Article published in:
Diachronic Dimensions of Alignment Typology
Edited by Eystein Dahl
[Diachronica 38:3] 2021
► pp. 457501
Primary sources

Primary sources

Bhānāvat, Narendra & Kamal, Lakshmi
(eds.) 1997–1998Rājasthānī gadya: vikās aur prakāś [Rajasthani prose: Development and publicity]. Āgrā: Śrīrām Mehrā end Kampanī. (RG.)Google Scholar
Dvivedī Silākārī, Loknāth
1972 (ed.), Rāmāyankathā [The story of Ramayana]. Ilāhābād: Sāhitya bhavan limiṭeḍ.Google Scholar
Gautam, Manmohan
1954Jāyasīgranthavalī [Books of Jayasi]. Delhi: Rigal Buk Ḍipo. (J.)Google Scholar
Joshi, Maheshwar P.
1983Rājanītiśāstra of Chāṇakya (Text and translation). Almora: Śri Malika Publications.Google Scholar
2009Advent of polities in Uttarkhand (Kumaon and Garhwal). In Marie Lecomte-Tilouine (ed.), Bards and mediums: History, culture, and politics in the central Himalayan kingdoms, 327–371. Almora: Shri Almora Book Depot.Google Scholar
McGregor, Ronald S.
1968The language of Indrajit of Orchā. A study of early Braj Bhāsā prose. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miśra, Viśvanāth P.
1994 (ed.), Bhūṣaṇa granthāvalī [Collected works of Bhushan]. Naī Dillī: Vāṇī prakāśan.Google Scholar
Pant, Mahes Raj
2009Towards a history of the Khasa empire. In Marie Lecomte-Tilouine (ed.), Bards and mediums: History, culture, and politics in the central Himalayan kingdoms, 293–326. Almora: Shri Almora Book Depot.Google Scholar
Prasad, Ram Chandra
(ed.) 1994Tulsidasa’s shriramacaritamanasa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited.Google Scholar
Snell, Rupert
1991aThe eighty-four hymns of Hita Harivaṃśa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
1991bThe Hindi classical tradition. A Brajbhāṣā Reader. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Śarmā, Śrīrām
1954Dakkhinī kā padya aur gadya [Poetry and prose of Dakkhini]. Haidrābād: Hindī Pracār Sabhā.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, Stephen R.
1977On the mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 217–264. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Arora, Harbir & K. V. Subbarao
1989Convergence and syntactic reanalysis: The case of so in Dakkhini. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19(1). 1–18.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der
1998Defining converbs. In Leonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday (Linguistische Arbeiten 382), 273–282. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte
2000Archaic syntax in Indo-European. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2010Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Isabelle Brill (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 51–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Multivariate typology and field linguistics: A case study on detransitivization in Kiranti (Sino-Tibetan). In Peter, Austin K., Oliver Bond, Lutz Marten & David Nathan (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3, vol. 3, 1–11. London: SOAS University of London.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Yogendra P. Yādava
2000A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110(5). 343–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bojałkowska, Krystyna
2010Opis składniowy imiesłowów przysłówkowych we współczesnym języku polskim [A syntactic description of converbs in modern Polish]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit
1998A historical syntax of late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam
2001A reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo-Aryan. In Miriam Butt & Tracy H. King (eds.), Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax, 105–141. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R.
2006Converbs. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics. 2nd edn., 145–152. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Eystein & Krzysztof Stroński
(eds) 2016Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davison, Alice
1981Syntactic and semantic indeterminacy resolved: A mostly pragmatic analysis for the Hindi conjunctive participle. In Cole Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 101–128. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1979Ergativity. Language 55. 59–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann Søren
2008The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drocco, Andrea
2017Rājasthānī features in medieval Braj prose texts: The case of differential object marking and verbal agreement in perfective clauses. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie orientale 53: 205–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dwarikesh, Dwarika Prasad Sharma
1971Historical syntax of the conjunctive participle phrase in New Indo-Aryan dialects of Madhyadesa (Midland) of northern India. University of Chicago, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen
2001Südasien als Sprachbund. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Language typology and language universals (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunkationswissenschaft. Bd. 11.2), 1529–1539. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray
1956India as a linguistic area. Language 32(1). 3–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie
2011Differential Agent Marking and animacy. Lingua 121(3). 533–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin
1984Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grierson, George A.
2005 [1916]Linguistic survey of India. Vol. 9: Indo-Aryan family. Central group; Part IV: Specimens of the Pahāṛī languages and Gujurī. Delhi: Low Price Publications.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1995The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13), 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Ekkehard König
(eds.) 1995Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1986P-oriented construction in Sanskrit. In Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani K. Sinha (eds.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia, 15–26. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Hoop, Helen de & Bhuvana Narasimhan
2009Ergative case-marking in Hindi. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72), 63–78. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna
1981On the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of the conjunctive participle in Hindi-Urdu. Studies in Linguistic Sciences 11(2). 35–49.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna, Braj Kachru & Tej Bhatia
1976‘Subject’. A note on Hindi-Urdu, Kashmiri and Punjabi. In Manindra K. Verma (ed.), The notion of subject in South Asian languages (South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2), 79–108. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Ludmila V.
1992Trends in the development of ergativity in New Indo-Aryan. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 18. 71–89.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Liudmila V.
2000Typological evolution of Western NIA languages. Berliner Indologische Studien 13/14. 117–142.Google Scholar
2006Sintaksičeskaja èvolucija zapadnyx novoindijskix jazykov v 15–20 vv. [Syntactic evolution of Western New Indo-Aryan languages in 15–20 c.] In Anna Dybo et al. (eds.), Aspekty komparativistiki 2 [Aspects of comparative studies] (Orientalia et Classica: Trudy Instituta vostočnyx kul’tur i antičnosti; Vyp. XI), 151–186. Moskva: Rossijskij Gosudarstvennyj Gumanitarnyj Universitet.Google Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H.
1978Arguments against a passive origin of the IA Ergative. Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting. 204–216.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N.
(ed.) 1976Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1977Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lohar, Gopal Thakur
2012Converbal constructions in Bhojpuri. Nepalese Linguistics 27. 217–222.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P.
1976Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B.
2010Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120. 1610–1636. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Michael L.
1981Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Australian National University, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Peterson, John
1998Grammatical relations in Pāli and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan (LINCOM Studies in Indo-European Linguistics 01). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2002The Nepali converbs: A holistic approach. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2002, 93–133. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Pirejko, Lija A.
1968Osnovnye voprosy ėrgativnosti na materiale indoiranskix jazykov [Main issues of ergativity: Evidence from Indo-Iranian languages]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R.
2016Amele RRG grammatical sketch. SIL International.Google Scholar
Ruppel, Antonia
2012Absolute constructions in Early Indo-European. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saksena, Baburam
1971 [1937]Evolution of Awadhi. Delhi-Patna-Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Rolf
1977Untersuchungen zum Absolutiv im modernen Hindi. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sigorskij, Aleksandr
2005Deepričastija v jazyke xindi. [Converbs in the Hindi language] Sbornik naučnyx trudov / MGIMO(U) MID Rossii 21(36). 54–63.Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof
2011Synchronic and diachronic aspects of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
2014On syntax and semantics of the past perfect participle and gerundive in Early NIA – Evidence from Eastern Pahari. Folia Linguistica Historica 35. 275–305.Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof, Joanna Tokaj & Saartje Verbeke
2019A diachronic account of converbal constructions in Old Rajasthani. In Michela Cennamo & Claudia Fabrizio (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2015. Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27–31 July 2015 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 348), 424–441. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subbārāo, Karumuri V.
2012South Asian languages: A syntactic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Šamatov, Azad N.
1974Klassičeskij dakxini (Južnyj xindustani XVII v.) [Classical Dakkhini (Southern Hindustani of the 17th century)]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil
1987The Sanskrit gerund: A synchronic, diachronic and typological analysis (Studia Orientalia 62). Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.Google Scholar
1995Burushaski converbs in their South and Central Asian areal context. In Martin Haspelmath & König Ekkehard (eds.). Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13), 487–528. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert J.
2005Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert J. & Randy LaPolla
1997Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje
2013aErgativity and alignment in New Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013bDifferential subject marking in Nepali: The agent marker le in imperfective constructions. Linguistics 51(3). 585–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje & Ludovic De Cuypere
2015Differential subject marking in Nepali imperfective constructions: A probabilistic grammar approach. Studies in Language 39(1). 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra K.
(ed.) 1976The notion of subject in South Asian languages (South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2). Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Wallace, William D.
1981Object-marking in the history of Nepali: A case of syntactic diffusion. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11(2). 107–128.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja A. Seržant
2018Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (Studies in Diversity Linguistics), 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Yadav, Ramawatar
2004On diachronic origins of converbs in Maithili. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 31(2). 215–241.Google Scholar
Zoller, Claus P.
2008Genitive marking of subjects in West Pahāṛī. Acta Orientalia 69. 121–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar