A comparative approach to nominal morphology in Transeurasian: Case and plurality
Status of case and number markers are different in Transeurasian languages varying from particles to affixes. Moreover, we can observe the grammaticalization proccesses turning particles or postpositions into affixes. All Transeurasian languages that preserve case and plurality markers follow the same STEM - PLURALITY MARKER – CASE MARKER scheme. The first part of the chapter describes the ways of expressing plurality in each family within TE. The second part is devoted to the case systems.
The paper discusses the present stage of the evolution of the initial [n]/[j] stem alternation in Russian third person pronouns. After providing a short overview of the origins of the forms, I focus on their category status, discuss Zalizniak’s ‘adpositionality’ in some detail, and then proceed to considering the cases where the ‘n’-forms are induced by a distant ‘controller’. I will show that the fact that the ‘n’-forms are essentially variants is better accounted for by the notion of ‘trigger’ of a morphological variant. To my eyes, this open ways to a better understanding of the observed evidence than that using the conventional notion of morphosyntactic controller, on the one hand—and certainly than explaining them in (morpho)phonological terms. In the end, I will briefly argue that, in a sense, the evolution of the alternation is similar to degrammaticalization, showing a movement from a morphophonologically conditioned external sandhi to a morphosyntactic category similar to government.
Traditionally, functioning of major classes of lexical items is described as follows. Nouns prototypically function as arguments, but can also serve as predicates and attributes; verbs are normally used as predicates, but can also appear for arguments and attributes; and adjectives are categorically attributes, while secondary they can be used as predicates. The question arises, whether adjectives can serve as arguments (and how). The answer is, un- doubtedly, “yes”, they can. When an adjective is used without a head, it begins to function as a noun. The current research aims to describe the morphological behaviour of such nominalised adjectives in the East Caucasian languages. The study of 31 grammatical descriptions of these languages, based on the analysis of nominalised adjectives, reveals 5 groups of the East Caucasian languages.
The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages provides a comprehensive account of the Transeurasian languages, and is the first major reference work in the field since 1965. The term 'Transeurasian' refers to a large group of geographically adjacent languages that includes five uncontroversial linguistic families: Japonic, Koreanic, Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic. The historical connection between these languages, however, constitutes one of the most debated issues in historical comparative linguistics. In the present book, a team of leading international scholars in the field take a balanced approach to this controversy, integrating different theoretical frameworks, combining both functional and formal linguistics, and showing that genealogical and areal approaches are in fact compatible with one another. The volume is divided into five parts. Part I deals with the historical sources and periodization of the Transeurasian languages and their classification and typology. In Part II, chapters provide individual structural overviews of the Transeurasian languages and the linguistic subgroups that they belong to, while Part III explores Transeurasian phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis, and semantics from a comparative perspective. Part IV offers a range of areal and genealogical explanations for the correlations observed in the preceding parts. Finally, Part V combines archaeological, genetic, and anthropological perspectives on the identity of speakers of Transeurasian languages. The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages will be an indispensable resource for specialists in Japonic, Koreanic, Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic languages and for anyone with an interest in Transeurasian and comparative linguistics more broadly.
This is a short overview of the linguistic features (phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon) of the Indo-Aryan group of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family, with a representative bibliography.
The Indo-Aryan languages (sometimes also referred to, misleadingly and not quite correctly, as Indic, with special focus on Sanskrit) represent the largest group of the Indo-European both by the total number of speakers of the present-day Indo-Aryan languages (approx. one and a half billion of the total three billion speakers of Indo-European languages) and by the number of languages (ca. 225 languages recognized, for instance, by Ethnologue, thus making up more than half of all Indo-European languages listed by this source). The largest Indo-Aryan languages include Hindi and Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, Rajasthani and Gujarati. At present, Indo-Aryan languages are spoken, above all, on the Indian subcontinent, also referred to as South Asia.
The paper discusses patterns of person agreement in Mehweb Dargwa. The focus of the paper is constructions with dative subjects where person agreement can be controlled by neither the dative subject or absolutive direct object. This constitutes a violation of Bobaljik’s conjecture about the role of morphological case in agreement. The paper shows that person agreement in dative subject constructions is possible only under condition that both the dative and absolutive NPs are first person arguments.
The paper gives a detailed description of seven spatial nominal cases in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt, which do not exist in the literary language, namely, six personal local cases and the recessive. These cases are not fully grammaticalized and exhibit some properties rather more characteristic of relational nouns, which is their grammaticalization source. Moreover, we show that the approximative also shares some of these properties. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that the aforementioned units have enough case-like properties to be treated as (undergrammaticalized) cases. The study is based on our own field data collected in Udmurtia in 2010-2016.