Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2015: Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27-31 July 2015
Edited by Michela Cennamo and Claudia Fabrizio
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 348] 2019
► pp. 187–216

Chapter 10
Impersonal passives and the suffix -r in the Indo-European languages

This paper analyses a number of morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features that characterise impersonal passives and r-forms in Latin, Italic, and Celtic languages. The patterns under investigation are described as non-promotional constructions that are unconstrained by verb-type and transitivity, and that exhibit a cluster of similarities with some deverbal nouns. In an Indo-European comparative perspective, the hypothesis is put forward that the impersonal r-forms of the Indo-European languages were in origin nominalised verbal forms, with *-r functioning as a derivational morpheme that could be used to create deverbal action nouns.
Keywords: impersonal passive, non-promotional constructions, transitivity, action nominals, Latin, Oscan, Umbrian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Impersonal passives and impersonality
  • 3.Impersonal passives and discourse functions
  • 4.Impersonal passives and semantic features
    • 4.1Aspect, Aktionsart, and split intransitivity
    • 4.2Animacy of the demoted argument
  • 5.Impersonal passives, transitivity, and argument structure
    • 5.1Impersonal passives and transitive constructions
    • 5.2Impersonal passives as non-promotional passives
  • 6.Impersonal passives and nominal non-promotional structures
  • 7.Impersonal passives and the suffix -r: Indo-European perspectives
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.348.10rov
References (132)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2006. Introduction: Passivization and typology. Form vs. function – a confined survey into the research status quo. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and Typology. Form and Function, 1–27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Elisabeth Leiss. 2006a. The impersonal passive: Voice suspended under aspectual conditions. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and Typology. Form and Function, 493–508. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. Personal and impersonal passives: Definite vs. indefinite diatheses. Transactions of the Philological Society 104:2. 259–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 1998. Conflict resolution in passive formation. Lingua 104. 13–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 1998. Impersonal verbs in Italic: Their development from an Indo-European perspective. Journal of Indo-European Studies 26. 91–120.Google Scholar
. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European. The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966 [1946]. Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe. In Émile Benveniste (ed.), Problèmes de linguistique générale. Vol. 1, 225–236. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2003. Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 39. 473–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buck, Carl D. 1904. A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian: With a collection of inscriptions and a glossary. Boston: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Calboli, Gualtiero. 1962. Studi grammaticali. Studi pubblicati dall’istituto di filologia classica. XI. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
. 2005. The accusative as a ‘default’ case in Latin subordinate clauses. Indogermanische Forschungen 110. 235–266.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 2011. Impersonal constructions and accusative subjects in Late Latin. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: a cross-linguistic perspective, 169–188. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James P. T.. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of action nominals: A cross-linguistic study. Lingua 40. 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1977. In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. In Peter Cole & Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax & Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations, 47–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. Action nominals between verbs and nouns. Rivista di Linguistica 23:1. 7–20.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1971 [1952]. Sistema norma e «parole». In Eugenio Coseriu (ed.), Teoria del linguaggio e linguistica generale, 19–103. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1968. The first person singular medio-passive in Indo-Iranian. In Jan C. Heesterman, Godard H. Schokker & Vadesery I. Subramoniam (eds.), Pratidānam. Indian, Iranian, and Indo-European studies presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his sixtieth birthday, pp. 24–31. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1979. Anatolian hi-Conjugation and Indo-European perfect: Instalment II. In Wolfgang Meid & Erich Neu (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens, 25–39. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
. 1983. On the prehistory of the Celtic passive and deponent inflection. Ériu 34. 73–111.Google Scholar
. 1987. The Second plural of the Umbrian verb. In George Cardona & Norman H. Zide (eds.), Festschrift für H. Hoenigswald, 81–90. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Crawford, Michael H. 1996 (ed.). Roman statutes. London: Institute of Classical Studies – University of London.Google Scholar
Crawford, Michael H., Broadhead, William M., Clackson, James P. T., Santangelo, Federico, S. Thompson, M. Watmough. (eds.). 2011. Imagines Italicae: A Corpus of Italic inscriptions. 3 vols. London: Institute of Classical Studies – University of London.Google Scholar
De Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia. 1999. Nominale Wortbildung des älteren Irischen. Stammbildung und Derivation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deckman, A. 1920. A study of the impersonal passive of the ventum est type. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Dupraz, Emmanuel. 2011. Sabellian demonstratives: Forms and functions. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernout, Alfred. 1908–1909. Recherches sur l’emploi du passif latin a l’époque républicaine. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris 15. 273–333.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & François Thomas. 1953. Syntaxe Latine. Klincksieck: Paris.Google Scholar
Eyþórsson, Thórhallur. 2008. The New passive in Icelandic really is a passive. In Thórhallur Eyþórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers, 173–219. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara. 2014. Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flobert, Pierre. 1967. Déponent et passif en italique et en celtique. Annales de Bretagne 74:4. 567–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. Les verbes déponents latins des origines á Charlemagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Franchi de Bellis, Annalisa. 1981. Le iovile capuane (Lingue e iscrizioni dell’Italia antica 2). Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1982. Indefinite agent, passive, and the impersonal passive: A functional approach. Lingua 58. 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Ramón, José Luis. 1993. Zur Morphosyntax der passivischen Infinitive im Oskisch-Umbrischen: u. -f(e)i, o. -fír und ursabell. *-fi̯ẹ̅ (*dhi̯eh1). In Helmut Rix (ed.), Oskisch-Umbrisch. Texte und Grammatik, 106–124. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara. 2005. Middle voice in Latin and the phenomenon of split intransitivity. In Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Latina lingua! Proceedings of the XII Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, 97–109. Roma: Herder.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Typology and functional domains. Studies in Language 5:2. 163–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001 [1990]. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy & Boniface Kawasha. 2006. Indiscrete grammatical relations: The Lunda passive. In Tasaku Tsunoda & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Relations: In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language 65), 15–41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gusmani, Roberto. 1966. Umbrisch pihafi und Verwandtes. Indogermanische Forschungen 71. 64–80.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14:1. 25–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirt, Hermann. 1939. Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft (ed. by H. Arntz). Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A. & H. Craig Melchert. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay. 1977. The r-endings of the IE middle. Die Sprache 24. 159–170.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 2006. The Origin of the Latin gerund and gerundive: A new proposal. In Harvey Goldblatt & Nancy Shields Kollman (eds.), Rus’Writ large: Languages, histories, cultures. Essays presented in honor of Michael S. Flier on his sixty-fifth birthday. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28:1–4. 195–208.Google Scholar
Ježek, Elisabetta & Paolo Ramat. 2009. On Parts-of-Speech transcategorization. Folia Linguistica 43:2. 391–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1975. Some Universals of passive in Relational Grammar. In Robin E. Grossman, L. James Sam & Timothy J. Vance (eds.), Papers from the eleventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 340–352. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Alan Timberlake. 1985. Predicate formation rules in Universal Grammar. In Jeffrey Goldberg, Susannah MacKaye & Michael Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of the fourth West Coast Conference on formal linguistics, 123–138. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice (Typological studies in language 23). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibort, Anna & Joan Maling. 2015. Modelling the syntactic ambiguity of the active vs. passive impersonal in LFG. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference, 146–165. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Letizia Vezzosi. 2004. The Role of predicate meaning in the development of reflexivity. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 213–244. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid & Nikolaos Lavidas. 2013. Reconstructing passive and voice in Proto-Indo-European. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1:3. 98–121.Google Scholar
Kurzová, Helena. 1993. From Indo-European to Latin. The evolution of a morphosyntactic type. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 1998a. L’impersonnel. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 295–346. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1998b. L’actance dans les langues celtiques. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 811–848. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1976. Non-distinct arguments in Uto-Aztecan. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lazzeroni, Romano. 2012. Scala o scale di nominalità? Il caso dei nomi d’azione vedici. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 97:2. 1–14.Google Scholar
. 2014. L’attuazione di un mutamento: perfetto e medio in alcune lingue indoeuropee. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 99. 129–154.Google Scholar
. In press. Sulla formazione dell’aoristo ‘passivo’ sanscrito. In Velizar Sadovski (ed.), Festschrift für R. Schmitt.
Lehmann, Winfred. 1991. Impersonal verbs as relics of a subclass in Pre-Indo-European. In Georgij Klimov (ed.), Istoričeskaja lingvistika i typologija [Historical linguistics and typology], 33–38. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
. 1993. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. At the syntax/lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindsay, Wallace M. 1907. Syntax of Plautus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1997. Hittite. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Split intransitives, experiencer objects, and transimpersonal constructions. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 76–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Akio Ogawa. 2011. Towards a typology of impersonal constructions: a semantic map approach. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: a cross-linguistic perspective, 19–56. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska. 2011. Introduction. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: a cross-linguistic perspective, 1–16. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan & Catherine O’Connor. 2015. Cognitive illusions: non-promotional passives and unspecified subject constructions. In Ida Toivonen, Piroska Csúri & Emile van der Zee (eds.), Structures in the mind: Essays on language, music, and cognition in honor of Ray Jackendoff, 101–118. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan & Sigrídur Sigurjónsdóttir. 2002. The new impersonal construction in Icelandic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5. 97–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinetti, Anna & Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi. 1994. Appunti sul verbo latino (e) italico. II. Umbrica. Studi Etruschi 59. 168–201.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1955. Review of W. Porzig, Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets. Word 11. 126–132.Google Scholar
McCone, Kim. 1997. The Early Irish verb. Maynooth: An Sagart.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1937. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. (8th ed.). Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Napoli, Maria. 2011. How impersonal is the Latin impersonal passive? In Peter Anreiter & Manfred Kienpointner (eds.), Latin linguistics today. Akten des 15. Internationalen Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik, 171–182. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
. 2013. Semantic constraints on the Latin impersonal passive. On Telicity and Agentivity. In Elly van Gelderen, Michela Cennamo & Jóhanna Barðdal (eds.), Argument structure in flux: The Naples-Capri papers (Studies in Language Companion Series 131), 373–404. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neu, Erich. 1968. Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian. 2006. The passives of Modern Irish. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology. Form and function, 132–164. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1994. A tale of two passives in Irish. In Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function, 279–311. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Louisa Sadler. 2004. Nominal tense in cross-linguistic perspective. Language 80. 776–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Alan. 1973. Benuso, Couortuso, and the archetype of Tab. Ig. I and VI-VIIa. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 1:3. 356–369.Google Scholar
Panagl, Oswald. 2006. Zur verbalen Konstruktion deverbativer Nomina. In Emilio Crespo, Jesus de la Villa & Antonio Revuelta (eds.), Word classes and related topics in Ancient Greek, 47–57. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 157–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. & Paul Postal. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In David M. Perlmutter & Carol G. Rosen (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2, 81–125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1992. The Latin impersonal passive. Mnemosyne 45. 159–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Oxford Latin Syntax. Vol. 1: The Simple Clause. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisani, Vittore. 1951. Uxor. Ricerche di morfologia indeuropea. Miscellanea Galbiati. Vol. 3. Milano: Hoepli. Fontes Ambrosiani 27. 1–38.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2010. Event-structure and individuation in impersonal passives. In Patrick Brandt & Marco García García (eds.), Transitivity. Form, meaning, acquisition and processing, 209–233. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Animacy and telicity: Semantic constraints on impersonal passives. Lingua 121. 80–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prosdocimi, Aldo Luigi. 1996a. Appunti sul verbo latino (e) italico. VII. Studi Etruschi 61. 263–312.Google Scholar
1996b. La Tavola di Agnone. Una interpretazione. In Loretta Del Tutto Palma (ed.), La Tavola di Agnone nel contesto italico, 435–630. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
Risch, Ernst. 1984. Gerundivum und Gerundium. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rix, Helmut. 1976. Die umbrischen Infinitive auf -fi und die urindogermanische Infinitivendung *dhiōi. In Anna Morpurgo Davies & Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European Linguistics offered to L.R. Palmer, 319–331. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
. 1986. Die Endung des Akk. Pl. commune im Osk. In Annemarie Etter (ed.), O-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, 583–597. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romagno, Domenica. 2002. Diatesi indoeuropea e verbi di movimento greci: alcune considerazioni sull’intransitività. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 87. 163–174.Google Scholar
. 2005. Il perfetto omerico. Diatesi, azionalità e ruoli tematici. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Rosén, Hanna. 1981. Studies in the syntax of the verbal noun in Early Latin. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
. 1983. The mechanisms of Latin nominalization and conceptualization in a historical view. In Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (II 29,1), 179–211. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Russell, Paul. 1995. An introduction to the Celtic languages. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 2006. ‘Agent defocusing’ revisited: Passive and impersonal constructions in some European languages. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology. Form and function, 232–273. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Voice constructions from nominalized VPs: a cross-linguistic type?, [URL].Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2012. The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15. 213–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Karl H. 1963. Zum altirischen Passiv. Indogermanische Forschungen 68. 257–275.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language 61:4. 821–848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The passive. A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
. 2008. Introduction: Impersonalization: an agent based vs. a subject based perspective. In Anna Siewierska (ed.), Impersonal constructions in grammatical theory. Transactions of the Philological Society 106:2. 1–23.Google Scholar
. 2011. Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals: Man-constructions vs. third person plural-impersonals in the languages of Europe. In Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: a cross-linguistic perspective, 57–89. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simone, Raffaele. 2008. Coefficienti verbali nei nomi. In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Valentina Bambini, Cristina Bertoncin & Margherita Farina (eds.), Categorie del verbo. Diacronia, teoria, tipologia, 83–113. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76:4. 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle, 243–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spevak, Olga. 2014. Noun valency in Latin. In Olga Spevak (ed.), Noun valency, 183–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1944. Hittite verbal nouns in -tar and the Latin gerund. Language 20. 206–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1951. Comparative grammar of the Hittite language. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. (4th ed.). Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 141–177. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1982. The impersonal passive in Lithuanian. Berkeley Linguistics Society 8. 508–524.Google Scholar
Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1993 [1946]. A grammar of Old Irish (English translation by Daniel A. Binchy & Osborn J. Bergin). Dublin: Dublin University Press.Google Scholar
Untermann, Jürgen. 2000. Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Van Hout, Angeliek. 2004. Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle, 60–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D.Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendryes, Joseph. 1956. Sur l’emploi impersonnel du verbe. Celtica 3. 185–197.Google Scholar
Villanueva Svensson, Miguel. 2001. The Italic simple R-endings. Glotta 75. 252–266.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra M. 2006. Das unpersönliche Passiv. Eine funktionale Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Deutschen und seiner historischen Entwicklung. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik. 3. Band: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jakob. 1981. Vorlesungen über Syntax. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2006. Relations between Actor-demoting devices in Lithuanian: Dedicated to Emma Geniušienė. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology. Form and function, 274–309. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Heinrich. 1890. Über das italo-keltische Passivum und Deponens. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 30. 223–292.Google Scholar