Patrimonium et imperium: метаморфозы двух прототипических порядков в зеркале эволюционной морфологии (часть 2)
Во второй части статьи прослеживаются основные моменты развития патримониальных и имперских порядков, а также институтов и практик. Специально рассматриваются каче- ства патримониев и империй как прототипических оснований властвования и политической организации, а также сохранение и модификация этих качеств в череде метаморфоз. Ана- лизируется проблема «гибридизации», сочетаемости патримониальных и имперских по- рядков друг с другом и с другими политическими формами. В заключение статьи ставится вопрос о настоящем и будущем патримониальных и имперских форм.
These proceedings include papers on subjects from a wide number of areas including theoretical linguistics, translation, computational linguistics, natural language processing, and applied linguistics, focusing on a variety of languages, ranging from familiar Indo-European languages to Mandarin Chinese, Wolof, and Dene Sųɬiné. In order to make the papers available to the wider research community, these proceedings are being published electronically and distributed freely at http://www.meaningtext.net
A component model enabling to construct new software components from existing ones dynamically, at runtime, without their bytecodes generation is presented with supporting it software framework. The framework is implemented using JavaBeans component model, but is aimed to eliminate its drawback – the inability to create user-defined components without bytecodes generation. To construct user-defined component dynamically, a composed prototype object is built using predefined (hardcoded and/or composed) component instances; that prototype object can provide functionality required and can be transformed at runtime into a new component (instantiable type) whose instances are able to provide the same functionality, but more efficiently. The prototype object is composed using meta-components – the framework provided components to produce user-defined components dynamically.
In the article, the relevance of Bybee's opposition of product-based generalizations vs. source-based generalizations for syntax is argued. Corpus data of Russian are used.
Macedonian possesses a rich system of affixes, some of them are considered to be completely synonymous. This is the case for diminutive suffixes serving to build diminutives from feminine nouns: there are four suffixes, three of them are of protoslavonic origin (namely, suffixes -ka, -ca, -ica) and one - -ichka - is considered to be of a more recent descent. As those suffixes have virtually the same range of meanings, a question arises as to their rivalry. Our research revealed that not all of the suffixes in question have the potential to combine with all the stem types. Their combinability is restrained by their morphonological properties and these constraints form a system of suffixal distribution. Having studied a corpus of over 500 diminutives, we came to the conclusion that suffix -ka primarily serves as a substitute suffix in the cases where other suffixes cannot combine, suffix -ca can solely combine with a single stem type (stems of feminine nouns ending with a consonant, former i-stems), and suffixes -ichka and -ica, possessing similar properties, are engaged in a rivalry which apparently is settled in favour of the former.
This book is a collection of articles dealing with various aspects of grammatical relations and argument structure in the languages of Europe and North and Central Asia (LENCA). Topics covered with respect to individual languages are: split-intransitivity (Basque), causativization (Agul), transitives and causatives (Korean and Japanese), aspectual domain and quantification (Finnish and Udmurt), head-marking principles (Athabaskan languages), and pragmatics (Eastern Khanty and Xibe). Typology of argument-structure properties of ‘give’ (LENCA), typology of agreement systems, asymmetry in argument structure, typology of the Amdo Sprachbund, spatial realtors (Northeastern Turkic), core argument patterns (languages of Northern California), and typology of grammatical relations (LENCA) are the topics of articles based on cross-linguistic data. The broad empirical sweep and the fine-tuned theoretical analysis highlight the central role of argument structure and grammatical relations with respect to a plethora of linguistic phenomena.
This paper is an overview of the so-called second genitive in Russian, a nominal form available for a minority of Russian nouns but widely used with these nouns in certain contexts. In many ways, the second genitive is a secondary case. Thus, it may always be substituted with a regular genitive form, while the opposite is not true. A major subset of the contexts where the second genitive may be used fits into what is known as a functional category of partitive, so this form is sometimes called Russian partitive. To a certain extent, indeed, the second genitive is the form with which the regular genitive may be substituted in partitive contexts. The analysis of the distribution of the second genitive shows, however, that the partitive meaning is not the only function of this form. Not less if not more widespread are uses in combinations with prepositions. These and other types of contexts should be taken into account to build a comprehensive picture of the category distribution and functional load.
The form whose main function is to express indirect commands, called the third person Imperative, Jussive or Exhortative, when compared to the prototypical (second person) Imperative, shows semantic and formal similarities and distinctions at the same time. The study describes formal and functional patterns of Jussive and places this category within the typology of the related categories, such as Imperative and Optative, based on data from six East Caucasian languages (Archi, Agul, Akhvakh, Chechen, Icari and Kumyk). Five formal patterns of Jussive are attested in these languages, including a specialized form, constructions derived from want, from tell him to do and from make him do and the Optative. Jussive forms may express such meanings as third person command, indirect causation, permission, indifference towards the accomplishment of an action and an assumption. While the Jussive is crucially different from the second person Imperative in that it introduces a third participant, this article shows that it is the addressee, not a third person, who is the central participant of a Jussive situation from both formal and functional points of view.