Masterarbeit

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Masterarbeit MASTERARBEIT Titel der Masterarbeit „Productivity in Serbian Inflection and Derivation in terms of Natural Morphology” Verfasserin Tijana Radisavljević angestrebter akademischer Grad Master of Arts (MA) Wien, 2013 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 066 867 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Allgemeine Linguistik: Grammatiktheorie und kognitive Sprachwissenschaft Betreuer: Emer. O. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Wolfgang U. Dressler Acknowledgements I wish to thank a lot of people that have contributed to the successful completion of my Master Study. Above all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor Prof Dr. Wolfgang U. Dressler, whose immense knowledge and brilliant intellect have influenced me a lot to choose this topic as a main focus during my Master Study at the University of Vienna. Special thanks go to all my professors, to friends from Serbia and to my University colleagues, among whom Milena and Vladan, for their suggestions and cooperation during this Master thesis, as well as to Katharina, Costanze and Aneta for their useful advice and help. Finally, I would like to thank my family for having made my study in Austria possible and for giving me motivation for proceeding, even in very difficult situations. My particular thanks go to my sister Tanja Jaga for revising my Thesis and keeping my spirits up. I must not forget to convey my special thanks to my boyfriend‟s family, for making our dreams come true as well as for providing me with precious examples (especially of verbs) from the Serbian language. Last, but not least, I want to thank my boyfriend, for his endless love, immense support and patience during the writing of this Thesis. Vienna, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1. The framework of Natural Morphology.......................................................................................... 3 1.1. First subtheory- Universal markedness ................................................................................. 3 1.2. Second subtheory- Typological adequacy ............................................................................ 8 1.3. Third subtheory- Language specific system adequacy ....................................................... 9 1.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 10 2. Productivity ...................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 12 2.2. What is productivity? - Qualitative approaches .................................................................. 12 2.2.1. Earlier theories on productivity ...................................................................................... 12 2.2.2. Productivity within NM framework- grammatical productivity ................................... 13 2.2.3. Productivity and the interaction with other factors ...................................................... 15 2.2.4. Productivity vs. creativity ................................................................................................ 17 2.2.5. Productivity on the level of norms ................................................................................. 18 2.3. How to measure productivity? - Quantitative approaches ................................................ 21 2.3.1. Aronoff‟s (1976) productivity index................................................................................ 21 2.3.2. Baayen‟s (& Lieber, 1991; 1992) productivity measures ........................................... 23 2.4. Productivity within psycholinguistic models ........................................................................ 26 2.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 29 3. Short sociolinguistic view on Serbian ......................................................................................... 30 4. Productivity in Inflection................................................................................................................. 32 4.1. An overview of Serbian nominal morphology ..................................................................... 34 4.1.1. Traditional classification of Serbian nouns .................................................................. 35 4.1.2. New classification of Serbian nouns ............................................................................. 37 4.1.3. Grammatical productivity of Serbian nominal classes ............................................... 42 4.2. An overview of Serbian verbal morphology ........................................................................ 51 4.2.1. Inflectional productivity of Serbian verbal classes ...................................................... 53 5. Derivation vs. Inflection ................................................................................................................. 59 5.1. Traditional approaches to distinction derivation vs. inflection .......................................... 59 5.2. Derivation-Inflection Continuum (within NM) ...................................................................... 62 6. Productivity in Derivation............................................................................................................... 63 6.1. The syntagmatic dimension of productivity in derivation .................................................. 64 6.2. The paradigmatic dimension of productivity in derivation ................................................. 66 6.2.1. The scale of the probability of the application of WFRs ............................................ 66 6.2.2. Analogical formation ........................................................................................................ 67 6.3. Evaluative morphology in Serbian ........................................................................................ 70 6.3.1. Structure of Serbian diminutives ................................................................................... 70 6.3.2. Non-prototypical nature of diminutives ......................................................................... 72 6.3.3. Augmentative noun suffixation ...................................................................................... 74 6.3.4. Productivity of Serbian evaluative suffixes .................................................................. 76 6.4. Nomina agentis and feminine motion and their productivity ............................................ 77 6.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 80 7. Evidence for productivity from First Language Acquisition ..................................................... 81 7.1. Early productivity in noun inflection ...................................................................................... 83 7.2. Early productivity in verb inflection ....................................................................................... 85 7.3. Early productivity in derivation-diminutives ......................................................................... 86 7.4. Early productivity in derivation-agent nouns and feminine motion .................................. 88 8. Some typological notes on Serbian productive morphology ................................................... 90 8.1. The inflectional class system from a typological point of view ......................................... 90 8.2. The Word Formation from a typological point of view ....................................................... 91 8.3. Typology and First Language Acquisition ........................................................................... 93 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 95 References .......................................................................................................................................... 99 Abstract (English) ............................................................................................................................. 105 Abstract (German) ............................................................................................................................ 106 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 108 Curriculum vitae ................................................................................................................................ 109 Introduction „Cross-linguistically frequent‟, „intuitively plausible‟, „cognitively simple‟, „elementary‟, „universally preferred‟, „unmarked‟ are all expressions that have been used in the morphological literature to describe the phenomenon of „naturalness‟ and „natural‟ morphological processes, rules or coinages in both synchronic and diachronic change. This concept of naturalness in morphology is a gradual process and one morphological unit is felt as more or less „natural‟ to native speakers‟ ears and their grammatical knowledge. The framework
Recommended publications
  • The Relative Order of Foci and Polarity Complementizers
    1 2 3 4 The Relative Order of Foci and Polarity Complementizers: 5 1 6 A Slavic Perspective 7 8 9 Abstract 10 11 According to Rizzi & Bocci’s (2017) suggested hierarchy of the left 12 periphery, fronted foci (FOC) may never precede polarity 13 14 complementizers (POL); yet languages like Bulgarian and Macedonian, 15 where POL may also follow FOC, seem to provide a counterargument to 16 17 such generalization. On the basis of a cross-linguistic comparison of ten 18 Slavic languages, I argue that in the Slavic subgroup the possibility of 19 20 having a focus precede POL is dependent on the morphological properties 21 of the complementizer itself: in languages where the order FOC < POL 22 23 is acceptable, POL is a complex morpheme derived through the 24 incorporation of a lower functional head with a higher one. The order 25 26 FOC < POL is then derived by giving overt spell-out to the intermediate 27 copy of the polarity complementizer rather than to the highest one. 28 29 30 Keywords : Left Periphery, Fronted Foci, Polarity Questions, 31 Complementizers, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Word Order. 32 33 34 I. Introduction 35 36 37 In this article, I will be concerned with accounting for cross-linguistic variation in the 38 relative distribution of two types of left-peripheral elements. The first are polarity 39 40 complementizers (POL), namely complementizers whose function is that of introducing 41 embedded polarity questions; the second are fronted types of constituents in narrow focus. 42 43 I provide an example of a configuration containing both elements in (1), from Italian; in 44 (1), the polarity complementizer “se” (=if) is marked in bold, whereas the fronted focus -in 45 this case, a PP- is in capitals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Production of Lexical Tone in Croatian
    The production of lexical tone in Croatian Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie im Fachbereich Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main vorgelegt von Jevgenij Zintchenko Jurlina aus Kiew 2018 (Einreichungsjahr) 2019 (Erscheinungsjahr) 1. Gutacher: Prof. Dr. Henning Reetz 2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Sven Grawunder Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 01.11.2018 ABSTRACT Jevgenij Zintchenko Jurlina: The production of lexical tone in Croatian (Under the direction of Prof. Dr. Henning Reetz and Prof. Dr. Sven Grawunder) This dissertation is an investigation of pitch accent, or lexical tone, in standard Croatian. The first chapter presents an in-depth overview of the history of the Croatian language, its relationship to Serbo-Croatian, its dialect groups and pronunciation variants, and general phonology. The second chapter explains the difference between various types of prosodic prominence and describes systems of pitch accent in various languages from different parts of the world: Yucatec Maya, Lithuanian and Limburgian. Following is a detailed account of the history of tone in Serbo-Croatian and Croatian, the specifics of its tonal system, intonational phonology and finally, a review of the most prominent phonetic investigations of tone in that language. The focal point of this dissertation is a production experiment, in which ten native speakers of Croatian from the region of Slavonia were recorded. The material recorded included a diverse selection of monosyllabic, bisyllabic, trisyllabic and quadrisyllabic words, containing all four accents of standard Croatian: short falling, long falling, short rising and long rising. Each target word was spoken in initial, medial and final positions of natural Croatian sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potentiality of Pluricentrism Albanian Case Studies and Beyond
    AlbF Albanische Forschungen 41 41 The Potentiality of Pluricentrism of The Potentiality The Potentiality of Pluricentrism Albanian Case Studies and Beyond Edited by Lumnije Jusufi Harrassowitz www.harrassowitz-verlag.de Harrassowitz Verlag Albanische Forschungen Begründet von Georg Stadtmüller Für das Albanien-Institut herausgegeben von Peter Bartl unter Mitwirkung von Bardhyl Demiraj, Titos Jochalas und Oliver Jens Schmitt Band 41 2018 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden The Potentiality of Pluricentrism Albanian Case Studies and Beyond Edited by Lumnije Jusufi 2018 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden Bibliografi sche Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografi e; detaillierte bibliografi sche Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografi e; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2018 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Intelligibility Between West and South Slavic Languages Golubovic, Jelena; Gooskens, Charlotte
    University of Groningen Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slavic languages Golubovic, Jelena; Gooskens, Charlotte Published in: Russian Linguistics DOI: 10.1007/s11185-015-9150-9 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2015 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Golubovic, J., & Gooskens, C. (2015). Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slavic languages. Russian Linguistics, 39, 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-015-9150-9 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 24-09-2021 Russ Linguist (2015) 39:351–373 DOI 10.1007/s11185-015-9150-9 Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slavic languages Взаимопонимание между западнославянскими и южнославянскими языками Jelena Golubovic´1 · Charlotte Gooskens1 Published online: 18 September 2015 © The Author(s) 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Language in Croatia: Influenced by Nationalism
    Language in Croatia: Influenced by Nationalism Senior Essay Department of Linguistics, Yale University CatherineM. Dolan Primary Advisor: Prof. Robert D. Greenberg Secondary Advisor: Prof. Dianne Jonas May 1, 2006 Abstract Language and nationalism are closely linked, and this paper examines the relationship between the two. Nationalism is seen to be a powerful force which is capable ofusing language for political purposes, and the field oflinguistics has developed terminology with which the interface oflanguage and nationalism maybe studied. Using this background, the language situation in Croatia may be examined and seen to be complex. Even after thorough evaluation it is difficult to determine how languages and dialects should be delineated in Croatia, but it is certain that nationalism and politics play key roles in promoting the nation's linguistic ideals. 2 , Acknowledgements I suppose I could say that this essay was birthed almost two years ago, when I spent the summer traveling with a group ofstudents throughout Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia in order to study issues ofjustice and reconciliation. Had I never traveled in the region I may have never gained an interest in the people, their history and, yes, their language(s). Even after conducting a rigorous academic study ofthe issues plaguing former Socialist Federal Republic ofYugoslavia, I carry with me the impression that this topic can never be taken entirely into the intellectual realm; I am reminded by my memories that the Balkan conflicts involve people just as real as myself. For this, I thank all those who shared those six weeks oftraveling. That summer gave me new perspectives on many areas oflife.
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Slavic Element in Russian Culture
    COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SLAVIC LANGUAGES SLAVIC STUDIES Slavic Philology Series NIKOLAI TRUBETZKOY THE COMMON SLAVIC ELEMENT IN RUSSIAN CULTURE Edited by Leon Stilman Copyright 1949 by the Ikpartmmt of Slavic Languqp Columk univmity The preparation md publication of the aavsrml seriea of work. wder UyZC -1ES hmrm been madm paseible by m gt~t from the Rockefeller Qoundmtion to the Dapartmat of Slrrie Professof N. Trubetzkoy's study on The Cannon Slavic Eleaent in Russian Culture was included in a volume of his collected writings which appeared in 1927, in Paris, under the general title K #roblcme russkogo scwo#o~~anijo.Tbe article was trans- lated fm the Russian bg a group of graduate students of the Departant of Slavic Languages, Columbia Universi tr, including: Ime Barnsha, Hamball Berger, Tanja Cizevslra, Cawrence G, Jones, Barbara Laxtimer, Henry H. Hebel, Jr., Nora B. Sigerist- Beeson and Rita Slesser, The editor fobad it advisable to eli- atnate a number of passqes and footnotes dealing with minor facts; on the other bad, some additions (mainly chro~ologieal data) were made in a fen iwstances; these additions, ia most instances, were incorporated in tbe text in order to amid overburdening it with footnotes; they are purely factual in nature md affect In no the views and interpretations of tbe author. L. S. CONTENTS I Popular ad literarp lan@=ge.- Land11.de and d1abct.- Pxot+Slavic: itn dlalnte$ratlon: Bouthorn, Weatern and EwGern Slavi0.- Li torarr landuadem: thelr evolutiarr: their cnlatlon to apoken vernsaulam ..... 11 Old Church Slevonle: Its origiao and Its role.- The early reeensLma.- Old Bulgmrian Church Slavonlc and its progaget1on.- Church Blavoaie in Russia: sound changes; the Eastern and Wentern Russian trnditloa: the the second South Slavic influenca: the uakfled Ruseisn rocenaim ..........
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Intelligibility and Slavic Constructed Interlanguages : a Comparative Study of Ruski Jezik and ​ ​ Interslavic
    Mutual intelligibility and Slavic constructed interlanguages : a comparative study of Ruski Jezik and ​ ​ Interslavic ** Jade JOANNOT M.A Thesis in Linguistics Leiden university 2020-2021 Supervisor : Tijmen Pronk TABLE OF CONTENTS Jade Joannot M.A Thesis Linguistics 24131 words 1.1. Abstract 1.2. Definitions 1.2.1. Constructed languages 1.2.2. Interlanguage 1.2.3. Mutual intelligibility 1.3. Object of study 1.3.1. History of Slavic constructed languages Pan-Slavic languages (19th century) Esperanto-inspired projects Contemporary projects 1.3.2. Ruski Jezik & Interslavic Ruski Jezik (17th century) Interslavic (21th century) 1.3.3. Shared aspects of Ruski Jezik and Interslavic 1.4. Relevance of the study 1.4.1. Constructed languages and mutual intelligibility 1.4.2. Comparative study of Ruski Jezik and Interslavic 1.4.3. Historical linguistics 1.5. Structure of the thesis 1.5.1. Research question 1.8. Description of the method 1.8.1. Part 1 : Approaches to Slavic mutual intelligibility and their conclusions 1.8.2. Part 2 : Study of Ruski Jezik and Interslavic I.1. Factors of mutual intelligibility I.1.1. Extra-linguistic factors I.1.2. Linguistic predictors of mutual intelligibility I.1.2.1. Lexical distance I.1.2.2. Phonological distance I.1.2.3. Morphosyntactic distance I.1.2.3.1. Methods of measurements I.1.2.3.2. The importance of morphosyntax I.1.3. Conclusions I.2. Mutual intelligibility in the Slavic area I.2.1. Degree of mutual intelligibility of Slavic languages I.2.2. The case of Bulgarian 2 Jade Joannot M.A Thesis Linguistics 24131 words I.2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Historicity of Old Church Slavonic
    Giorgio Ziffer UDK 811.163.1(091) Videm (Udine) ON THE HISTORICITY OF OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC [tevilne {tudije stare cerkvene slovan{~ine ne upo{tevajo v celoti dejstva, da je to bil knji`ni jezik, in pogosto zanemarjajo zgodovinski pogled, ki je potreben za zvesto rekonstrukcijo njegovega dejanskega delovanja. Many studies of Old Church Slavonic do not seem to take into full account its nature as a literary language and often neglect the necessary historical perspective needed for a more faithful reconstruction of its concrete functioning. Before introducing the subject of my talk, I wish to stress that I will not be speaking today about the main topic of the Conference, i.e. the history of Slovene. I could of course ask for leniency and remind you that there was a time when Old Church Slavonic was in fact called »Old Slovenian«; but this took place long ago and would be of little assistance for our present purposes.1 Leaving aside the problem of the different names given to that language even nowadays (in addition to ’Old Church Slavonic’, we find the concurrent terms of ’Old Slavic’ and ’Old Bulgarian’), I prefer to reveal the main argument of my article: despite the fact that Old Church Slavonic is universally recognized as the first literary language of the Slavs, it is very often evaluated from a narrow historical-comparative perspective that does not take into full account its characterizing features as a true literary language. The cause and effect of this state of affairs, as I will try to show, is the lack of historicity (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Macedonian: Genealogy, Typology and Sociolinguistics
    JEZIKOSLOVNI ZAPISKI 26 2020 2 43 MATEJ šEKLI MACEDONIAN: GENEALOGY, TYPOLOGY AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS COBISS: 1.01 HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.3986/JZ.26.2.04 Makedonščina: geneo-, tipo- in sociolingvistična opredelitev V prispevku je makedonščina opredeljena geneo-, tipo- in sociolingvistično. S stališča genealoškega jezikoslovja je s pomočjo relativne kronologije in zemljepisne razširjeno- sti relevantnih jezikovnih sprememb prikazano oblikovanje makedonščine in bolgarščine kot geolektov znotraj vzhodne južne slovanščine. Z gledišča tipološkega jezikoslovja je umeščena v kontekst balkanske jezikovne zveze. Sociolingvistični pogled pa prikaže pro- ces standardizacije in pravni položaj sodobnega makedonskega knjižnega/standardnega jezika kot sociolekta. Ključne besede: makedonščina, bolgarščina, genealosko jezikoslovje, tipološko jeziko- slovje, sociolingvistika The article attempts to define Macedonian from the view-point of linguistic genealogy and typology as well as sociolinguistics. The genesis of Macedonian and Bulgarian as geolects within Eastern South Slavic is discussed from the vantage point of genealogical linguistics, using the relative chronology and the geographical distribution of the individ- ual linguistic changes. The typological part of the discussion then attempts to establish the position of Macedonian in the context of the so-called Balkan Sprachbund. Finally, the process of standardisation and the legal status of modern Macedonian literary/standard language as a sociolect are presented, thus shedding additional light on the
    [Show full text]
  • INTERSLAVIC Zonal Constructed Language
    INTERSLAVIC zonal constructed language an introduction for English-speakers Interslavic zonal constructed language is an auxiliary language, which looks very similar to real spoken Slavic languages in Central and Eastern Europe and continues the tradition of the Old Church Slavonic language. Interslavic shares grammar and common vocabulary with modern spoken Slavic languages in order to build a universal language tool that Slavic people can understand without any or with very minimal prior learning. It is an easily-learned language for those who want to use this language actively. Interslavic ena- bles passive (e.g. receptive) understanding of the real Slavic languages. Non-Slavic people can use Interslavic as the door to the big Slavic world. Zonal constructed languages are constructed languages made to facilitate communica- tion between speakers of a certain group of closely related languages. They belong to the international auxiliary languages, but unlike languages like Esperanto and Volapük they are not intended to serve for the whole world, but merely for a limited linguistic or geo- graphic area where they take advantage of the fact that the people of this zone understand these languages without having to learn them in a difficult way. Zonal languages include the ancient Sanskirt, Old Church Slavonic, and Lingua Franca. Zonal design can be partially found also in modern languages such as contemporary Hebrew, Indonesian, and Swahili. Vojtěch Merunka Prague, February 2018 ISO-690 citation example MERUNKA, Vojtěch. Interslavic zonal constructed language - an introduction for English-speakers. Lukáš Lhoťan publishing, 1st ed. Prague 2018. ISBN (print) 978-80-907004-9-9 ISBN (e-book) 978-80-904932-7-8 Support for this book Was provided by the multi-genre international festival Days of Slavic culture, organised annuallY bY the Slavic Union of the Czech Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article
    2nd International Conference on Education, Language, Art and Intercultural Communication (ICELAIC 2015) Neoslavonic Language Zonal Language Constructing: Challenge, Experience, Opportunity to the 21st Century Vojtech Merunka Martin Molhanec Czech University of Life Sciences Czech Technical University in Prague Czech Technical University in Prague Prague, Czech Republic Prague, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Abstract—This paper describes the project of artificial centuries to attempt to create a universal zonal Slavic zonal language construction and first experiences with its use. language that would be more understandable to all Slavs. [9] The paper presents the design principles of this language and Among these include Old Church Slavonic, developed in the the sources of it: Old (Church) Slavonic, Interslavic project, 9th century by two Byzantine Greek missionaries and saint and the False Friend of the Slavic project. Finally, the co-patrons of the Europe, the brothers Constantine the opportunities for the language practical use and first Philosopher (Cyril) and Methodius of Thessalonica [10], as experiences are discussed. This article also proposes a new well as dozens of other projects since today. What they have approach of analysis and more accurate machine translation in common is that they are all based on the assumption that between fusion free-word-order languages. the Slavic languages are similar enough to make such an Keywords—Neoslavonic zonal constructed language; Slavic auxiliary language possible at all. languages; machine translation of free-word-order languages The oldest known example (except the Old Church Slavonic from 9st century, of course) is Ruski jezik (1665) by I.
    [Show full text]
  • Church Slavonic Fonts
    Church Slavonic Fonts Aleksandr Andreev∗ Nikita Simmons September 6, 2020 version 2.2 (pdf file generated on September 6, 2020) Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 License ................................ 3 1.2 Description .............................. 3 1.3 Installation and Usage ........................ 3 1.3.1 Font Formats ........................ 4 1.4 Source Packages ........................... 4 1.5 System Requirements ........................ 4 1.5.1 Microsoft Windows ..................... 5 1.5.2 GNU/Linux ......................... 5 1.5.3 OS X ............................. 5 1.6 Private Use Area ........................... 5 2 OpenType Tenology 6 2.1 On Microsoft Windows ....................... 6 2.2 On GNU/Linux ............................ 7 2.3 OpenType Features ......................... 7 2.3.1 Combining Mark Positioning ............... 7 2.3.2 Glyph Composition and Decomposition ......... 8 2.3.3 Language-based Features ................. 8 2.3.4 Stylistic Alternatives and Stylistic Sets .......... 9 2.4 SIL Graphite Technology ...................... 9 2.5 Support of Advanced Features in LibreOffice ........... 10 ∗ Comments may be directed to [email protected]. 1 3 Fonts for Synodal Slavonic 10 3.1 Ponomar Unicode .......................... 10 3.1.1 Advanced Features of the Font .............. 13 4 Fonts for Pre-Nikonian Printed Slavonic 15 4.1 Fedorovsk Unicode ......................... 15 4.1.1 Advanced Features of the Font .............. 16 5 Fonts for Working with Ancient Manuscripts 18 5.1 Menaion Unicode .......................... 18 5.1.1 Advanced Features of the Font .............. 18 6 Fonts for Academic Work 18 6.1 Monomakh Unicode ......................... 18 6.1.1 Advanced Features of the Font .............. 22 6.2 Shafarik ............................... 24 7 Decorative Fonts 24 7.1 Indiction Unicode .......................... 24 7.2 Vertograd Unicode .......................... 25 7.3 Cathisma Unicode .........................
    [Show full text]