DOCSLIB.ORG

PREPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS in BIBLICAL GREEK, GOTHIC, CLASSICAL ARMENIAN, and OLD CHURCH SLAVIC by OLGA THOMASON (Under the Direction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PREPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS in BIBLICAL GREEK, GOTHIC, CLASSICAL ARMENIAN, and OLD CHURCH SLAVIC by OLGA THOMASON (Under the Direction PREPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS IN BIBLICAL GREEK, GOTHIC, CLASSICAL ARMENIAN, AND OLD CHURCH SLAVIC by OLGA THOMASON (Under the Direction of Jared Klein) ABSTRACT This study investigates the systems of prepositions in Biblical Greek, Gothic, Classical Armenian and Old Church Slavic based on data collected from the New Testament text of the canonical Gospels in each language. The first part of the study focuses on the inventory of prepositions in each of the languages mentioned. It provides an exhaustive overview of the prepositional systems examining the division of semantic space in them. The second part of this investigation is a comparative study of the overall systems of prepositions in all four languages. It observes similarities and differences between prepositional systems examined in the first part. The prepositional systems of the languages mentioned have approximately the same range of semantic functions. Each system includes proper and improper prepositional phrases that regularly alternate with each other as well as with nominal ones. The semantics of most prepositions in each of the languages under consideration are closely connected with spatial notions. This is especially common for improper prepositions. Although it is customary for a proper prepositional phrase to be dominant in a certain semantic field, we find instances in all four languages where a construction with an improper preposition prevails. Numerous notions are expressed by a variety of phrases, but there are instances where a concept is indicated only by one construction. The comparative analysis of the translations of the New Testament from Biblical Greek into Gothic, Classical Armenian, and Old Church Slavic shows that there are no absolute prepositional equivalents in these languages, but different types of correspondences can be established. Constructions that become regular counterparts often share origins and/or primary semantic functions or have approximately the same semantic loads. Many correspondences seem unsystematic or occur only once. The translation of Greek proper, improper, and nominal phrases varies among prepositional and nominal constructions, free adverbs, and even conjunctions or clausal structures. The range of semantic functions that a certain preposition may have does not influence the number of counterparts it may have. Rephrasing is also an important factor affecting translation. The frequency and semantic load of several correspondences differs among the gospels. INDEX WORDS: Preposition, Biblical Greek, Gothic, Classical Armenian, Old Church Slavic, Prepositional semantics, Semantic function, Translation PREPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS IN BIBLICAL GREEK, GOTHIC, CLASSICAL ARMENIAN, AND OLD CHURCH SLAVIC by OLGA A. THOMASON B.A., The Gomel State University, Belarus, 1999 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2006 © 2006 Olga A. Thomason All Rights Reserved PREPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS IN BIBLICAL GREEK, GOTHIC, CLASSICAL ARMENIAN, AND OLD CHURCH SLAVIC by OLGA A. THOMASON Major Professor: Jared Klein Committee: Keith Langston Jonathan Evans Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2006 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the study .................................................................................................1 1.2 Previous studies .......................................................................................................2 1.3 Theoretical background ...........................................................................................3 1.4 Method .....................................................................................................................8 1.5 Text ..........................................................................................................................9 2 BIBLICAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS ............................................................................12 2.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................12 2.1 ἘN .........................................................................................................................12 2.2 EἸΣ ........................................................................................................................16 2.3 ἘK/ἘΞ ...................................................................................................................18 2.4 ΠΡΌΣ ....................................................................................................................21 2.5 ἘΠΊ ........................................................................................................................23 2.6 ΠΑΡΆ ....................................................................................................................26 2.7 ἈΠΌ ......................................................................................................................28 2.8 ὙΠΌ ......................................................................................................................30 2.9 ∆ΙΆ ........................................................................................................................32 v 2.10 ΚΑΤΆ ..................................................................................................................33 2.11 ΠΕΡΊ ....................................................................................................................35 2.12 ΜΕΤΆ ..................................................................................................................37 2.13 ΣΎΝ .....................................................................................................................38 2.14 ἈΝΆ ....................................................................................................................39 2.15 ΠΡΌ .....................................................................................................................40 2.16 ὙΠΈΡ ..................................................................................................................41 2.17 ἈΝΤΊ ...................................................................................................................42 2.18 Improper prepositions ..........................................................................................43 2.19 Cases ....................................................................................................................46 2.20 Conclusions .........................................................................................................49 3 GOTHIC PREPOSITIONS ..............................................................................................55 3.1 IN ...........................................................................................................................55 3.2 AT ..........................................................................................................................58 3.3 ANA ......................................................................................................................59 3.4 UF ..........................................................................................................................62 3.5 UFAR ....................................................................................................................63 3.6 BI ...........................................................................................................................64 3.7 FAUR ....................................................................................................................66 3.8 AFAR ....................................................................................................................67 3.9 UND ......................................................................................................................68 3.10 DU .......................................................................................................................70 3.11 AF ........................................................................................................................72 3.12 FRAM ..................................................................................................................73 vi 3.13 US ........................................................................................................................74 3.14 MIÞ ......................................................................................................................76 3.15 WIÞRA ................................................................................................................77 3.16 AND ....................................................................................................................78 3.17 ÞAIRH .................................................................................................................79 3.18 UNDAR ...............................................................................................................80 3.19 Improper prepositions ..........................................................................................80
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sign Language Typology Series
    SIGN LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SERIES The Sign Language Typology Series is dedicated to the comparative study of sign languages around the world. Individual or collective works that systematically explore typological variation across sign languages are the focus of this series, with particular emphasis on undocumented, underdescribed and endangered sign languages. The scope of the series primarily includes cross-linguistic studies of grammatical domains across a larger or smaller sample of sign languages, but also encompasses the study of individual sign languages from a typological perspective and comparison between signed and spoken languages in terms of language modality, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to sign language typology. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages Edited by Ulrike Zeshan Sign Language Typology Series No. 1 / Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages / Ulrike Zeshan (ed.) / Nijmegen: Ishara Press 2006. ISBN-10: 90-8656-001-6 ISBN-13: 978-90-8656-001-1 © Ishara Press Stichting DEF Wundtlaan 1 6525XD Nijmegen The Netherlands Fax: +31-24-3521213 email: [email protected] http://ishara.def-intl.org Cover design: Sibaji Panda Printed in the Netherlands First published 2006 Catalogue copy of this book available at Depot van Nederlandse Publicaties, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag (www.kb.nl/depot) To the deaf pioneers in developing countries who have inspired all my work Contents Preface........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Periphrastic Causative Constructions in Mehweb Daria Barylnikova National Research University Higher School of Economics
    Chapter 6 Periphrastic causative constructions in Mehweb Daria Barylnikova National Research University Higher School of Economics In Mehweb, periphrastic causatives are formed by a combination of the infinitive of the lexical verb with another verb, originally a caused motion verb. Various tests that Mehweb periphrastic causatives do not qualify as fully grammaticalized. But the constructions are not compositional expressions, either. While a clause usually contains either a morphological or a periphrastic causative marker, there are instances where, in a periphrastic causative construction, the lexical verb itself may carry the causative affix, resulting in only one causative meaning. Keywords: causative, periphrastic causative, double causative, Mehweb, Dargwa, East Caucasian. 1 Introduction The causative construction denotes a complex situation consisting of twocom- ponent events: (1) the event that causes another event to happen; and (2) the result of this causation (Comrie 1989: 165–166; Nedjalkov & Silnitsky 1973; Ku- likov 2001). Here, the first event refers to the action of the causer and the second explicates the effect of the causation on the causee. Causativization is a valency-increasing derivation which is applied to the structure of the clause. In the resulting construction, the causer is the subject and the causee shifts to a non-subject position. The set of semantic roles does not remain the same. Minimally, a new agent is added. With a new argument added, we have to redistribute the grammatical relations taking into account how these participants semantically relate to each other. The general scheme of the causative derivation always implies a participant that is treated as a causer (someone or something that spreads their control over the situation and “pulls Daria Barylnikova.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of Simple and Compound Tenses in Ndebele Joanna Pietraszko*
    Proc Ling Soc Amer Volume 1, Article 18:1-15 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v1i0.3716 The Syntax of simple and compound tenses in Ndebele Joanna Pietraszko* Abstract. It is a widely accepted generalization that verbal periphrasis is triggered by in- creased inflectional meaning and a paucity of verbal elements to support its realization. This work examines the limitations on synthetic verbal forms in Ndebele and argues that periphrasis in this language arises via a last-resort grammatical mechanism. The proposed trigger of auxiliary insertion is c-selection – a relation between inflectional categories and verbs. Keywords. verbal periphrasis; default auxiliary; c-selection; Ndebele; Bantu 1. Introduction. This paper focuses on the mechanics of default periphrasis – a phenomenon where a default verb (an auxiliary) appears in a complex inflectional context. I provide an anal- ysis of two types of compound tenses in Ndebele:1 Perfect and Prospective tenses, arguing that periphrastic expressions in those tenses are triggered by c-selectional features on T heads. The type of verbal periphrasis we find in Ndebele is known as the overflow pattern of auxiliary use (Bjorkman, 2011), and is illustrated in (1),2 where Present Perfect and Simple Future are synthetic (there is no auxiliary), but Future Perfect is periphrastic (1-c). (1) Default periphrasis in Ndebele: a. U- ∅- dl -ile Present Perfect/Recent Past (synthetic) 2sg- PST- eat -FS.PST ‘You have eaten/you ate recently’. b. U- za- dl -a Simple Future (synthetic) 2sg- FUT- eat -FS ‘You will eat’. c. U- za- be u- ∅- dl -ile Future Perfect (periphrastic) 2sg- FUT- aux 2sg- PST- eat -FS.PST ‘You will have eaten’.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics
    UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1b93p0xs Author Gurevich, Olga Publication Date 2006 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version by Olga I Gurevich B.A. (University of Virginia) 2000 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 2002 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Eve E. Sweetser, Co-Chair Professor James P. Blevins, Co-Chair Professor Sharon Inkelas Professor Johanna Nichols Spring 2006 The dissertation of Olga I Gurevich is approved: Co-Chair Date Co-Chair Date Date Date University of California, Berkeley Spring 2006 Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version Copyright 2006 by Olga I Gurevich 1 Abstract Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version by Olga I Gurevich Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Eve E. Sweetser, Co-Chair, Professor James P. Blevins, Co-Chair Linguistic theories can be distinguished based on how they represent the construc- tion of linguistic structures. In \bottom-up" models, meaning is carried by small linguistic units, from which the meaning of larger structures is derived. By contrast, in \top-down" models the smallest units of form need not be individually meaningful; larger structures may determine their overall meaning and the selection of their parts. Many recent developments in psycholinguistics provide empirical support for the latter view. This study combines intuitions from Construction Grammar and Word-and-Para- digm morphology to develop the framework of Constructional Morphology.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Periphrasis and Morphosyntatic Mismatch in Czech
    Chapter 4 Periphrasis and morphosyntatic mismatch in Czech Olivier Bonami Université de Paris, Laboratoire de linguistique formelle, CNRS Gert Webelhuth Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a.M. This paper presents an HPSG analysis of the Czech periphrastic past and condi- tional at the morphology-syntax interface. After clarifying the status of Czech aux- iliaries as words rather than affixes, we discuss the fact that the past tense exempli- fies the phenomenon of zero periphrasis, where a form of the main verb normally combined with an auxiliary can stand on its own in some paradigm cells. We ar- gue that this is the periphrastic equivalent of zero exponence, and show how the phenomenon can be accommodated within a general theory of periphrasis, where periphrasis is a particular instance of a mismatch between morphology and syntax. 1 Introduction The term “inflectional periphrasis” denotes a situation where a construction in- volving two or more words stands in paradigmatic opposition with a single word in the expression of a morphosyntactic contrast. The two Czech examples in (1) illustrate this: where the present indicative of čekat is expressed by the single word čekáme in (1a), its past indicative is expressed by the combination of the two words jsme and čekali, as shown in (1b). (1) a. Čekáme na Jardu. wait.prs.1pl for Jarda.acc.sg ‘We are waiting for Jarda.’ Olivier Bonami & Gert Webelhuth. 2021. Periphrasis and morphosyntatic mismatch in Czech. In Berthold Crysmann & Manfred Sailer (eds.), One-to-many relations in morphology, syntax, and semantics, 85–115. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10. 5281/zenodo.4729795 Olivier Bonami & Gert Webelhuth b.
    [Show full text]
  • Interrogating Possessive Have: a Case Study Argumentum 9 (2013), 99-107 Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó
    99 József Andor: Interrogating possessive have: a case study Argumentum 9 (2013), 99-107 Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó József Andor Interrogating possessive have: a case study Abstract Major, standard grammars of English give an account and interpret interrogatively used possessive have as a unique specialty of genres and text types of British English. Reviewing descriptions offered by some of these grammars and presenting empirically based evidence on acceptability of usage and function, the present paper offers results revealing the occurrence of inverted possessive have in other regional varieties, specifically in American English. It is suggested that have, retaining its possessive lexical meaning behaves as a semi-auxiliary in such constructions. Keywords: possessive, inversion, do-support, corpus-based, semi-auxiliary, notionally and morpho-syntactically based categorization 1 Introduction What made me start researching the functional-semantic and pragmatic-contextual force of interrogative sentences with the possessive lexical status of have was finding the example Have you a pen? on page 88 of the recently published Oxford Modern English Grammar authored by Bas Aarts (2011). The sentence was given under section 4.1.1.6. titled “Subjects invert positions with verbs in interrogative main clauses”, which section, due to its scope, did not address discussing syntactic variation concerning possessive usage of have, contrasting syntactic as well as cognitive-semantic and pragmatic, usage based issues of formally pure cases of inversion with the co-occurrence of have and do-support (also called do-periphrasis) or the have got construction. This came to me as a surprise, as types of have-based possession could have been discussed in a dictionary based on one of the most valuable corpora of British English, the British component of the International Corpus of English (ICE-GB).
    [Show full text]
  • On the Structure of Negative Statements in Modern English Correspondence
    I know not of any reason why I should use do: on the structure of negative statements in modern English correspondence Del ocaso del adverbio not al despertar del auxiliar do: la evolución de las estructuras negativas en inglés moderno Gemma Plaza Tejedor Universidad Complutense de Madrid [email protected] Resumen: A lo largo de las últimas décadas han sido Abstract: In the last decades, many research numerosos los estudios lingüísticos centrados en la studies in Linguistics have been focused on the history historia de la lengua inglesa, cobrando especial impor- of the English language; in this field, corpora analyses tancia los análisis de corpus, ya que estos ofrecen un have become increasingly important since they provide acceso rápido a datos lingüísticos reales. La idea prin- easy access to actual linguistic data. The main purpose cipal de este estudio es analizar la evolución de las of this study is to describe the evolution of the different diferentes estructuras gramaticales usadas para formar grammatical structures used in negative statements in la negación en Inglés Moderno –que abarca de 1500 Modern English –which spans from 1500 to 1900, hasta 1900 aproximadamente– teniendo como objeto de approximately–, by analysing public and private cor- estudio cartas públicas y privadas escritas entre los respondence written between the 16th and the 19th cen- siglos XVI y XIX recopiladas en los diferentes corpus turies and included in the corpora selected for this aquí incluidos. Los datos extraídos de estos corpus study. The data
    [Show full text]
  • Periphrasis As Collocation
    Morphology manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Periphrasis as collocation Olivier Bonami Prefinal version of December 2014. To appear in 2015 in Morphology Abstract This paper provides a formal theory of inflectional periphrasis, the phenomenon where a multi-word expression plays the grammatical role normally played by a single word filling a cell in an inflectional paradigm. Expanding on the literature, I first identify and illustrate six key properties that a satisfactory theory of periphrasis should account for: (i) the phenomenon of periphrasis is found in the inflection of all major parts of speech; (ii) the logic of the opposition between periphrasis and synthesis is the logic of inflection; (iii) auxiliaries as used in periphrases are morphosyntactic hybrids; (iv) some periphrases are morphosyntactically non-compositional; (v) periphrasis is independent of phrase structure, but (vi) the parts of a periphrase are linked by a grammatical function. The rest of the paper presents a lexicalist theory of periphrasis, relying on a version of HPSG (Pollard & Sag, 1994) for syntax combined with a version of Paradigm Function Morphology (Stump, 2001) for inflection. The leading idea is that periphrases are similar to syntactically flexible idioms; the theory of periphrasis is thus embedded within a more general theory of collocation. Periphrasis is accounted for in a strictly lexicalist fashion by recognizing that exponence may take the form of the addition of collocational requirements. I show how the theory accounts for all key properties identified in the first section, deploying partial analyses for periphrastic constructions in English, French, Czech, and Persian. Keywords Periphrasis · Inflection · Lexicalism · Realizational morphology 1 Introduction Inflectional periphrasis is the phenomenon where a multi-word expression plays the gram- matical role normally played by a single word filling a cell in an inflectional paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Approximative Adverbs: Evidence from European Portuguese
    THE MEANING OF APPROXIMATIVE ADVERBS: EVIDENCE FROM EUROPEAN PORTUGUESE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Patrícia Matos Amaral, Master’s Degree in Linguistics ***** The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Scott Schwenter, Adviser Professor Craige Roberts ____________________________ Professor John Grinstead Adviser Spanish and Portuguese Graduate Program ABSTRACT This dissertation presents an analysis of the semantic-pragmatic properties of adverbs like English almost and barely (“approximative adverbs”), both in a descriptive and in a theoretical perspective. In particular, I investigate to what extent the meaning distinctions encoded by the system of approximative adverbs in European Portuguese (EP) shed light on the characterization of these adverbs as a class and on the challenges raised by their semantic-pragmatic properties. I focus on the intuitive notion of closeness associated with the meaning of these adverbs and the related question of the asymmetry of their meaning components. The main claim of this work is that the meaning of approximative adverbs involves a comparison between properties along a scalar dimension, and makes reference to a lexically provided or contextually assumed standard value of comparison. In chapter 2, I present some of the properties displayed by approximative adverbs cross-linguistically and more specifically in European Portuguese. This chapter discusses the difficulties raised by their classification within the major classes assumed in taxonomies of adverbs. In chapter 3, I report two experiments that were conducted to test the asymmetric behavior of the meaning components of approximative adverbs and the role that they play in interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • 48. Possessives and Relational Nouns
    48. Possessives and relational nouns Chris Barker, NYU homepages.nyu.edu/∼cb125 June 6, 2008 Draft of an article for Maienborn, von Heusinger and Portner (eds). Semantics: An International Hand- book of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter. This article concentrates on nominal possessives (John's friend) rather than on verbal possessives (John has a friend). In John's friend, John is the possessor, and friend describes the entity possessed (the pos- sessee). Nominal possessives constitute a major construction type in the languages of the world. In contrast with a sortal noun (e.g., person), friend is a (two-place) relational noun: a person counts as a friend only in virtue of stand- ing in a particular relationship with another individual. Relational nouns are an important element in the study of possessives because the content of a possessive typically, perhaps characteristically, depends on the content of a relational nominal. Possessives provide particularly compelling support for type shifting as a general principle of syntactic and semantic composition. Posses- sives also inform debates involving definiteness, binding, and a number of other semantic phenomena. Some bibliographic notes: Partee 1997, an influential analysis of the possessive, first circulated in manuscript form around 1983, though by 1990 my attempts to get hold of a copy were not successful. My 1991 dissertation, published in 1995, provides a general introduction to nominal possessives and relational nouns. Taylor 1996 and Heine 1997 are book-length treatments in the Cognitive Grammar tradition. There is a literature in French, discussed in Dobrovie-Sorin 2000a with special attention to the contributions of Milner.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Paper
    OnHowtoLiveandKeepDying Patr´ıciaAmaral UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill 1. Introduction This paper focuses on a verbal construction of Brazilian Portuguese (BP) formed with the verb viver ‘to live’ + V[Gerund], ‘to keep V-ing’, as in (1), and provides an analysis of its meaning. (1) Ele vive chegando atrasado. he live-PRES-3SG arrive-GER late ‘He arrives late all the time.’1 Following the Hispanic Linguistics tradition, I will refer to this type of verbal construction as verbal periphrasis or aspectual periphrasis (Yllera 1999). Spanish and Portuguese have a progressive periphrasis formed by estar + V[Gerund] and distinguish two aspectual periphrases formed with verbs of motion: andar ‘to walk’ + V[Gerund], ‘to V repeatedly’, and ir ‘to go’ + V[Gerund], ‘to V slowly and gradually’ (Squartini 1998; Travaglia 1981; Moia´ & Viotti 2004). Contra previous proposals in the literature, Laca has argued that these periphrases formed with verbs of motion do not convey progressive aspect. She proposes that they modify the basic eventuality denoted by the verb and should be analyzed as pluractional operators on the VP (Laca 2004b, 2006). In this paper, I describe the syntactic and semantic properties of viver + V[Gerund] in BP and show that it is a monoclausal construction. I build on Laca’s proposal regarding the periphrases formed with verbs of motion to analyze the meaning of viver + V[Gerund] in terms of eventuality modification and pluractionality. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, I present the syntactic and semantic tests that distinguish the aspectual periphrasis from the biclausal construction in which viver and the verb in the Gerund constitute two separate predicates.
    [Show full text]
  • 68. Periphrasis
    654 IX. Flexion 5. References Meder, Gregor & Mugdan, Joachim (1990), “Alle reden von Häufigkeit …: Anmerkungen zum COBUILD (1987) ϭ Collins COBUILD English Thema ‘Frequenz’ in der Morphologie”. In: Bas- Language Dictionary, Editor in Chief John Sinclair, sarak, A[rmin] & Bittner, D[agmar] & Bittner, A[n- Managing Editor Patrick Hanks. London, Glas- dreas] & Thiele, P[etra] (eds.), Wurzel(n) der gow: Collins Natürlichkeit: Studien zur Morphologie und Phono- Ingo, Rune (1978), Suomen kielen pluratiivit eli logie, Vol. IV. Berlin: Zentralinst. für Sprachwis- monikkosanat.A˚ bo (Turku): A˚ bo Akademi (Med- senschaft (Linguistische Studien A 208), 87Ϫ108 delanden fra˚n Stiftelsens för A˚ bo Akademi For- Mugdan, Joachim (1983), “Grammatik im Wörter- skningsinstitut 34) buch: Flexion”. In: Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (ed.), Karlsson, Fred (1985), “Paradigms and Word Studien zur neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie, Vol. Forms”. In: Laskowski, Roman (ed.), Studia III. Hildesheim etc.: Olms (Germanistische Lin- gramatyczne, Vol. VII. Wroclaw etc.: Ossolineum guistik 1Ϫ4/82), 179Ϫ237 (Prace Instytutu Je˛zyka Polskiego 61), 135Ϫ154 Plank, Frans (1981), Morphologische (Ir-)regulari- Karlsson, Fred (1986), “Frequency Considerations täten: Aspekte der Wortstrukturtheorie. Tübingen: in Morphology”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprach- Narr (Studien zur Deutschen Grammatik 13) wissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39, Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sidney & Leech, 19Ϫ28 Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan (1985), A Comprehensive Karlsson, Göran (1957), Suomen kielen nukuksissa Grammar of the English Language. London, New ja hereillä-tyyppiset paikallissija-adverbit. Helsinki: York: Longman Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura (Suomalaisen Soboleva, P[olina] A. (1979), “Defektnost’ para- Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 250) digmy i semanticˇeskoe tozˇdestvo slova”. Voprosy Kiparsky, Paul (1974), “Remarks on Analogical jazykoznanija 1979.5, 37Ϫ47 Change”. In: Anderson, J[ohn] M.
    [Show full text]