Proto-Indo-European Syntax by Winfred P. Lehmann

By Winfred P. Lehmann

Show description

Read Online or Download Proto-Indo-European Syntax PDF

Best foreign language study & reference books

Language Change and Variation

The learn of language version in social context keeps to carry the eye of a big variety of linguists. This learn is promoted via the yearly colloquia on New methods of interpreting edition in English' (NWAVE). This quantity is a range of revised papers from the NWAVE XI, held at Georgetown collage.

Diachronic problems in phonosymbolism

Phonosymbolism, or sound symbolism (Lautsymbolik), is an important factor of language progress. Many critical students, even if, have seemed it with embarrassment or indifference. A wary reintroduction of phonosymbolism as an element liable for alterations gone through, in various levels, by way of such a lot languages may now appear to be so as.

Extra resources for Proto-Indo-European Syntax

Sample text

Eváṃrūpaṃ hí sá tenā́ śanam ā́ vayat of-such-kind Ptc. ’ Similar examples from the other early dialects could be cited, such as the Italic inscription of Praeneste (Example 84), or the Germanic Gallehus inscription: 91. 4. 6, the subject was mandatory, and accordingly two nominal forms had come to be standard for the sentence. If however the subject is not taken into consideration, many sentences contained only one nominal element with verbs, in the early dialects as well as in PIE. html Proto-Indo-European Syntax: Chapter 3: Nominal Modifiers 3.

Html 10 Proto-Indo-European Syntax: Chapter 3: Nominal Modifiers As Delbrück pointed out (1900:102-103), the position of the attributive genitive is the same as that of the attributive adjective. A striking example is given from the Old English legal language (Delbrück 1900:102): 33. 15 (Delbrück 1878:43): 34. kíṃ nas tátaḥ syād íti? prathamabhakṣsá evá sómasya what us then it-might-be Ptc. first-enjoyment Ptc. of-soma rā́ jña íti of-the-prince Ptc. ’ The relatively frequent marked use of the genitive may be the cause for the apparently free position of the genitive in Greek and Latin.

For though Jacobi discerned that PIE was OV, as are Japanese and the Altaic and Dravidian languages, he failed to interrelate the syntactic constructions expected in each of these types. This shortcoming may have resulted from the concern of his time for surface characteristics rather than for abstract syntactic patterns. For example, though Jacobi correctly saw that PIE and Japanese were similar in syntactic pattern, he confined himself to a review of morphological features (1897:111-115) without discussing syntactic patterns.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.82 of 5 – based on 23 votes