Cover not available
Review published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 34:1 (2017) ► pp.110–116
Book review

Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology: A comparative handbook. By Thomas Olander

Reviewed by
| University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 25 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.34.1.05iga
References (20)
References
Arumaa, Peter. 1985. Urslavische Grammatik: Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen. Band 31: Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1–16. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borkovskij, Viktor I. & Petr S. Kuznecov. 2004 [1963]. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: URSS.Google Scholar
Debrunner, Albert & Jacob Wackernagel. 1975 [1929/1930]. Altindische Grammatik. Band 31: Nominalflexion, Zahlwort, Pronomen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Halla-aho, Jussi. 2006. Problems of Proto-Slavic historical nominal morphology (Slavica Helsingensia 26). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Eugen. 2013. Historical phonology in service of subgrouping: Two laws of final syllables in the common prehistory of Baltic and Slavonic. Baltistica 481. 161–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Igartua, Iván. 2005. Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava. Bilbao: Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco.Google Scholar
. 2009. Morphological effects of feminine animacy in 16th century Sorbian. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 66(1). 61–74.Google Scholar
. 2016. Review of How Russian came to be the way it is: A student’s guide to the history of the Russian language, by Tore Nesset (2015). Journal of Historical Linguistics 6(1). 114–123.Google Scholar
Krys´ko, Vadim B. 1994. Razvitie kategorii oduševlënnosti v istorii russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Lyceum.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1897. Recherches sur l’emploi du génitif-accusatif en vieux-slave. Paris: Bouillon.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore. 2015. How Russian came to be the way it is: A student’s guide to the history of the Russian language. Bloomington: Slavica.Google Scholar
Olander, Thomas. 2010. Proto-Indo-European final nasals in Slavic. Scando-Slavica 561. 84–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Russian Linguistics 36(3). 319–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orr, Robert. 2000. Common Slavic nominal morphology: A new synthesis. Bloomington: Slavica.Google Scholar
Poljakov, Oleg. 1995. Das Problem der balto-slavischen Sprachgemeinschaft (Heidelberg Publikationen zur Slavistik. A. Linguistische Reihe 18). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Scholvin, Robert. 1877. Die Declination in den pannonisch-slovenischen Denkmälern des Altkirchenslavischen. Archiv für slavische Philologie 21. 482–569.Google Scholar
Shields, Kenneth. 2010. Linguistic typology and the reconstruction of the Indo-European accusative plural. Emerita 78(1). 33–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villanueva Svensson, Miguel. 2015. Review of Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology: A comparative handbook, by Thomas Olander (2015). Kratylos 601. 103–111.Google Scholar
Viredaz, Rémy. 2009. Two unrecognized vowel phonemes in Proto-Slavic: On Auslautgesetze in North Russian vs. the rest of Slavic. Talk given at the 4th Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society, Zadar, September 3–6, 2009.Google Scholar