DOCSLIB.ORG

Form and Meaning in the Hebrew Verb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DEDICATION In memory of David & Blanca Nathan Betty & Yehoshua Kastner ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This is my favorite part! As any graduate student will tell you, the acknowledgments are the most inter- esting chapter of every dissertation that you read. I’m glad to report that they’re also the best chapter to write. There is a dissertation lurking beyond these acknowledgments, one that I could not have written anywhere else. I am indebted to the constant feedback from syntacticians, morphologists, semanticists, phonologists, computational modelers, cognitive scientists and variationists that it was my good fortune to have at NYU while working on this project. The range of topics that I have attempted to cover here is clearly not one that I could have wrangled by myself. Any good idea to be found in the main text arose through the continued guidance of the many people who have educated me along the way. Any clarity in the writing is likewise the result of many kind souls commenting furtively on my written work. Many colleagues are to be thanked for this, but first and foremost, this means my committee. I won’t embarrass myself or my advisor, Alec Marantz, by attempting to wax poetic about his contributions to my intellectual development or about the amazing speed with which he thinks on his feet. Instead, here’s one anecdote that stuck with me. The neurolinguistics lab at NYU hosts a program in which one exceptional high school student comes in every summer to learn experimental design and develop their own project. The student is usually mentored by the research assistant managing Alec’s MorphLab (of which I was a member). One of these high schoolers was sitting in the lab one day, dis- cussing their project with Alec, and it soon became evident that this kid did not know how to conduct a basic statistical test. Instead of telling them to consult a textbook or go ask the lab manager, Alec qui- etly picked up a pencil and a sheet of paper and started explaining to this 17-year-old how a t-test works. iii Working with Alec can be like that; I have been on the receiving end of this kindness time and time again, and I am grateful for it. The rest of my committee has been just as generous. From day one it was clear to me that I’d want to work with Stephanie Harves; in this I’m not much different than any other NYU-trained syntactician. Stephanie is an inspiring mentor, a prediction generating machine, a true syntactician, an invaluable colleague and a perfect party host. Simply put, every department needs a Stephanie. From my very first class at NYU till my last meeting with her shortly before the dissertation was due, drawing tableaux on her beloved blackboard, I never stopped learning from Maria Gouskova: phonology, morphology, experimental design, how to present and analyze data, how to give an elevator pitch. Meetings with Maria always went on far longer than expected and ended far too soon. The moment I started working on Hebrew morphology in earnest I realized that any idea must pass muster with Edit Doron. Luckily for me, she was happy to let me draw on her encyclopedic knowl- edge of interesting patterns in Semitic and beyond, synchronically and diachronically. Edit was always generous with her time, encouraging with her feedback and insightful with her comments. I don’t know how she does it. The moment I started working on Hebrew morphology in earnest I still had no idea that I would want Michael Becker on my committee. Why would a dissertation in syntax need a product-oriented phonologist? But once the idea came up, it was a perfect match. Michael struck an incredibly difficult balance between pushing against me and going with the flow, nudging me towards different kinds of questions while allowing himself to be convinced by different arguments than those he usually works with. Or at least that’s what it felt like on my end during our long, thorough, wonderfully productive phone meetings. Alongside my official committee, I’m fortunate to have had Dylan Bumford, Tal Linzen and Vera Zu around. Between the three of them they probably commented on every piece of work that I produced iv at NYU: Dylan in patient sessions at the whiteboard, Vera in delightfully snarky written comments, and Tal in our code-switching mish-mash of Hebrew, English and shoulder shrugs. It’s hard for me to imagine life in New York without them. I like to think that I had an additional “shadow committee” consisting of Tricia Irwin, Jim Wood and Neil Myler (our own Sir Bobby Charlton). Considering all of their support and influence, this disser- tation might as well be titled Building and interpreting Hebrew morphosyntax and argument structure at the interfaces. I’m not sure where I would be without their friendship and mentorship. An additional shout-out goes out to Teon Brooks (for showing us how it’s done), Nicole Holli- day (for many dropped mics), Dani Szeredi (for happy salmon and Passover hours, or vice versa), Dunja Veselinović (for stories of explosions that reminded me of home), Katie Wallace (for gladly explaining both Optimal Interleaving and Galaxy Trucker), Masha Westerlund (for “work meetings” consisting of 10% cognitive neuroscience and 90% Joss Whedon) and James Whang (for long chats about the recov- erability of high vowels and/or the meaning of life). I miss hanging out with everyone already. I’m glad to have cohorted with K.C. Lin and Linmin Zhang. These last five years went by in a flash, thanks in no small part to Meera Al Kaabi, Diogo Almeida, Carina Bauman, Ruth Brillman, Chris- tian Brodbeck, Dustin Alfonso Chacón, WooJin Chung, Esti Blanco Elorrieta, Isaac Bleaman, Dan Dun- can, Masha Esipova, Allyson Ettinger, Steven Foley, Phoebe Gaston, Laura Gwilliams, Nizar Habash, Néha Hirve, Maria Kouneli, Jeremy Kuhn, Becky Laturnus, Miriam Lauter, Tim Leffel, Kim Leiken, Sean Martin, Salvador Mascarenhas, Yining Nie, Yohei Oseki, Steve Politzer-Ahles, Mary Robinson, Kevin Schluter, Cara Shousterman and Amanda Dye and Evan and Maury Povich’s menora, Tara Stephan- Sawyer, Gabriella Swii, Ildi Szabó, Matt Tucker, Adina Williams, and to most everyone else I met here. During my time at NYU I learned a great amount in the most enjoyable fashion from fellow students, faculty colleagues and occasional visitors. v I owe a great deal to classes and meetings with virtually the entire NYU linguistics faculty, but es- pecially Chris Barker, Lucas Champollion, Lisa Davidson, Richie Kayne, David Poeppel and John Singler. A dedicated word of thanks to Anna Szabolcsi for valuable input into my first qualifying paper and the resulting article; to Frans Adriaans for our collaboration; to Liina Pylkkänen for reminding us to always look at the data; and to Gillian Gallagher for asking me why Hebrew was so weird. Kate Davidson, Karen Emmorey, Jeremy Kuhn and Philippe Schlenker were always able to teach me something new about sign language linguistics with great grace. It was a wonderful treat being able to work on sign languages at NYU and I’m grateful for the cooperation of the NY Deaf community with my various projects. Thanks also to Jon Lamberton for bearing with me. Being part of the neuro lab broadened my horizons in all the ways I’d hoped it would when I came to NYU. I don’t know why Alec and Liina let me run MEG studies on Hebrew, Arabic and ASL but I’m happy they did. Rebecca Egbert and Joe Fruchter were around to help me out and stop me from doing something stupid. Paul Del Prato, Amanda Kaczmarek, Samir Reddigari and Tori Sharpe kept things running smoothly. And Jeff Walker deserves special mention for tidying up things I probably never even knew I broke. Thanks to Aura Holguin for all the work behind the scenes and to Teresa Leung for being the students’ guardian angel. Before coming to NYU I spent an exhilarating year at the Sign Language Research Lab at the University of Haifa. Thanks to Wendy Sandler and Irit Meir for taking a gamble on me and to Oksana Tkachman and Christina Healy for kvetching with me. At Queen Mary University of London I was trained, challenged, educated and inspired by David Adger and Daniel Harbour; edified by Erez Levon and Devyani Sharma; taught and encouraged by Paul Elbourne, Justin Fitzpatrick, Robert Gillett, Rüdiger Görner, Astrid Köhler, Anouk Lang, Falco Pfalzgraf and Graham White; and made to feel at home by Simon Carter, Ahmad El Sharif, James Hawkey, Eva vi Klingvall, Ruth Kircher, Philippa Law, Fryni Panayidou, Tsela Rubel, Rachelle Vessey, Sirvan Yahyaei and John Weston. Extra special thanks to Christof Monz for giving me my first chance. Thanks to Anette Frank and the Institute for Computational Linguistics at the University of Hei- delberg (then still the Seminar for Computational Linguistics) for their hospitality and for trying to teach me LFG. Over the years and travels I had the good fortune to talk shop with some very bright people who shared very bright thoughts about Semitic with me. I’m lucky to have bent the willing ears of Artemis Alexiadou, Inbal Arnon, Rajesh Bhatt, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Jonathan D. Bobaljik, Hagit Borer, Dave Em- bick, Noam Faust, Vera Gribanova, Ruth Kramer, Mohamed Lahrouchi, Lior Laks, Beth Levin, Lisa Pearl, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Ezer Rasin, Florian Schäfer, Giorgos Spathas and the participants of Roots IV and various other meetings. A conference-goer’s fist bump to Byron Ahn, Faruk Akkuş, Eleanor Chodroff, Einar Freyr Sig- urðsson, mitcho, Alfredo García Pardo, Lelia Glass, Peter Guekguezian, Laura Kalin, Hadas Kotek, Helen Koulidobrova, Mythili Menon, Isabel Oltra Massuet, Jason Ostrove, Jason Overfelt, Juliet Stanton, Lin- naea Stockall, Meredith Tamminga and Coppe van Urk.
Recommended publications
  • The Infinitive in Biblical Hebrew

    The Infinitive in Biblical Hebrew

    BHLaP 2 June 26-28, 2018 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem The Infinitive in Biblical Hebrew Edit Doron, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1. Introduction Biblical Hebrew (BH) verbal forms manifest rich inflection within the finite (Fin) clause, encoding the functional categories of temporality (T), mood (Mood), grammatical aspect (Asp), and modality (Mod). These categories have been widely discussed in the literature, and their relative role is still under debate (recently Hatav 1997, 2008, Joosten 2002, Cook 2006, 2012 and others). In particular, Asp and Mod have proven hard to disentangle in the morphology of the BH verb. The present work will reflect this by assuming that these two categories are composed together as Asp/Mod (AM) in the inflection of the verb. Objectives of the paper are to show that: I. The same functional categories which determine the inflection of the BH finite verb also determine the feature specification of the BH infinitive. (In particular, the functional categories of the BH infinitive are clausal rather than nominal (section 4).) II. BH has a single infinitive combined with different inflectional categories, yielding the so-called Infinitive Absolute and Infinitive Construct, which, together with the finite (Fin) verb, gives rise to 4 clause types: Fin, Poss-inf, PRO-inf, and Nom-inf. III. These clause types are classified by their highest functional projection TFin, T, AM, Mood, which accounts for their distribution. IV. There is a concomitant 4-way alternation of attachment options of subject and object clitics to the verb: [+Scl+Ocl], [+Scl−Ocl], [−Scl+Ocl], [−Scl−Ocl]. The examples in (1) illustrate, using the same verb remember, the Fin and infinitival clause types in their typical functions.
  • 1 Doron, Edit, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef, and Moshe Taube

    1 Doron, Edit, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef, and Moshe Taube

    Doron, Edit, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef, and Moshe Taube (eds.). 2019. Linguistic Contact, Continuity and Change in the Genesis of Modern Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1. Introduction Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef, and Moshe Taube 1.1 Hebrew and the question of language continuity This volume discusses empirical and theoretical issues having to do with the emergence of Modern Hebrew (MH) and with phenomena in other languages which shed light on the special case of Hebrew. The emergence of MH is an unprecedented phenomenon in that it is the only documented case of a language which had no native speakers for over a millennium and subsequently became the native language of an entire society (see the historical overview in 1.3 below). Despite the fact that Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language in the 3rd century CE, the language continued to be used, not only as a sacred liturgical language used in rote, but as a written language which produced new texts over the ages in both religious and secular matters. Today MH is the native language of the majority of speakers in Israel and is estimated to have over 9 million speakers around the world. It is developing as any other language in a multi-cultural setting and is thus not inherently different from any other spoken language. However, the history of the language over the ages is unique in many respects. The research reported in this volume probes issues which can further our understanding of the nature of Hebrew over the ages and the relation of MH to the Hebrew of earlier stages.
  • David Embick

    David Embick

    Features, Syntax, and Categories in the Latin Perfect David Embick The analysis centers on the notion of category in synthetic and analytic verbal forms and on the status of the feature that determines the forms of the Latin perfect. In this part of the Latin verbal system, active forms are synthetic (‘‘verbs’’) but passive forms are analytic (i.e., participle and finite auxiliary). I show that the two perfects occur in essentially the same structure and are distinguished by a difference in movement to T; moreover, the difference in forms can be derived without reference to category labels like ‘‘Verb’’ or ‘‘Adjective’’ on the Root. In addition, the difference in perfects is determined by a feature with clear syntactic consequences, which must be associated arbitrarily with certain Roots, the deponent verbs. I discuss the implica- tions of these points in the context of Distributed Morphology, the theory in which the analysis is framed. Keywords: syntax/morphology interface, category, features, passive voice, Distributed Morphology 1 Introduction Questions surrounding the relationship between syntactic and morphological definitions of cate- gory have played and continue to play an important role in grammatical theory. Similarly, issues concerning the type, nature, and distribution of features in different modules of the grammar define a number of questions in linguistic theory. In this article I examine the syntactic and morphological processes and features at play in the construction of analytic and synthetic verbal forms, and in the determination of different surface categories. I focus primarily on the fact that the Latin perfect is synthetic in the active voice (e.g., ama¯v¯õ ‘I (have) loved’) but analytic in the passive, with a participial form of the main verb and a form of the auxiliary ‘be’ (ama¯tus sum).
  • Periphrasis As Collocation

    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.
  • The Faculty of Humanities

    The Faculty of Humanities

    The Faculty of Humanities Department of Linguistics Self-Evaluation Report December 2011 Executive Summary A short summary of the main strengths and weaknesses that were pointed out in the self- evaluation process. The Department of Linguistics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem consists of two programs (‘tracks’), each with its own scientific and pedagogical approach. This structure is the result of the merge of two programs, the Linguistics Department (now the ‘Structural track’) and the linguistics track of the Department of English Language and Literature (now the ‘Generative track’), both of which house faculty members with diverse specializations who work in a number of theoretical and methodological frameworks. Since the merge is very recent (since 2008) these two tracks are at present very much autonomous within the department in terms of programs of study, the setting of goals and learning outcomes, evaluation processes, and – in principle – hiring; moreover, they are quite different in terms of academic culture. This diversity is one of our main strengths: nowhere in Israel does this combination of theoretical and methodological approaches exist, and it is also rare abroad, where departments tend on the whole to be either generative or non-generative. We strongly feel that the unique make-up of our department, with a cadre of linguists who specialize in careful descriptive analysis of specific languages, as well as in typological, historical and comparative treatment of several languages, on the one hand, and linguists working in more cognitively and formally oriented frameworks, on the other, provides the basis for the development of an extremely strong department offering a wide range of opportunities to students with varying academic interests.
  • A Diachronic and Semantic Analysis of Deponent Verbs in Spanish and Latin∗

    A Diachronic and Semantic Analysis of Deponent Verbs in Spanish and Latin∗

    A Diachronic and Semantic Analysis of Deponent Verbs in Spanish and Latin∗ Darren W. Haney University of Wisconsin–Madison 1 Introduction Abstract I hope to demonstrate a new way of understanding middle voice subcategorizations in Spanish by establishing a continuum of voice gradations, one of which I will call the deponent, as in (1), which is stratified between the mediopassive and the medioactive, terms which will soon be defined. (1) Active Medioactive Deponent Mediopassive Passive O O O gggg Precedence of the use of the term “deponent” to refer to Spanish verbs otherwise termed “lexical se” or “inherent se” is found in Sandra S. Babcock’s (1970) comprehensive treatise on the Spanish middle voice. Babcock characterizes deponents as those verbs appearing exclusively with the reflexive particle se and having no “transitive congeners” (66). She goes on to say that “[t]he deponents often correspond semantically (and sometimes etymologically) with the deponents in Latin and Greek.” It is this compelling statement that is the point of departure for this study. I will demonstrate such etymological and semantic correspondences to the deponents in Latin, and identify the elements of the semantic underpinning of the phenomenon of deponency in both languages. The voice subcategorization continuum in (1) ranges from active to medioactive to deponent to mediopassive to passive. The deponent is an untransformable—that is intransitive—voice, ambiguous between the medioactive and the mediopassive. The deponent has been described by Anna G. Hatcher (1942: 14) as medium tantum ‘exclusively middle’, and fittingly so, as this description conveys the morphosyntactic defectiveness and ambiguity of the deponent verb, properties which identify it in Spanish as well.
  • Contributions to the History of the Deponent Verb in Irish. by J

    Contributions to the History of the Deponent Verb in Irish. by J

    444 XV1.-CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE DEPONENT VERB IN IRISH. BY J. STRACHAN. [Read at the Meeting of the Philological Society held on Friday, June lrf, 1894.1 THE object of this paper is not to investigate the origin of the T deponent, which Old Irish ahares with Latin, and its relation to the Indo-Germanic verbal system. or to discuss, except inci- dentally so far as they have any bearing on the subject proper, the theories that have been put forward concerning the origin of these forms.' Whether it will ever be possible to get beyond conflicting theories, and to arrive at any certain or even probable account of the genesis of the type, may be reasonably doubted. But, taking the deppnent as it exists in the oldest records of the Irish tongue, it should not be an impossible task to trace, with more or less exactness, its history within the Irish language itself, to follow the old forms in their life and decay, and to search out the starting-point and follow the development of any new types. The degree of precision with which such an investigation can be carried out must depend on the nature of the documents on which it is based. Where there is a continuous series of dated documents, each of which representa faithfully the language of its time, the course of the enquiry will run smoothly enough. In Irish, however, the student does not find himself in this fortunate position. For Old Irish we have trustworthy documents in the Glosses and in fragments of Irish preserved in the oldest manuscripts.
  • ROMANI GRAMMAR by Marcel Courthiade

    ROMANI GRAMMAR by Marcel Courthiade

    ROMANI GRAMMAR by Marcel Courthiade Volume 1: General Information, Phonology, and Morphology Translated from Albanian by Geoff Husič Originally published in Tirana, Albania, 1989 as Gramatika e gjuhes rrome Notes on the digital edition I originally completed this translation in 1989 and have recently digitized the print edition, the original text file of which is in a now-unconvertable format. Other than the few chances mentioned below, this pdf is identical to the print version. I have changed the original spelling of Romany to the more moden spelling Romani. Replacing text in a PDF is a fairly clunky procedure so there may be a few resulting format abberations. It was also not possible to change the spelling in few cases in the images in the text. The name of the author has been changed from Marcel Cortiade to his preferred spelling Marcel Courthiade. Geoff Husić Slavic & Near East Studies Librarian University of Kansas Libraries December 4, 2019 Contents Translator's Preface iv Part I: General Information On Romani. 1 The Common Romani Language • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 1 Romany's Relationship To Other Languages • • • • • • • • • . 1 The Distribution of Romani and The Dialectal Composition• • . 3 Creolized and Atypical Dialects . • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 True Romani Dialects • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 • Standardization . • • • • • • ••••• • • . • • . 7 •The Principal of • • • • • • • • • • 7 StandardizationOne Common Standard, With Three Levels of Tolerance . • • . 10 The Common Romani Alphabet • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 12 Part 2: Phonology •• 15 Vowels . 15 Basic Vowels • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • 15 Pre-jotizing Vowels • • • • • • • • • • • . • . 15 Vowels Distinctive To Particular Dialects • • • • . • . 15 Stress . 17 Stress in Declined Words • . • . • • • • • • • • . • • 17 Stress in Conjugated Words • • • • • • . • • • • • • • 20 Stress in invariable Words • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 22 Conclusion and Practical Application • • • • • • • • . 22 Consonants • • • • .
  • Quo Vadis Morphology? MMM10 On-Line Proceedings

    Quo Vadis Morphology? MMM10 On-Line Proceedings

    Quo vadis morphology? MMM10 On-line Proceedings Edited by: Jenny Audring Francesca Masini Wendy Sandler UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN | UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA | UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA Quo vadis morphology? MMM10 On-line Proceedings Edited by: Jenny Audring Francesca Masini Wendy Sandler On-line Proceedings of the Tenth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM10) Haifa, Israel, 7-10 September 2015 UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN | UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA | UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA The MMM Permanent Committee Jenny Audring (Leiden University) Geert Booij (Leiden University) Nikos Koutsoukos (Université catholique de Louvain) Francesca Masini (University of Bologna) Angela Ralli (University of Patras) Sergio Scalise (University of Bologna) on-line proceedings of the mediterranean morphology meetings ISSN: 1826-7491 MMM10 Online Proceedings iii Table of contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... v Abstracts ......................................................................................................................................... vi Suspended affixation with derivational suffixes and lexical integrity Faruk Akkuş .................................................................................................................................... 1 The Semitic templates from the perspective of reciprocal predicates Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal .......................................................................................................... 16
  • Xu, Zheng , Mark Aronoff, and Frank Anshen

    Xu, Zheng , Mark Aronoff, and Frank Anshen

    06 Chapter 1567 20/4/07 14:32 Page 127 6 Deponency in Latin* ZHENG XU, MARK ARONOFF, AND FRANK ANSHEN 1. Introduction A DEPONENT VERB HAS A MORPHOLOGICALLY PASSIVE FORM but active mean- ing (Bennett 1907). Classical examples of deponent verbs come from Latin and have been much discussed in the literature, going back to Roman times. In Latin, a verb in passive form and a deponent verb share the same paradigm, but contrast in meaning with respect to voice: (1) Verb in passive form amor ‘I am loved’ ama:mur ‘we are loved’ ama:ris ‘you are loved’ ama:mini: ‘you are loved’ ama:tur ‘he is loved’ amantur ‘they are loved’ (2) Deponent verb mi:ror ‘I admire’ mi:ra:mur ‘we admire’ mi:ra:ris ‘you admire’ mi:ra:mini: ‘you admire’ mi:ra:tur ‘he admires’ mi:rantur ‘they admire The specific question we attempt to tackle in this paper is why certain Latin verbs are deponent. Compared to recent works on Latin deponent verbs (Embick 2000, Sadler and Spencer 2001; Kiparsky 2005) which avoid this question by simply assigning Latin deponents a syntactico-semantic or * We owe thanks to many people who helped with this project. First is October Dow, who did the original manual tagging of the deponent verbs in the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Richard Larson spent a good deal of time discussing our semantic findings with us. Philip Baldi, Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy, Alice Harris, Beth Levin, and Martin Maiden provided very quick feed- back on an earlier draft of this work, for which we are grateful.
  • Another View on Deponency

    Another View on Deponency

    Another View on Deponency — Magisterarbeit am Institut für Linguistik Philologische Fakultät der Universität Leipzig angefertigt von: Philipp Weisser geboren: 05.09.1984 in Karlsruhe Matrikelnr: 9477745 Betreuer: Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Gereon Müller Dr. Fabian Heck Universität Leipzig Universität Leipzig Institut für Linguistik Institut für Linguistik Leipzig, den 14. November 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 6 2 Properties 9 2.1 Properties of Deponent Verbs . 9 2.1.1 The Morphology of Deponent Verbs . 10 2.1.2 The Semantics of Deponent Verbs . 11 2.1.3 The Syntax of Deponent Verbs . 12 2.1.4 Exceptions . 14 2.2 The Properties of Unaccusative Verbs . 17 2.2.1 The Semantics of Unaccusative Verbs . 17 2.2.2 The Syntax of Unaccusative Verbs . 18 2.2.3 The Morphology of Unaccusative Verbs . 21 2.2.4 Exceptions . 22 2.3 Comparison between Deponents and Unaccusatives . 24 3 Hypotheses 26 3.1 Formulation of the Hypothesis . 26 3.2 Apparent Objections . 27 4 Analysis 34 4.1 Replicating the Unaccusativity Mismatch . 34 4.1.1 Problems and Disadvantages of the First Account . 38 4.2 A Unified Analysis of Deponents and Unaccusatives . 40 4.2.1 Assumptions and Analysis . 40 4.2.2 Languages without Deponency . 53 5 Empirical Consequences 56 5.1 Deponency and Unaccusativity are two distinct Verb Classes . 57 5.2 The Unequal Distribution of Unaccusativity and Deponency . 59 5.2.1 Empirical Overview . 63 6 Non-canonical Cases of Deponency 73 6.1 Reflexive Verbs in Sora . 73 6.2 Causative Verbs in Tunica . 76 6.3 Plurality Mismatches in Tsez .
  • Answer Key to WD Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Workbook

    Answer Key to WD Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Workbook

    Answer Key to W.D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Workbook (4) Revision 28 November 2019. Cody Hinkle Preface Is using an answer key legitimate? Yes, but only if your teacher permits. If you use this answer key without your teacher’s permission, you may be cheating in class. Taking a Greek class is worse than useless if it starts or continues a pattern of God-dishonoring dishonesty, whereas taking the “risk” of obedience is an opportunity to grow in faith. “Hope in the Lord and do what is right!” (Ps 37:3). Suggestion for use If your teacher allows, it may be helpful to use this answer key to check your answer to each workbook problem immediately after you have written a complete answer for it. Doing so will give you immediate feedback on whether or not you answered correctly. Beware, however, that if you look at the answer key before you write a complete answer in your workbook, you may not actually learn the material as well as you may think you have. When parsing questions ask for (2x) or (3x), we are looking for different lexical forms, moods, persons, or tenses. After chapter 7, words with multiple genders, voices, or cases are not marked as (2x) because they are so common. Errors? When you find errors in this answer key, please report them at www.teknia.com using the “contact” page. The most recently corrected version of this document is available at www.teknia.com. Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. (Πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς βʹ 3:18) 1 2 Review #1 Exercise 3 The Alphabet and Punctuation Grammar 1.