DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Is English Related to Other Languages?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapter 5: Language 143 FIGURE 5-8 Soft-drink dialects. Soft drinks CANADA are called “soda” in the Northeast and Southwest, “pop” in the Midwest and Northwest, and “Coke” in the South. Map reflects voting at www. popvssoda.com. ATLANTIC OCEAN GENERIC NAMES FOR SOFT PACIFIC DRINKS OCEAN Pop RUSSIA MEXICO Coke Soda CANADA Other Gulf of Mexico No data and reflects the place of origin of most New England KEY ISSUE 2 colonists. It also reflects the relatively high degree of contact between the two groups. Residents of Boston, New Eng- Why Is English Related land’s main port city, maintained especially close ties to the important ports of southern England, such as London, to Other Languages? Plymouth, and Bristol. Compared to other colonists, New ■ Indo-European Branches Englanders received more exposure to changes in pro- nunciation that occurred in Britain during the eighteenth ■ Origin and Diffusion of Indo-European century. English is part of the Indo-European language family. A The New England and southern accents sound unusual to language family is a collection of languages related through the majority of Americans because the standard pronunciation a common ancestral language that existed long before throughout the American West comes from the Middle Atlantic recorded history. Indo-European is the world’s most exten- states rather than the New England and Southern regions. This sively spoken language family by a wide margin. ■ pattern occurred because most western settlers came from the Middle Atlantic states. The diffusion of particular English dialects into the middle and western parts of the United States is a result of the west- ward movement of colonists from the three dialect regions of Indo-European Branches the East. The area of the Midwest south of the Ohio River was Within a language family, a language branch is a collection of settled first by colonists from Virginia and the other southern languages related through a common ancestral language that areas. The Middle Atlantic colonies sent most of the early existed several thousand years ago. Differences are not as exten- settlers north of the Ohio River, although some New Englan- sive or as old as with language families, and archaeological evi- ders moved to the Great Lakes area. The pattern by which dence can confirm that the branches derived from the same dialects diffused westward resembles the diffusion of East family. Coast house types discussed in Chapter 4 (compare Figure 5-7 Indo-European is divided into eight branches (Figure 5-9). with Figure 4-12). Four of the branches—Indo-Iranian, Romance, Germanic, and As more of the West was opened to settlement during the Balto-Slavic—are spoken by large numbers of people. Indo- nineteenth century, people migrated from all parts of the East Iranian languages are clustered in South Asia, Romance lan- Coast. The California gold rush attracted people from through- guages in southwestern Europe and Latin America, Germanic out the East, many of whom subsequently moved to other parts languages in northwestern Europe and North America, and of the West. The mobility of Americans has been a major rea- Balto-Slavic languages in Eastern Europe. The four less exten- son for the relatively uniform language that exists throughout sively used Indo-European language branches are Albanian, much of the West. Armenian, Greek, and Celtic. 144 The Cultural Landscape 20°10°0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 70° ICELAND SWEDEN FINLAND ATLANTIC NORWAY RUSSIA 60° OCEAN ESTONIA LATVIA DENMARK LITHUANIA UNITED IRELAND KINGDOM BELARUS NETH. POLAND GERMANY 50° BELGIUM CZECH UKRAINE REP. SLOVAKIA MOLDOVA KAZAKHSTAN AUSTRIA FRANCE HUNGARY ROMANIA SWITZ. ITALY SLOVENIA SERB. Caspian S CROATIA Black Sea BULGARIA UZBEKISTAN BOS & HERZ. GEORGIA KYRGYZSTAN PORTUGAL MONT. ALBANIA MACEDONIA ARMENIA AZER. 40° SPAIN e KOSOVO a TURKEY TURKMENISTAN TAJIKISTAN GREECE CHINA SYRIA Mediterranean Sea AFGHANISTAN IRAQ IRAN PAKISTAN NEPAL BHUTAN BANGLADESH INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE BRANCHES INDIA Albanian Germanic Armenian Greek ARABIAN Balto-Slavic Indo-Iranian SEA BAY OF Celtic Romance BENGAL 0 500 1,000 MILES Non Indo-European 10° languages 0 500 1,000 KILOMETERS 60° 70° 80° 90° FIGURE 5-9 Branches of the Indo-European language family. Most Europeans speak languages from the Indo-European language family. In Europe, the three most important branches are Germanic (north and west), Romance (south and west), and Slavic (east). The fourth major branch, Indo-Iranian, clustered in southern and western Asia, has more than 1 billion speakers, the greatest number of any Indo-European branch. Germanic Branch of Indo-European group. Other Low Germanic languages include Dutch, which is spoken in the Netherlands, as well as Flemish, which is gener- German may seem a difficult language for many English speak- ally considered a dialect of Dutch spoken in northern Belgium. ers to learn, but the two languages are actually closely related. Afrikaans, a language of South Africa, is similar to Dutch, Both belong to the Germanic language branch of Indo-European. because Dutch settlers migrated to South Africa 300 years ago. English is part of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European Frisian is spoken by a few residents in northeastern Nether- family due to the language spoken by the Germanic tribes that lands. A dialect of German spoken in the northern lowlands of invaded England 1,500 years ago. Germany is also classified as Low Germanic. A language group is a collection of languages within a The Germanic language branch also includes North branch that share a common origin in the relatively recent Germanic languages, spoken in Scandinavia. The four Scandina- past and display relatively few differences in grammar and vian languages—Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic— vocabulary. West Germanic is the group within the Germanic all derive from Old Norse, which was the principal language spo- branch of Indo-European to which English belongs. ken throughout Scandinavia before A.D. 1000. Four distinct lan- Although they sound very different, English and German are guages emerged after that time because of migration and the both languages in the West Germanic group because they are political organization of the region into four independent and structurally similar and have many words in common isolated countries. (Figure 5-10). West Germanic is further divided into High Germanic and Low Germanic subgroups, so named because they are found in Indo-Iranian Branch of Indo-European high and low elevations within present-day Germany. High The branch of the Indo-European language family with the most German, spoken in the southern mountains of Germany, is the speakers is Indo-Iranian. This branch includes more than 100 basis for the modern standard German language. English is individual languages. The branch is divided into an eastern group classified in the Low Germanic subgroup of the West Germanic (Indic) and a western group (Iranian). Chapter 5: Language 145 20° 10° 0° 10° 20° Austro-Asiatic A rc tic 0 200 400 MILES C KASHMIRI Dravidian irc le URDU DOGRI 0 200 400 KILOMETERS Indo-European 65° Hindi dialect Other language ICELAND PUNJABI Sino-Tibetan Y ASSAMESE HINDHINDINDN NEPALI A N MAITHILI URDU BODO E SINDHI W MANIPURI SANTALI 60° BENGALI Faeroe Is. D R GUJARATI BENGALI E Shetland Is. O W ATLANTIC N MARATHMARATHI ORIYA Bay of 20° S Bengal OCEAN TELUGU KONKANI 55° Scotland N. Ireland North KANNADA SANSKRIT UNITED Sea DENMARK Baltic Sea KINGDOM HINDI IRELAND TAMIL MALAYMALAYALAMALAYALALAA AM Frisian Is. 10° POLAND State boundary England 50° Wales NETHERLANDS 0 250 500 MILES HINDI Scheduled language GERMANY 0 250 500 KILOMETERS INDIAN OCEAN 70° 80° 90° BELGIUM CZECH REP. LUXEMBOURG FIGURE 5-11 Languages and language families in India. India’s official lan- FRANCE AUSTRIA guage is Hindi, which has many dialects. The country has 22 scheduled languages 45° that the government is required to protect. SWITZERLAND ITALY NORTH GERMANIC WEST GERMANIC of the British colonial rulers—has been retained as an official Danish English language. Speakers of different Indian languages who wish to Faeroese Frisian communicate with each other sometimes are forced to turn to Icelandic German English as a common language. Norwegian Netherlandish (Dutch) India also recognizes 22 so-called scheduled languages, Mixed with including 15 Indo-European (Assamese, Bengali, Dogri, Gujarati, Swedish non-Germanic Hindi, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Pan- FIGURE 5-10 Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family. Germanic jabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, and Urdu), four Dravidian (Kannada, languages predominate in Northern and Western Europe. Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu), two Sino-Tibetan (Bodo and Manipuri), and one Austro-Asiatic (Santali). The government of India is obligated to encourage the use of these languages. INDIC (EASTERN) GROUP OF INDO-IRANIAN Hindi is spoken many different ways—and therefore could LANGUAGE BRANCH. The most widely used languages be regarded as a collection of many individual languages. But in India, as well as in the neighboring countries of Pakistan and there is only one official way to write Hindi, using a script Bangladesh, belong to the Indo-European language family and, called Devanagari, which has been used in India since the sev- more specifically, to the Indic group of the Indo-Iranian branch enth century A.D. For example, the word for sun is written in of Indo-European. Hindi as pronounced “surya.” Local differences arose in One of the main elements of cultural diversity among the the spoken forms of Hindi but not in the written form because 1 billion plus residents of India is language (Figure 5-11). Eth- until recently few speakers of that language could read or nologue identifies 438 languages currently spoken in India, write it. including 29 by at least one million people. Adding to the complexity, Urdu is spoken very much like The official language of India is Hindi, which is an Indo- Hindi, but it is recognized as a distinct language.
Recommended publications
  • Germanic Origins from the Perspective of the Y-Chromosome

    Germanic Origins from the Perspective of the Y-Chromosome

    Germanic Origins from the Perspective of the Y-Chromosome By Michael Robert St. Clair A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy in German in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Irmengard Rauch, Chair Thomas F. Shannon Montgomery Slatkin Spring 2012 Abstract Germanic Origins from the Perspective of the Y-Chromosome by Michael Robert St. Clair Doctor of Philosophy in German University of California, Berkeley Irmengard Rauch, Chair This dissertation holds that genetic data are a useful tool for evaluating contemporary models of Germanic origins. The Germanic languages are a branch of the Indo-European language family and include among their major contemporary representatives English, German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Icelandic. Historically, the search for Germanic origins has sought to determine where the Germanic languages evolved, and why the Germanic languages are similar to and different from other European languages. Both archaeological and linguist approaches have been employed in this research direction. The linguistic approach to Germanic origins is split among those who favor the Stammbaum theory and those favoring language contact theory. Stammbaum theory posits that Proto-Germanic separated from an ancestral Indo-European parent language. This theoretical approach accounts for similarities between Germanic and other Indo- European languages by posting a period of mutual development. Germanic innovations, on the other hand, occurred in isolation after separation from the parent language. Language contact theory posits that Proto-Germanic was the product of language convergence and this convergence explains features that Germanic shares with other Indo-European languages.
  • Ancient Iranian Nomads in Western Central Asia

    Ancient Iranian Nomads in Western Central Asia

    ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 ANCIENT IRANIAN NOMADS IN. 1 ANCIENT IRANIAN NOMADS IN WESTERN CENTRAL ASIA* A. Abetekov and H. Yusupov Contents Literary sources on the ancient Iranian nomads of Central Asia ............ 25 Society and economy of the Iranian nomads of Central Asia .............. 26 Culture of the Iranian nomads of Central Asia ..................... 29 The territory of Central Asia, which consists of vast expanses of steppe-land, desert and semi-desert with fine seasonal pastures, was destined by nature for the development of nomadic cattle-breeding. Between the seventh and third centuries b.c. it was inhabited by a large number of tribes, called Scythians by the Greeks, and Sakas by the Persians. The history of the Central Asian nomads is inseparable from that of the nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppe zone. Their political and economic life was closely linked, and their material culture had much in common. It should also be noted that, despite their distinctive qualities, the nomadic tribes were closely connected with the agricultural population of Central Asia. In fact, the history and movements of these nomadic tribes and the settled population cannot be considered in isolation; each had its impact on the other, and this interdependence must be properly understood. * See Map 1. 24 ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 Literary sources on the ancient Iranian. Literary sources on the ancient Iranian nomads of Central Asia The term ‘Tura’¯ 1 is the name by which the Central Asian nomadic tribes were in one of the earliest parts of the Avesta. The Turas¯ are portrayed as enemies of the sedentary Iranians and described, in Yašt XVII (prayer to the goddess Aši), 55–6, as possessing fleet-footed horses.2 As early as 641 or 640 b.c.
  • Grammatical Gender in Hindukush Languages

    Grammatical Gender in Hindukush Languages

    Grammatical gender in Hindukush languages An areal-typological study Julia Lautin Department of Linguistics Independent Project for the Degree of Bachelor 15 HEC General linguistics Bachelor's programme in Linguistics Spring term 2016 Supervisor: Henrik Liljegren Examinator: Bernhard Wälchli Expert reviewer: Emil Perder Project affiliation: “Language contact and relatedness in the Hindukush Region,” a research project supported by the Swedish Research Council (421-2014-631) Grammatical gender in Hindukush languages An areal-typological study Julia Lautin Abstract In the mountainous area of the Greater Hindukush in northern Pakistan, north-western Afghanistan and Kashmir, some fifty languages from six different genera are spoken. The languages are at the same time innovative and archaic, and are of great interest for areal-typological research. This study investigates grammatical gender in a 12-language sample in the area from an areal-typological perspective. The results show some intriguing features, including unexpected loss of gender, languages that have developed a gender system based on the semantic category of animacy, and languages where this animacy distinction is present parallel to the inherited gender system based on a masculine/feminine distinction found in many Indo-Aryan languages. Keywords Grammatical gender, areal-typology, Hindukush, animacy, nominal categories Grammatiskt genus i Hindukush-språk En areal-typologisk studie Julia Lautin Sammanfattning I den här studien undersöks grammatiskt genus i ett antal språk som talas i ett bergsområde beläget i norra Pakistan, nordvästra Afghanistan och Kashmir. I området, här kallat Greater Hindukush, talas omkring 50 olika språk från sex olika språkfamiljer. Det stora antalet språk tillsammans med den otillgängliga terrängen har gjort att språken är arkaiska i vissa hänseenden och innovativa i andra, vilket gör det till ett intressant område för arealtypologisk forskning.
  • Introduction Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen Excerpt More Information

    Introduction Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen Excerpt More Information

    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-71784-7 - Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction Ti Alkire and Carol Rosen Excerpt More information Introduction Latin and the Romance languages occupy a vast space along at least three dimensions: geographical, temporal, and social. Once the language of a small town on the Tiber River in Latium, Latin was carried far afield with the expan- sion of Roman power. The Empire reached its greatest extent under the reign of the emperor Trajan (98–117 CE), at which point it included modern-day Britain, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, and the Balkan peninsula, as well as immense territories in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, mak- ing it by far the largest single state the Western world had ever known. Even those distances are dwarfed by the extent of Western European colonial expan- sion in the 1500s and 1600s, which brought Spanish to most of Latin America and the Caribbean, Portuguese to Brazil, French to Canada, and all three to their many outposts around the world, where they engendered some robust cre- oles. On the time dimension, the colloquial speech that underlies the Romance languages was already a constant presence during the seven centuries that saw Rome grow from village to empire – and then their history still has twenty cen- turies to go. Their uses in society extend to every level and facet of activity from treasured world literature to instant messaging. A truly panoramic account of Romance linguistic history would find few readers and probably no writers. The scope has to be limited somehow.
  • Copyright by Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey 2010

    Copyright by Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey 2010

    Copyright by Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey 2010 The Dissertation Committee for Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Planning language practices and representations of identity within the Gallo community in Brittany: A case of language maintenance Committee: _________________________________ Jean-Pierre Montreuil, Supervisor _________________________________ Cinzia Russi _________________________________ Carl Blyth _________________________________ Hans Boas _________________________________ Anthony Woodbury Planning language practices and representations of identity within the Gallo community in Brittany: A case of language maintenance by Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December, 2010 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my parents and my family for their patience and support, their belief in me, and their love. I would like to thank my supervisor Jean-Pierre Montreuil for his advice, his inspiration, and constant support. Thank you to my committee members Cinzia Russi, Carl Blyth, Hans Boas and Anthony Woodbury for their guidance in this project and their understanding. Special thanks to Christian Lefeuvre who let me stay with him during the summer 2009 in Langan and helped me realize this project. For their help and support, I would like to thank Rosalie Grot, Pierre Gardan, Christine Trochu, Shaun Nolan, Bruno Chemin, Chantal Hermann, the associations Bertaèyn Galeizz, Chubri, l’Association des Enseignants de Gallo, A-Demórr, and Gallo Tonic Liffré. For financial support, I would like to thank the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin for the David Bruton, Jr.
  • A Comparative Phonetic Study of the Circassian Languages Author(S

    A Comparative Phonetic Study of the Circassian Languages Author(S

    A comparative phonetic study of the Circassian languages Author(s): Ayla Applebaum and Matthew Gordon Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus (2013), pp. 3-17 Editors: Chundra Cathcart, Shinae Kang, and Clare S. Sandy Please contact BLS regarding any further use of this work. BLS retains copyright for both print and screen forms of the publication. BLS may be contacted via http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/bls/. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society is published online via eLanguage, the Linguistic Society of America's digital publishing platform. A Comparative Phonetic Study of the Circassian Languages1 AYLA APPLEBAUM and MATTHEW GORDON University of California, Santa Barbara Introduction This paper presents results of a phonetic study of Circassian languages. Three phonetic properties were targeted for investigation: voice-onset time for stop consonants, spectral properties of the coronal fricatives, and formant values for vowels. Circassian is a branch of the Northwest Caucasian language family, which also includes Abhaz-Abaza and Ubykh. Circassian is divided into two dialectal subgroups: West Circassian (commonly known as Adyghe), and East Circassian (also known as Kabardian). The West Circassian subgroup includes Temirgoy, Abzekh, Hatkoy, Shapsugh, and Bzhedugh. East Circassian comprises Kabardian and Besleney. The Circassian languages are indigenous to the area between the Caspian and Black Seas but, since the Russian invasion of the Caucasus region in the middle of the 19th century, the majority of Circassians now live in diaspora communities, most prevalently in Turkey but also in smaller outposts throughout the Middle East and the United States.
  • About Fanjeaux, France Perched on the Crest of a Hill in Southwestern

    About Fanjeaux, France Perched on the Crest of a Hill in Southwestern

    About Fanjeaux, France Perched on the crest of a hill in Southwestern France, Fanjeaux is a peaceful agricultural community that traces its origins back to the Romans. According to local legend, a Roman temple to Jupiter was located where the parish church now stands. Thus the name of the town proudly reflects its Roman heritage– Fanum (temple) Jovis (Jupiter). It is hard to imagine that this sleepy little town with only 900 inhabitants was a busy commercial and social center of 3,000 people during the time of Saint Dominic. When he arrived on foot with the Bishop of Osma in 1206, Fanjeaux’s narrow streets must have been filled with peddlers, pilgrims, farmers and even soldiers. The women would gather to wash their clothes on the stones at the edge of a spring where a washing place still stands today. The church we see today had not yet been built. According to the inscription on a stone on the south facing outer wall, the church was constructed between 1278 and 1281, after Saint Dominic’s death. You should take a walk to see the church after dark when its octagonal bell tower and stone spire, crowned with an orb, are illuminated by warm orange lights. This thick-walled, rectangular stone church is an example of the local Romanesque style and has an early Gothic front portal or door (the rounded Romanesque arch is slightly pointed at the top). The interior of the church was modernized in the 18th century and is Baroque in style, but the church still houses unusual reliquaries and statues from the 13th through 16th centuries.
  • THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — the LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D

    THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — the LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D

    THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D. Joseph, The Ohio State University 0. Introduction A stunning result of linguistic research in the 19th century was the recognition that some languages show correspondences of form that cannot be due to chance convergences, to borrowing among the languages involved, or to universal characteristics of human language, and that such correspondences therefore can only be the result of the languages in question having sprung from a common source language in the past. Such languages are said to be “related” (more specifically, “genetically related”, though “genetic” here does not have any connection to the term referring to a biological genetic relationship) and to belong to a “language family”. It can therefore be convenient to model such linguistic genetic relationships via a “family tree”, showing the genealogy of the languages claimed to be related. For example, in the model below, all the languages B through I in the tree are related as members of the same family; if they were not related, they would not all descend from the same original language A. In such a schema, A is the “proto-language”, the starting point for the family, and B, C, and D are “offspring” (often referred to as “daughter languages”); B, C, and D are thus “siblings” (often referred to as “sister languages”), and each represents a separate “branch” of the family tree. B and C, in turn, are starting points for other offspring languages, E, F, and G, and H and I, respectively. Thus B stands in the same relationship to E, F, and G as A does to B, C, and D.
  • Dialects of Spanish and Portuguese

    Dialects of Spanish and Portuguese

    30 Dialects of Spanish and Portuguese JOHN M. LIPSKI 30.1 Basic Facts 30.1.1 Historical Development Spanish and Portuguese are closely related Ibero‐Romance languages whose origins can be traced to the expansion of the Latin‐speaking Roman Empire to the Iberian Peninsula; the divergence of Spanish and Portuguese began around the ninth century. Starting around 1500, both languages entered a period of global colonial expansion, giving rise to new vari- eties in the Americas and elsewhere. Sources for the development of Spanish and Portuguese include Lloyd (1987), Penny (2000, 2002), and Pharies (2007). Specific to Portuguese are fea- tures such as the retention of the seven‐vowel system of Vulgar Latin, elision of intervocalic /l/ and /n/ and the creation of nasal vowels and diphthongs, the creation of a “personal” infinitive (inflected for person and number), and retention of future subjunctive and pluper- fect indicative tenses. Spanish, essentially evolved from early Castilian and other western Ibero‐Romance dialects, is characterized by loss of Latin word‐initial /f‐/, the diphthongiza- tion of Latin tonic /ɛ/ and /ɔ/, palatalization of initial C + L clusters to /ʎ/, a complex series of changes to the sibilant consonants including devoicing and the shift of /ʃ/ to /x/, and many innovations in the pronominal system. 30.1.2 The Spanish Language Worldwide Reference grammars of Spanish include Bosque (1999a), Butt and Benjamin (2011), and Real Academia Española (2009–2011). The number of native or near‐native Spanish speakers in the world is estimated to be around 500 million. In Europe, Spanish is the official language of Spain, a quasi‐official language of Andorra and the main vernacular language of Gibraltar; it is also spoken in adjacent parts of Morocco and in Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony.
  • The Shared Lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic

    The Shared Lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic

    THE SHARED LEXICON OF BALTIC, SLAVIC AND GERMANIC VINCENT F. VAN DER HEIJDEN ******** Thesis for the Master Comparative Indo-European Linguistics under supervision of prof.dr. A.M. Lubotsky Universiteit Leiden, 2018 Table of contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Background topics 3 2.1. Non-lexical similarities between Baltic, Slavic and Germanic 3 2.2. The Prehistory of Balto-Slavic and Germanic 3 2.2.1. Northwestern Indo-European 3 2.2.2. The Origins of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic 4 2.3. Possible substrates in Balto-Slavic and Germanic 6 2.3.1. Hunter-gatherer languages 6 2.3.2. Neolithic languages 7 2.3.3. The Corded Ware culture 7 2.3.4. Temematic 7 2.3.5. Uralic 9 2.4. Recapitulation 9 3. The shared lexicon of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic 11 3.1. Forms that belong to the shared lexicon 11 3.1.1. Baltic-Slavic-Germanic forms 11 3.1.2. Baltic-Germanic forms 19 3.1.3. Slavic-Germanic forms 24 3.2. Forms that do not belong to the shared lexicon 27 3.2.1. Indo-European forms 27 3.2.2. Forms restricted to Europe 32 3.2.3. Possible Germanic borrowings into Baltic and Slavic 40 3.2.4. Uncertain forms and invalid comparisons 42 4. Analysis 48 4.1. Morphology of the forms 49 4.2. Semantics of the forms 49 4.2.1. Natural terms 49 4.2.2. Cultural terms 50 4.3. Origin of the forms 52 5. Conclusion 54 Abbreviations 56 Bibliography 57 1 1.
  • 2006 Abstracts

    2006 Abstracts

    Works in Progress Group in Modern Jewish Studies Session Many of us in the field of modern Jewish studies have felt the need for an active working group interested in discussing our various projects, papers, and books, particularly as we develop into more mature scholars. Even more, we want to engage other committed scholars and respond to their new projects, concerns, and methodological approaches to the study of modern Jews and Judaism, broadly construed in terms of period and place. To this end, since 2001, we have convened a “Works in Progress Group in Modern Jewish Studies” that meets yearly in connection with the Association for Jewish Studies Annual Conference on the Saturday night preceding the conference. The purpose of this group is to gather interested scholars together and review works in progress authored by members of the group and distributed and read prior to the AJS meeting. 2006 will be the sixth year of a formal meeting within which we have exchanged ideas and shared our work with peers in a casual, constructive environment. This Works in Progress Group is open to all scholars working in any discipline within the field of modern Jewish studies. We are a diverse group of scholars committed to engaging others and their works in order to further our own projects, those of our colleagues, and the critical growth of modern Jewish studies. Papers will be distributed in November. To participate in the Works in Progress Group, please contact: Todd Hasak-Lowy, email: [email protected] or Adam Shear, email: [email protected] Co-Chairs: Todd S.
  • Review of "The Romance Languages" by R. Posner

    Review of "The Romance Languages" by R. Posner

    Swarthmore College Works Linguistics Faculty Works Linguistics 1998 Review Of "The Romance Languages" By R. Posner Donna Jo Napoli Swarthmore College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-linguistics Part of the Linguistics Commons Let us know how access to these works benefits ouy Recommended Citation Donna Jo Napoli. (1998). "Review Of "The Romance Languages" By R. Posner". Journal Of Linguistics. Volume 34, Issue 1. 302-303. https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-linguistics/10 This work is brought to you for free by Swarthmore College Libraries' Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Romance Languages by Rebecca Posner Review by: Donna Jo Napoli Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 302-303 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4176472 . Accessed: 17/07/2014 15:00 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Linguistics. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.58.65.13 on Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:00:57 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS cliticin objectposition when quantification is involvedand the presenceof the resumptiveclitic when thereis no quantification,even if a wh-phraseis involved.