammatical relations (e.g. English).
Twenty years ago I discussed the oldest isoglosses in the South Slavic linguistic area (1982). Subscribing to Van Wijk’s view that the bundle of isoglosses which separates Bulgarian from Serbo-Croatian was the result of an early split in South Slavic and that the transitional dialects originated from a later mixture of Serbian and Bulgarian dialects when the contact between the two languages had been restored (1927), I argued that the shared innovations of Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian must be dated to a period when the dialects were still spoken in the original Trans-Carpathian homeland of the Slavs. I concluded that there is no evidence for common innovations of South Slavic which were posterior to the end of what I have called the Late Middle Slavic period, which I dated to the 4th through 6th centuries AD. At that time, the major dialect divisions of Slavic were already established.
In der arabischen Welt herrscht eine sehr alte und stabile Situation der Diglossie, d.h. des funktional geregelten Nebeneinanders von zwei historischen Entwicklungsstufen der gleichen Sprache. Das Moderne Hocharabisch ist eine konservierte Form des Klassischen Arabisch. Es genießt hohes Ansehen und dient als Schriftsprache, wird aber nicht muttersprachlich erworben, sondern durch Unterricht erlernt. Im mündlichen und informellen Bereich werden die jeweiligen Dialekte verwendet; sie sind die natürliche Muttersprache der Bevölkerung, genießen jedoch keinerlei Ansehen. Da die Hochsprache in ihrer äußeren Form nicht verändert werden darf, aber auch die Dialekte sich nicht zu modernen geschriebenen Volkssprachen entwickeln dürfen, scheint die Diglossiesituation für alle Zeit festgeschrieben. Dadurch ist das Überleben der Dialekte gesichert, obgleich sie sich untereinander stärker annähern. Die Geringschätzung der Dialekte in der arabischen Welt bedingt auch eine Ablehnung der Dialektologie. Deshalb war die arabische Dialektologie immer eine Domäne westlicher Forscher, doch nun deutet sich auch im Westen ihr Niedergang an.