Search Results

This chapter discusses the defective paradigms of the reflexive nouns and participles in the Latvian language. In Latvian, the reflexiveness of the nouns and the verbs functions as a complex derivational and inflectional system. In this language, the reflexive verbs, participles, and nouns are formed through the fusion of verbal or noun forms with enclitic accusative form of the reflexive pronoun. Reflexive verbs have full person, tense and mood paradigms whilst reflexive nouns and participles have defective paradigms in Latvian. Although the rationale behind defectiveness of the paradigms of the reflexive nouns and participles are difficult to pinpoint, there are several types of compensation for the defectiveness in the Modern Latvian. These include the use of non-standard forms, the use of corresponding non-reflexive participle and noun forms, and the use of other forms of paradigms in lieu of the missing ones. These alternative paradigms depend however on the syntactic function of the word-form. Some topics discussed herein include: derivation and semantics of reflexive nouns; paradigmatic system of reflexive nouns and participles; and functioning of the paradigms of reflexive nouns and participles.

This chapter is concerned with the non‐finite complementation of hear‐class verbs in structures such as we saw her cross the road. These structures present a number of theoretical challenges which are addressed here in terms of the WG network. The differences between infinitival and participial non‐finite clauses, the interaction between the different senses of see and the infinitival clauses, and the ontological nature of the percept are all discussed; a solution to the ungrammaticality of *he was seen cross the road is also offered. There is also an account of the widely discussed properties of veridicality and exportability displayed by these structures.

This chapter presents what is dubbed the ‘AUX-headed’ pattern of inflection. This is the one that is statistically the most common and characteristic of the better-known languages of the world (as well as a large number of lesser-known languages). In the AUX-headed pattern, the auxiliary verb is the inflectional head of the construction, indexing all obligatory verbal inflectional categories, with the corresponding lexical verb appearing in a dependent, nominalized, infinitive, or unmarked form. Such non-finite forms are given a range of designations, depending in part on such factors as other functions of the sam element within the grammatical system of the language concerned, the form and function of other elements with which it may contrast, or the metalanguage of analysis appropriate to various grammatical traditions. Terms such as infinitive, nominalizer, gerund, participle, etc., are common and often motivated language-specifically. The boundaries between various types of category of ‘non-finite’ forms of lexical verbs in AVCs may or may not be rigidly definable structurally in language specific terms, and are decidedly not so when viewed on a macro-comparative scale. Further, some languages allow variation between different forms of the lexical verb with the same auxiliary in the same function, while others show paradigms or semi-paradigms with more than one form obligatory in different forms (sometimes in a suppletively construed paradigm).

The standard doctrine that basic grammatical classes (parts of speech) are not semantically definable rests on erroneous assumptions about the nature of linguistic meaning. With a proper view of meaning, basic categories—notably noun and verb—have plausible conceptual characterizations at both the prototype level (for typical examples) and the schema level (valid for all instances). The prototypes are based on conceptual archetypes: objects for nouns, and actions for verbs. The schemas are independent of any particular conceptual content, residing instead in basic cognitive abilities immanent in the archetypes: for nouns, grouping and reification; in the case of verbs, the ability to apprend relationships and to track their evolution through time. An expression's grammatical category specifically depends on the nature of its profile (not its overall content). Thus a noun profiles a thing (defined abstractly as any product of grouping and reification), while a verb profiles a process (a relationship tracked through time). Expressions that profile non-processual relationships include adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, infinitives, and participles. Relational expressions can be categorized in different ways, depending on factors like the number and type of focused participants, whether the profiled relation is simplex or complex, and whether it is apprehended holistically or sequentially. These characterizations prove efficacious in describing how relational expressions function as noun modifiers and in clausal organization.

This chapter extends the link between grammatical aspect and the instrumental versus case agreement dichotomy on a predicate in the East Slavic languages to certain participle constructions in Russian and to copular constructions in the East Slavic languages in general. It also compares the syntax of copular constructions in Ukrainian with those in Belarusian, Russian, and Polish.

This chapter examines the question of prepositions, pursuing the argument in favor of an above-verb phrase (VP) source for some of them. Certain quantifier movements must then be reanalyzed as instances of remnant movement, as had been suggested for some cases in earlier work by Antonia Androutsopoulou and Michal Starke. This chapter contains, in addition, an extended argument in favor of the presence of unpronounced elements such as AMOUNT and NUMBER and MUCH and MANY, in French and in English. In conclusion, many instances of French de (“of”) and English of that look determiner phrase (DP)-internal can be reanalyzed as being VP-external. What looks like movement of bare “quantifiers” such as peu (“few”/“little”) turns out to be remnant movement. In many cases there is reason to postulate the presence of an unpronounced AMOUNT or NUMBER or an unpronounced MUCH or MANY, both in French and in English.

Like articles, constructions commonly termed ‘have’-perfects or possessive perfects were largely unknown in the early history of European languages. This chapter attempts to describe the rise and spread of possessive perfects across Europe.

Classic sound change begins in phonetic environments but rapidly gives way to more abstract (phonological, morphological, etc.) conditioning. Extension to broader contexts can initially yield complication but ultimately allow for greater regularity in a different domain. This chapter treats a specific type of denaturalization that involves a split between basic and derived strings. This includes generalization at a morpheme boundary, within a morphological category, as well as examples not so restricted. The former include assimilation in Finnish participles and compensatory lengthening in the Ancient Greek aorist. The latter include the Sanskrit ruki‐rule, assibilation in Finnish, and alternations between aspirate and voiced stop in Ancient Greek.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms,from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions,and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive,especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive),and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46,the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length, but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter begins with the terminology and historical development of the infinitive forms, from a comparative point of view. The chapter then surveys first (Lecture 43) the main uses of the infinitive in constructions, and then (Lecture 44) absolute uses of the infinitive, especially the infinitive for imperative and the historic infinitive. Lecture 45 is devoted to the secondary use of the infinitive as a noun (the substantival infinitive), and to the decline of the infinitive in Greek. In Lecture 46, the chapter discusses the uses of the Latin supine forms (in -tum and -tu) at some length,but passes over the gerund and gerundive on the grounds that the origin of the forms is obscure. Finally, after some general remarks on the participle in all three languages, the chapter concentrates especially on Latin participial formations, future, perfect (passive), and present, including their use as adjectives and nouns. The chapter concludes with brief discussion of the absolute use of participles in Greek and Latin.

This chapter argues that the semantics of biblical words serve as the basis for further resources of category extension, in which Mishnaic paradigms play a role. The Mishnah may probe concrete Scriptural expressions for their potential to become extended to a more general class, or to be supplemented by other terms of similar generality in Mishnaic lists. Certain biblical connectors and participles can be treated as if they carried a logical force. The chapter purses another aspect of ANALOGY resources, the generalization of features from one item mentioned in the Scripture to a whole class. It also introduces a second group of resources concerning biblical words, ‘and’, ‘all’, and ‘no’/‘not’ and their Mishnaic interpretation in which ways which recall their function as logical constants in modern formula logic.

Outside of the subject, verb, and object in an independent clause, everything else in a sentence is modification, the specifying detail that often carries or constrains an argument. Patterns of modification depend on the types of modifier used, their placement, and the overall amount of modification. This chapter sorts through the arguer's modifying options first according to the grammatical profile of the unit involved. At the highest level are adverb and adjective clauses (subordinate or relative; noun clauses, though not actually modifiers, are also covered here). Next are phrases divisible into three types: those based on verbs (participial and infinitive phrases), those based on nouns (appositives and absolute, resumptive or summative structures), and prepositional phrases. Finally there are single-word modifiers, sometimes grouped in chains according to how dissociable they are from the word modified. Modifiers can be multiplied or embedded, and individual texts can carry heavy modification in proportion to the predication. The point of this chapter is not simply to review these sentence constituents but to see their potential argumentative consequences as in the epithetical style. For example, an appositive offers, sometimes tendentiously, an apparently equivalent term, and constructions like the absolute phrase allow the arguer to promote a feature of a mentioned noun into attention. Infinitive phrases often attribute purposes for actions and participial phrases subordinate one action to another. Depending on where modifiers are placed in relation to the main predication, they often predispose audiences to the arguer's interpretation of evidence or events.

This chapter sets out to provide a contribution to our understanding of the feature composition of participles from the perspective of the Minimalist Program developed by Chomsky. It focuses on accounting for participle agreement in French in transitive clauses containing the auxiliary avoir _have. It follows Chomsky in taking transitive participles to be the spell-out of a functional head (an abstract light verb) that serves as the head of a phase, and looks at the featural make-up of the relevant type of functional head. It notes that participle agreement is optional and linked with movement, and proposes that this optionality is a consequence of two different mechanisms provided by UG for driving movement to the edge of a phase, via a selective or unselective Edge Feature. The chapter begins by providing a brief description of the conditions under which past participle agreement takes place with avoir _have in French.

This chapter addresses the semantics of the German adjectival passive and investigates restrictions on event-related modification with this construction. The account proposed, according to which German adjectival passives instantiate a consequent state kind of an event kind, is motivated by the following facts. First, this construction is fully acceptable only with verbs whose event structure contains a consequent state, represented by an event-semantically interpreted become component. Furthermore, only those event-related modifiers are possible with German adjectival passives that modify either the event kind argument or the state itself. However, modifiers that need to access an event token, such as temporal or spatial modifiers, are not grammatical.