DOCSLIB.ORG

Lw/M 117 1 Macedonian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lw/M 117 1 Macedonian LW/M 117 1 MACEDONIAN Contents Abbreviations.................................................................................................. 3 0 Sociolinguistic and Geolinguistic Situation..................................................... 4 0.1 Geography.......................................................................................... 4 0.2 Terminology and History......................................................................... 4 0.3 Standardization..................................................................................... 5 0.4 Status................................................................................................ 6 0.5 Dialects.............................................................................................. 6 0.5.1 Major Isoglosses................................................................................... 6 0.5.2 Vocalic Inventories ................................................................................ 6 0.5.3 Prosody............................................................................................. 7 0.5.4 Morphology ........................................................................................ 7 0.6 Number of Speakers .............................................................................. 8 1 Phonology.......................................................................................... 8 1.1 Orthography........................................................................................ 8 1.2 Phonemic Inventory and Phonotactics .......................................................... 9 1.2.1 Vowels.............................................................................................. 9 1.2.2 Consonants........................................................................................10 1.3 Prosody............................................................................................12 1.3.1 Lexical Exceptions................................................................................12 1.3.2 Phrasal Exceptions ...............................................................................12 1.4 Morphophonemic Alternations..................................................................13 1.4.1 Velar with Palatal .................................................................................13 1.4.2 Velar with Dental .................................................................................13 1.4.3 Dental or Velar with Palatal......................................................................13 1.4.4 Cluster Simplification ............................................................................13 1.4.5 Dissimilation with -c#e ............................................................................14 1.4.6 Progressive Voicing Assimilation ..............................................................14 1.4.7 Isolated Consonantal Alternations ..............................................................14 1.4.8 Vowel~Zero Alernations.........................................................................14 1.4.9 Vocalic Alternations ..............................................................................15 2 Morphology .......................................................................................15 2.1 Nouns..............................................................................................15 2.1.1 Gender .............................................................................................15 2.1.2 Number ............................................................................................15 2.1.3 Definiteness .......................................................................................17 2.1.4 Case ................................................................................................18 2.1.5 Noun Derivation ..................................................................................19 2.2 Adjectives..........................................................................................21 2.2.1 Gender/Number...................................................................................21 2.2.2 Definiteness .......................................................................................21 2.2.3 Gradation ..........................................................................................21 2.2.4 Adjective Derivation..............................................................................22 LW/M 117 2 MACEDONIAN 2.3 Pronouns ..........................................................................................22 2.3.1 Personal............................................................................................22 2.3.2 Possessive.........................................................................................23 2.3.3 Deictic..............................................................................................23 2.3.4 Interrogative.......................................................................................23 2.3.5 Totalizing ..........................................................................................24 2.4 Numerals ..........................................................................................24 2.4.1 Cardinal (non-virile)..............................................................................24 2.4.2 Virile ...............................................................................................24 2.4.3 Definiteness .......................................................................................24 2.4.4 Ordinals............................................................................................24 2.5 Verbs...............................................................................................25 2.5.1 Inflection...........................................................................................25 2.5.2 Verbal Categories.................................................................................30 2.5.3 Verb Derivation ...................................................................................36 2.6 Adverbs............................................................................................36 2.7 Prepositions .......................................................................................36 3 Syntax..............................................................................................37 3.1 Element Order in Declarative Sentences........................................................37 3.2 Nondeclarative Sentence Types.................................................................40 3.3 Copular and Existential Sentences..............................................................43 3.4 Coordination and Comitativity ..................................................................43 3.5 Subordination .....................................................................................44 3.6 Negation ...........................................................................................46 3.7 Anaphora and Pronouns .........................................................................47 3.8 Reflexives and Reciprocals......................................................................49 3.9 Possession.........................................................................................51 3.10 Quantification .....................................................................................51 Texts ......................................................................................................53 References ....................................................................................................57 Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................59 Map ......................................................................................................60 LW/M 117 3 MACEDONIAN Abbreviations ACC accusative NOM nominative ADJ adjective O object ADV adverb QU interrogative AO aorist P perfective AUG augmentative PL plural AUX auxiliary PR present C consonant PRO pronoun COL collective PX proximal DAT dative S subject DEF definite SU subjunctive DIM diminutive SG singular DS distal TR transitive EX expectative (future) V verb F feminine VA verbal adjective HY hypothetical VL vowel HUM humanVNverbal noun I imperfective VV verbal adverb IDF indefinite Ø morphological zero IM imperfect [ ] phonetic transcription ITR intransitive { } morphemic transcription IV imperative / / phonemic transcription LF l-form < > orthographic symbol M masculine > results in N neuter < comes from NEG negative ~ alternates with NN noun ' ' English glosses Italics are used for the transliteration of Macedonian Cyrillic orthography, which is mostly phonemic. The citation form for verbs is the third singular present unless otherwise indicated. LW/M 117 4 MACEDONIAN 0 Sociolinguistic and Geolinguistic Situation 0.1 Geography Macedonia has been the name of a Balkan region since ancient times, when it was bounded by Epirus, Thessaly, and Thrace on the southwest, south, and east. At present geographic Macedonia is best defined as the region bounded by a series of mountains and ranges (Olympus, Pindus, S‹ar, Rhodopes) and the lower course of the river Mesta (Greek: Néstos). It comprises the Republic of Macedonia, the Blagoevgrad District in southwestern Bulgaria (Pirin Macedonia), and the district of Makedhonía in the province of Northern Greece (Aegean Macedonia). Two small parts of eastern Albania
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparing Bulgarian and Slovak Multext-East Morphology Tagset1
    Comparing Bulgarian and Slovak Multext-East morphology tagset1 Ludmila Dimitrovaa), Radovan Garabíkb), Daniela Majchrákováb) a) Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria [email protected] b) Ľ. Štúr Institute of Linguistics, Slovak Academy of Sciences 813 64 Bratislava, Slovakia [email protected], http://korpus.juls.savba.sk Abstract We analyse the differences between the Bulgarian and Slovak languages Multext-East morphology specifica- tion (MTE, 2004). The differences can be caused either by inherent language dissimilarities, different ways of analysing morphology categories or just by different use of MTE design guideline. We describe all the parts of speech in detail with emphasis on analysing the tagset differences. Keywords: Bulgarian, Slovak, grammatical category, morphology specification, morphology tagset Introduction The EC project MULTEXT Multilingual Tools and Corpora produced linguistics resources and a freely available set of tools that are extensible, coherent and language-independent, for seven Western European languages: English, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch, and Swedish (Ide, Veronis, 1994). The EC INCO-Copernicus project MULTEXT-East Multilingual Text Tools and Corpora for Central and Eastern European Languages is a continuation of the MULTEXT project. MULTEXT-East (MTE for short; Dimitrova et al., 1998) used methodologies and results of MULTEXT. MTE developed significant language resources for six Central and Eastern European (CEE) languages: Bulgarian,
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin
    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian evidential system Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin This paper provides an account of the Bulgarian admirative construction andits place within the Bulgarian evidential system based on (i) new observations on the morphological, temporal, and evidential properties of the admirative, (ii) a criti- cal reexamination of existing approaches to the Bulgarian evidential system, and (iii) insights from a similar mirative construction in Spanish. I argue in particular that admirative sentences are assertions based on evidence of some sort (reporta- tive, inferential, or direct) which are contrasted against the set of beliefs held by the speaker up to the point of receiving the evidence; the speaker’s past beliefs entail a proposition that clashes with the assertion, triggering belief revision and resulting in a sense of surprise. I suggest an analysis of the admirative in terms of a mirative operator that captures the evidential, temporal, aspectual, and modal properties of the construction in a compositional fashion. The analysis suggests that although mirativity and evidentiality can be seen as separate semantic cate- gories, the Bulgarian admirative represents a cross-linguistically relevant case of a mirative extension of evidential verbal forms. Keywords: mirativity, evidentiality, fake past 1 Introduction The Bulgarian evidential system is an ongoing topic of discussion both withre- spect to its interpretation and its morphological buildup. In this paper, I focus on the currently poorly understood admirative construction. The analysis I present is based on largely unacknowledged observations and data involving the mor- phological structure, the syntactic environment, and the evidential meaning of the admirative. Elena Karagjosova.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Bulgarian Nationalism and Russia's Influence Upon It
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 5-2014 The rise of Bulgarian nationalism and Russia's influence upon it. Lin Wenshuang University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Wenshuang, Lin, "The rise of Bulgarian nationalism and Russia's influence upon it." (2014). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1548. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/1548 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RISE OF BULGARIAN NATIONALISM AND RUSSIA‘S INFLUENCE UPON IT by Lin Wenshuang B. A., Beijing Foreign Studies University, China, 1997 M. A., Beijing Foreign Studies University, China, 2002 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Humanities University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky May 2014 Copyright © 2014 by Lin Wenshuang All Rights Reserved THE RISE OF BULGARIAN NATIONALISM AND RUSSIA‘S INFLUENCE UPON IT by Lin Wenshuang B. A., Beijing Foreign Studies University, China, 1997 M. A., Beijing Foreign Studies University, China, 2002 A Dissertation Approved on April 1, 2014 By the following Dissertation Committee __________________________________ Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffix Combinations in Bulgarian: Parsability and Hierarchy-Based Ordering
    Suffix Combinations in Bulgarian: Parsability and Hierarchy-Based Ordering Stela Manova Department of Slavic Studies University of Vienna Universitätscampus AAKH Spitalgasse 2, Hof 3 A-1090 Vienna Austria Phone: +43-1-4277-42806 Fax: +43-1-4277-9428 Email: [email protected] URL: http://slawistik.univie.ac.at/mitarbeiter/manova-stela/ ; http://homepage.univie.ac.at/stela.manova/ Abstract This article extends the empirical scope of the most recent approach to affix ordering, the Parsability Hypothesis (Hay 2001, 2002, 2003) or Complexity-Based Ordering (CBO) (Plag 2002; Hay and Plag 2004; Plag and Baayen 2009), to the inflecting-fusional morphological type, as represented by the South Slavic language Bulgarian. In order to account properly for the structure of the Bulgarian word, I distinguish between suffixes that are in the derivational word slot and suffixes that are in the inflectional word slot and show that inflectional suffix combinations are more easily parsable than derivational suffix combinations. Derivational suffixes participate in mirror-image combinations of AB – BA type and can be also attached recursively. The order of 12 out of the 22 derivational suffixes under scrutiny in this article is thus incompatible with CBO. With respect to recursiveness and productivity, the Bulgarian word exhibits three domains of suffixation (in order of increasing productivity): 1) a non-diminutive derivational domain, where a suffix may attach recursively on non-adjacent cycles; 2) a diminutive domain, where a suffix may attach recursively on adjacent cycles; and 3) an inflectional domain, where a suffix never attaches recursively. Overall, the results of this study conform to the last revision of the Parsability Hypothesis (Baayen et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidentiality and Mood: Grammatical Expressions of Epistemic Modality in Bulgarian
    Evidentiality and mood: Grammatical expressions of epistemic modality in Bulgarian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements o the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Anastasia Smirnova, M.A. Graduate Program in Linguistics The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Brian Joseph, co-advisor Judith Tonhauser, co-advisor Craige Roberts Copyright by Anastasia Smirnova 2011 ABSTRACT This dissertation is a case study of two grammatical categories, evidentiality and mood. I argue that evidentiality and mood are grammatical expressions of epistemic modality and have an epistemic modal component as part of their meanings. While the empirical foundation for this work is data from Bulgarian, my analysis has a number of empirical and theoretical consequences for the previous work on evidentiality and mood in the formal semantics literature. Evidentiality is traditionally analyzed as a grammatical category that encodes information sources (Aikhenvald 2004). I show that the Bulgarian evidential has richer meaning: not only does it express information source, but also it has a temporal and a modal component. With respect to the information source, the Bulgarian evidential is compatible with a variety of evidential meanings, i.e. direct, inferential, and reportative, as long as the speaker has concrete perceivable evidence (as opposed to evidence based on a mental activity). With respect to epistemic commitment, the construction has different felicity conditions depending on the context: the speaker must be committed to the truth of the proposition in the scope of the evidential in a direct/inferential evidential context, but not in a reportative context.
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphosyntax of Clitic Doubling
    UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title On the Mapping from Syntax to Morphophonology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/82m2c0fq Author Harizanov, Boris Publication Date 2014 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ ON THE MAPPING FROM SYNTAX TO MORPHOPHONOLOGY A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Boris Harizanov June The Dissertation of Boris Harizanov is approved: Professor Sandra Chung, Chair Professor Jorge Hankamer Professor James McCloskey Dean Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Boris Harizanov Contents Abbreviations vi Abstract vii Dedication ix Acknowledgments x Introduction . Overview ................................. . Theoretical background ........................ . Language background ......................... . Outline .................................. Clitic doubling . Types of clitic constructions ...................... .. Clitic doubling ......................... .. CLLD and CLRD ........................ . The status of the clitic doubled associate ............... .. Islandhood ........................... .. Case assignment ........................ .. Word order ........................... .. Summary ............................ . The status of the clitic–associate relation ............... .. Binding ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Storytelling and Retelling in Bulgarian: a Contrastive Perspective on the Bulgarian Adaptation of MAIN
    Storytelling and retelling in Bulgarian: a contrastive perspective on the Bulgarian adaptation of MAIN Eva Meier Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Milena Kuehnast Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Bulgarian belongs to the South Slavic language group but exhibits specific linguistic features shared with the non-Slavic languages of the Balkan Sprachbund. In this paper, we discuss linguistic and cultural aspects relevant for the Bulgarian adaptation of the revised English version of The Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (LITMUS-MAIN). We address typological properties of the verbal system pertaining to a differentiated aspectual system and to a paradigm of verbal forms for narratives grammaticalized as renarrative mood in Bulgarian. Further, we consider lexical, derivational and discourse cohesive means in contrast to the English markers of involvement and perspective taking in the MAIN stories. 1 Introduction The Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (LITMUS-MAIN, hereafter MAIN) as a tool for the assessment of the comprehension and production of narratives was first developed by a multinational team in 2012 (Gagarina et al., 2012). MAIN offers four picture stories controlled for cognitive and linguistic complexity, parallelism in micro- and macrostructure, and cultural appropriateness. The instrument can be used to access listening comprehension, storytelling and retelling skills of children aged three or older. In the following years MAIN has been adapted to languages of different language families and successfully applied in studies investigating the development of narratives skills in mono- und bilingual children (Gagarina et al., 2015; Pesco & Kay-Raining Bird, 2016). The revised version of MAIN (Gagarina et al., 2019) implements insights from the manifold practical experience with the tool presenting a manual improved in terms of handling and clarity.
    [Show full text]
  • Mirativity in Korean and Bulgarian
    Third International Academic Conference of KACEES 1 Bulgaria, Korea, Central & East Europe - Humanities and Social Science 14th – 15th July, 2003Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria Mirativity in Korean and Bulgarian So Yong Kim, Krasimira Aleksova І. Introduction The present paper studies from a typological point of view the grammatical means for encoding a speaker’s surprise at an unexpected real fact in Korean and Bulgarian. In the first section we examine the semantics of the phenomenon and present briefly a few approaches to it. The nest part is an attempt at a typological classification of languages on the grounds of the grammatical status of mirative forms employed by the respective language(s). The main aim is to discover and demonstrate the places of Bulgarian and Korean in such a typological classification and specify the similarities and differences in the grammatical means for expressing the speaker’s astonishment. The third part focuses on the morphological patterns and types of marking specific for Bulgarian and Korean. It contains an overview of the grammatical system of the languages and some particular mirative uses. II. The semantics of mirativ forms The mirative is used to express the assessment of the knowledge background of the speaker – a fact little known to the speaker turns out to be truthful and the conclusion about the mismatch between the foreseen, expected, supposed and the real fact encites the astonishment of the speaker. The surprise expressed by the mirative forms is caused by the discrepancy between what is expected and what thing really are (see Guéncheva 1990) and as such encodes the transition of the speaker from a state of non-knowledge into a state of knowledge (see Nitsolova 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Analysis of Tense Category in Slavic Languages
    Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, volume 114 First International Volga Region Conference on Economics, Humanities and Sports (FICEHS 19) Historical Analysis of Tense Category in Slavic Languages Huseynova R.N. Foreign Languages Department Azerbaijan Medical University Baku, АAzerbaijan Abstract—In our research, the Slavic languages are the same word-form; 5) Two categories of the same examined and analyzed by the historical development stages of category cannot be combined in one word-form. the tense category and the changes observed during these stages. Lack of unanimous views and considerations in the In Slavic languages, the tense category is younger linguistic literature on the tense category dictates the relevance compared to the aspect category. Time limitations are laid to of the chosen topic. The aim of the study is to study tense the aspect conflict. The present, past and future grammatical categories in Slavic languages in a diachronic manner. times are distinguished. In turn they have different Analyzing the materials of the Czech, Bulgarian, Macedonian, meanings. For example, recent past and past meanings of Russian and other Slavic languages on the basis of typological- the past tense continued in the present, while the future comparative and historical comparative methods the author tense has the meanings of the near and far future. tried to investigate the manifestation forms of this category. Widespread coverage of tense categories in Slavic languages in II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY a diachronic aspect necessitates the scientific novelty of the The main purpose of the investigation is to study the research. One of the results obtained in the study is that in tense category in Slavic languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Modal Verbs in Bulgarian Their Lexical Specification and Interaction With
    Modal verbs in Bulgarian Their lexical specification and interaction with tense, aspect and evidentiality Sizen Ertan Lyutfi LING4190 Master Thesis in Linguistics Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Spring 2021 II Abstract This thesis aims to investigate the lexical specification of the modal verbs moga and trjabva in Bulgarian, a Southeast Slavic language. Two of the main components used to describe the meaning of modals are modal force and modal flavour (von Fintel and Matthewson, 2008). Modal force describes a proposition either being possible or necessary. Modal flavour refers to the way in which something is necessary or possible, such as deontic (what can or must be the case based on rules and obligations) and epistemic (what can or must be the case based in light of what the speaker knows). In Bulgarian, the necessity and possibility modals interact with tense, aspect and evidentiality and agree with their subject in person and number. Unlike tense, aspect and evidentiality, the modal verbs in Bulgarian have not been independently investigated before. Two different studies on Bulgarian modals were conducted. In the first one, I adapt the modal questionnaire for fieldwork developed by Vander Klok (2014) to Bulgarian and describe the lexical specification of two modal verbs based on their modal force and modal flavour. Data from 19 different contexts suggests that moga is specified for possibility modal force while trjabva is specified for necessity modal force, but both are compatible with all modal flavours, similar to the English modals can and must. In the second study, I develop an online questionnaire that aimed to differentiate between judgements on speaker commitment towards utterances without a modal, with a modal in its bare form, with a modal with evidential morphology and with the modal verb in its conditional form.
    [Show full text]
  • ONLINE APPENDIX: Not for Print Publication
    ONLINE APPENDIX: not for print publication A Additional Tables and Figures Figure A1: Permutation Tests Panel A: Female Labor Force Participation Panel B: Gender Difference in Labor Force Participation A1 Table A1: Cross-Country Regressions of LFP Ratio Dependent variable: LFPratio Specification: OLS OLS OLS (1) (2) (3) Proportion speaking gender language -0.16 -0.25 -0.18 (0.03) (0.04) (0.04) [p < 0:001] [p < 0:001] [p < 0:001] Continent Fixed Effects No Yes Yes Country-Level Geography Controls No No Yes Observations 178 178 178 R2 0.13 0.37 0.44 Robust standard errors are clustered by the most widely spoken language in all specifications; they are reported in parentheses. P-values are reported in square brackets. LFPratio is the ratio of the percentage of women in the labor force, mea- sured in 2011, to the percentage of men in the labor force. Geography controls are the percentage of land area in the tropics or subtropics, average yearly precipitation, average temperature, an indicator for being landlocked, and the Alesina et al. (2013) measure of suitability for the plough. A2 Table A2: Cross-Country Regressions of LFP | Including \Bad" Controls Dependent variable: LFPf LFPf - LFPm Specification: OLS OLS (1) (2) Proportion speaking gender language -6.66 -10.42 (2.80) (2.84) [p < 0:001] [p < 0:001] Continent Fixed Effects Yes Yes Country-Level Geography Controls Yes Yes Observations 176 176 R2 0.57 0.68 Robust standard errors are clustered by the most widely spoken language in all specifications; they are reported in parentheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Two-Level Description of the Verbal Inflection in Contemporary Bulgarian
    Katina Bontcheva 1 Ctl132: Automaattinen fonologinen ja morfologinen analyysi TWO-LEVEL DESCRIPTION OF THE VERBAL INFLECTION IN CONTEMPORARY BULGARIAN INTRODUCTION. The verbs in Bulgarian have up to 3,000 different forms. This is due to the fact that there are six grammatical categories - person (with three subcategories - 1st, 2nd and 3rd person), number (with two subcategories - singular and plural), aspect (with two subcategories - imperfective and perfective aspect), tense (with nine subcategories - present tense, aorist, imperfect tense, future tense, perfect tense, plusquamperfect, future perfect tense, future in the past tense and future perfect in the past tense), voice (with two subcategories - active and passive voice) and mood (with four subcategories - indicative, imperative, conditional and the so called "reported" mood). In addition to that there are four participles (three active participles - present, aorist and imperfect, and a (past) passive participle) and a few other non-finite verb forms - the verbal adverbs, and the verbal nouns with the suffixes ‘-НЕ’, ‘-НИЕ’. However, all those forms can be derived either from the present-tense stem, or from the aorist stem of the verb (the aorist stem is sometimes called the infinitive stem despite the fact that contemporary Bulgarian lacks an infinitive - the form for the 1st person singular of the present tense is considered to be the basic form of the verb). Most of the verbs in Bulgarian have forms for both the perfective and imperfective aspects (some verbs are imperfectiva tantum, i.e. they have no form for the perfective aspect). The problem is that very often these forms belong to different conjugations and thus do not appear next to each other in the dictionaries (in dictionaries, it is a common practice not to explain the meaning of the perfective form of the verb but to give reference to the corresponding imperfective form).
    [Show full text]