e-book Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond book. Happy reading Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond Pocket Guide.

Chapter 7. Comparative consequences of the tongue root harmony analysis for proto-Tungusic, proto-Mongolic, and proto-Korean. Chapter 8.

Old Japanese bigrade paradigms and Korean passives and causatives. Chapter 9. The Japanese inflectional paradigm in a Transeurasian perspective. Chapter Innovations and archaisms in Siberian Turkic spatial case paradigms: A Transeurasian historical and areal perspective.

Linguistics Morphology. Chapter 1. When paradigms change Martine Robbeets and Walter Bisang. Part I. Paradigm change.

Vikram Jain Books

On the strength of morphological paradigms: A historical account of radical pro-drop Walter Bisang. On arguing from diachrony for paradigms Brian D. Larry M.

  1. The SMS Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Capabilities: Emergence, Development, and Change (Strategic Management Society);
  2. XploRe® - Application Guide.
  3. High-Yield™ Neuroanatomy (2nd Edition) (High-Yield Series).
  4. Corrosion by Carbon and Nitrogen: Metal Dusting, Carburisation and Nitridation (EFC 41)!
  5. Analysis Within the Systems Development Life-Cycle. Book 2: Data Analysis–the Methods.

Part II. The continuation of paradigms. Old Japanese bigrade paradigms and Korean passives and causatives J. Marshall Unger. What is the base of each derivational paradigm? Are the [whole] words cognate?

Navigation menu

Are the roots cognate? Having thus established the usefulness of such a small data set for the subgrouping of established fami- lies, she turns to the question, whether this could also be useful in long-range comparisons or, then, phylum recognition. Joseph: On arguing from diachrony for paradigms, 89— Arguments in fa- vour of the theoretical justification and usefulness of the notion of paradigm are found on the historical pane, and, more precisely, in the realm of analogi- cal change, which, quite often, operates between morphological forms, which constitute a paradigm, leaving others, outside of the paradigm, untouched.

Evidence for such intra-paradigmatic analogical processes comes from Latin e. Hy- man asks the question, whether a system of such extensions is reconstructable for the putative proto-language of this vast phylum, and whether this, if pres- ent, can be used as a criterion for inclusion in or exclusion from this macro- family.

Generally, there are many lessons to be learned from this and similar studies, especially for fields in which the genealogical classification is still, to say the least, in flux, and where arguments from morphology are some- times found, which suffer ostensibly from the negligence of some of the pitfalls Hyman manages to expose here so carefully. This explanation is certainly intelligent and interest- ing, but the fact that most ik-verbs are, at the end of the day, not reflexive, may be regarded as a perennial obstacle to such an interpretation which, I should add, is certainly one of the better approaches presented so far.

Paradigm change : in the Transeurasian languages and beyond :: tosinungjackjar.tk

The long and rich paper by S. Ko, A. Joseph, and J. The authors of- fer a rich array of data and come to the conclusion that rtr Retracted Tongue Root harmony systems are to be reconstructed for the three proto-languages mentioned in the title of their contribution.

On the other hand, the authors also state that Tongue Root Harmony has been observed to spread rather easily across language family boundaries e. It cannot be avoided to have a more extensive look at M.


I put quotes around the term paradigms here, because Frellesvig — , whom she cites on the subject, also does, and not without reason. All of these are described as showing a variety of functions, sometimes co- inciding between the different language families—this obviously serves the purpose of making the point being made look even stronger, but obtaining this picture involves a considerable degree of reification.

To give just one example: P. Brian Joseph, s. Georg for the demonstration that no grammaticalization is involved in this at all. Chuvash historical linguistics is difficult. He might not be amused.

Welcome to Linguistics & English Language at Edinburgh

Now, it seems very difficult to reconcile the one view with the other, so it may be allowed to ask, which of these approaches we should chose from? Apart from this, I wish to add that his work is certainly a major contribution to the study of Chuvash morphology. Note, in passing, that it, expect- edly, treats the -r-preterites of Chuvash, as outlined above, as going back to -d-forms, just like everybody else does Tekin, 21; Thomsen, — Mostaert, 3 ; similar corrections are necessary for other cases of alleged finite -m in this text corpus, and the evidence will have to be greatly reduced.

What I am criticizing here is the often breathtaking speed with which conclusions are reached by violently jumping to them, in order to underpin a conclusion, which was pal- pably formed beforehand. First, the texts themselves need to be respected in all their details. A form with the same shape, but a different interpretation, is given in her example 20b as witness for the -I-converb in non-causative forms, but this is doubtful, if not spurious, as well.

The inspection of the manuscript itself op cit. As in Georg , I can only repeat here that not all examples given by Rob- beets but an alarmingly high number of them are necessarily wrong and mis- leading, and that not all suffixes she mentions for the languages in question are non-existent but scrutinizing the evidence presented removes quite a number of them, casts doubt on some more, and leaves the argumentation full of la- cunae.


And I am also happy to repeat that, yes, the Altaic languages do have morphological elements in common, which, by form and function, do invite can be when we are dealing with older languages and the penumbra of philological dif- ficulties which often surround them. Important and far-reaching conclusions and posi- tion papers directed at a non-specialist audience should be based on what is reasonably certain, and what falls short of this, has at least to be postponed for the moment. Good and valid hypotheses, theories and claims of language relationship can afford this and do well without such doubtful data, those in dire need of comparative material cannot and do not.

  1. Account Options.
  2. The Role of Paradigmatic Morphology in Historical, Areal and Genealogical Linguistics.
  3. Imperatives in contact. Linguistic interactions on the Sakhalin Island.
  4. Academy of Europe: Publications!

Oh, then…21 19 20 21 19 The recent book-length treatment of Robbeets about this whole complex will be discussed elsewhere in greater depth by the present reviewer. Menges , , Vacek e. Only so much that the evidence presented even if it were impeccable in itself, which it is not is indistinguishable from—noise. I concur with M. Robbeets that the investigation of morphological com- monalities is an important area of the debate, and that it should be moved more into the focus than it has been done before, when the discussion re- volved mostly around lexical comparisons and sound-correspondences.

But: all these areas are important and inform each other to draw the complete pic- ture of this language family if it is one , or, then, this large-scale convergence area—and all of these aspects and subfields have to be pursued with the same 22 evidence, overwhelmingly questioned and often vehemently rejected by reviewers and other specialists for the languages involved, so they cannot be used for this purpose just as if nothing were wrong with and nothing critical had ever been said in print about them. It seems, prima facie, to be quite plausible to assume that this remarkable set of coinciding genitives, in so many constituent languages, should be recon- structed, as such, for the ancestral language—if one approaches the matter in the way outlined above, i.

The following table tries to illustrate these suspicious -u-genitives and their usual historical explanations. Similar examples of superficially resembling, but by no means cognate, affixes across this family and other established stocks could easily fill a booklet.

This is a puzzling statement, because the opposite is true, cf. Al- taic linguistics still seems to have a long way to go, until it can be described as having reached a comparable level. As it stands, it is hard to avoid the conclu- sion that it is still mostly poking in the dark. But it helps to get into the newspapers, of course. Johanson and B. Pak- endorf to this volume once again demonstrate.

Stachowski duly mentioned by Johanson offers a very similar solution to this problem,28 which differs at best in some nuances of the functional interpretation of the process- es involved. Nevskaya: Innovation and archaisms in Siberian Turkic spatial case para- digms: A Transeurasian historical and areal perspective, —, discusses some historical developments and characteristics of the case systems in Shor, Tuvan, Tofa, Gorno-Altay Oirot , Khakas and Yakut i.

Yes, but it is not the emperor marked with the ablative , who is split up and taken away in pieces. The mentioned Gorno-Altay partitives for quantities of food explicitly given as the semantic domain of this usage of the ablative suffix have straightforward parallels in European languages, cf. Thus, she investigates—and it should be stressed that she bases her study on first-hand fieldwork data—the sociolinguistic and the structural factors, which facilitat- ed the take-over of whole verbal paradigms in this contact situation. It goes without saying that, for this to happen, the language contact has to be very in- tensive, and Pakendorf names frequent intermarriage between the speakers of the lects-in-contact as a necessary, but not sufficient, prerequisite.

Apart from this, Pakendorf describes structural conditions for the take-over scenario, as e. Given the fascinating details she presents in a very readable and magisterial way, one is tempted to agree for this case, but it should also be stressed that the generalisation which is implied here may not necessarily be warranted, since less complicated situations still remain 31 32 31 Generally, the Yakut partitive cannot be seperated from the partitives of Northern Tun- gusic, and the origins of this usage should be sought more in an areal context with these than in the history of Turkic itself.