The paper deals with one path of the semantic evolution of future anterior. Following this path, future anterior loses its retrospective function but preserves future time reference. This results in the formation of a new future tense from the old future anterior. Such an evolution took place in the history of some Slavic languages (Slovenian, Polish, Kajkavian dialects). In the Dalmatian language, the original Latin future perfect transformed into the non-anterior future. On the contrary, this tendency has not been completed in the new analytic form in Old French and future anterior in Ancient Greek. The reasons for such semantic evolution of future anterior in the aforementioned languages might be the following. At some stage, future anterior can be used metaphorically as immediate future (attested in Latin, Antient Greek, Old French). Or the implicature in apodosis, namely ‘consequence’ → ‘consecution, posteriority in the future’ → ‘predictive future’, conventionalizes, and future anterior and present neutralize in the conditional protasis (see Latin and some Slavic languages). Nominal properties of the l-participle and the inﬂuence of the construction bǫdǫ + passive participle could have also contributed to this kind of semantic evolution in the Slavic languages.
The article focuses on Russian constructions that are similar to English raising constructions. In these structures, there is an element that only has an interpretation if they are generated and assigned a semantic role in the embedded clause. Here belong some of constructions with dative NPs and predicatives; some modal constructions; some semi-auxiliaries, and so on. Although I use assumptions made by Minor (2013), Kholodilova (2015), and Burukina (2016, 2017), I verify their claims by using indefinite pronouns and NPIs on "ni-" that require a licensing head. I claim that Russian raising-like structures differ from English ones, especially because in Russian, raising cannot create structures that would otherwise be ungrammatical - in a sense, raising structures emerge, where control structures are possible and use the same language material as control structures.
Our paper focuses on Russian constructions like Mne pokazalos’ strannym, čto Fedja ne priexal ‘It seemed me strange that Fedja did not come’. More precisely, we consider syntactic properties of the instrumental case form stranny, analyze its argument structure and address the question of its part of speech characteristics. As shown below, this unit combines properties of predicatives like stranno (it is compatible with an argument clause, which is not characteristic of full forms of adjectives) and those of adjectives like strannyj (it is marked for instrumental case, while predicatives are usually considered to lack case distinctions). I claim that a possible solution that allows to explain these mixed properties is to describe a semi auxiliary like pokazat’sja ‘seem’ + an instrumental case form as a single syntactic unit (the fact that the instrumental form disfavors separation from the matrix verb and contexts where the verb is elided seem to confirm this analysis). At the same time, alternative ways of analysis are also considered.
The paper discusses the form of the reflexive suffix in Russian participles. The original Old Russian participles had been lost or lexicalized in Russian, and the class of participles was later re-borrowed from Church Slavonic, where they uniformly use -sja as a reflexive suffix, whereas other verbal forms have -sja after consonants and -s’ after vowels. Participles ending in -s’ are almost unattested in prosaic texts, but they are present in Russian poetry of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. They are mostly used to achieve metrical well-formedness, but can also serve a stylistic purpose, since they sound (pseudo-) archaic. This can be observed in the translation of the Iliad by Ni kolay Gnedich, who consistently uses participles in -sja after consonants and participles in -s’ after vowels. However, this experiment remained unique, and Gnedich was not followed even by Vasily Zhukovsky in his translation of the Odyssey, where forms in -sja after vowels are simply avoided for metrical reasons rather than replaced with forms in -s’.
This paper deals with the origin of the Indo-European category of gender of nouns. It offers a reconstruction of the pre-history of those affixes which came to express gender in Indo-European languages.
The article presents an attempt to reconstruct the initial part of the Prologue of the Buddhist drama “Maitreyasamiti-Nāṭaka” in Tocharian A. By comparing several manuscripts of the drama — both published and still unpublished — it becomes possible to restore the composite text of the first strophes of the Prologue, which are dedicated to the praise of Maitreya (Buddha of the future kalpa). We discuss the paleographic, textual, and versificational aspects of the reconstruction in question and provide its Rus sian and English translations.
Review of the handbook on the history of Russian language by Tore Nesset
Review of a grammar of Old Church Slavonic by Anna Polivanova