Article published in:
Diachronica
Vol. 34:3 (2017) ► pp. 368419
References

[ p. 411 ]References

Adams, Douglas
1988Tocharian historical phonology and morphology. New Haven: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
2013A Dictionary of Tocharian B, revised and greatly enlarged, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra, R. M. W. Dixon, Masayuki Onishi
(eds.) 2001Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia
1995Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas
1997Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, Amrit
2004Experiencer datives in Kannada. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.),vol. 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery
1976The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. Proceedings of the North-East Linguistic Society 6. 1–21.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna
2000The subject is nominative! On obsolete axioms and their deep-rootedness. In Carl Erik Lindberg & Steffen Nordahl Lund (eds.), 17th Scandinavian conference of linguistics, 93–117. Odense: Institute of Language and Communication.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2001Case in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. Department of Scandinavian Languages: Lund University.Google Scholar
2004The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Studies in Germanic typology, 101–138. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson
2003The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39. 439–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009The origin of the oblique subject construction: An Indo-European comparison. In Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages, 179–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard Jenset, Barbara McGillivray
2012The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36. 511–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte
2000Archaic syntax in Indo-European: The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Residues as an aid in internal reconstruction. In Jens Elmegård Rasmussen & ‎Thomas Olander (eds.), Internal reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, results, and problems, 17–31. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.Google Scholar
Bedrosian, Matthias
1879Classical Armenian to English dictionary. Venice: S. Lazarus Armenian Academy.Google Scholar
Bennet, Charles
1910–1914Syntax of Early Latin. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1952La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 48. Reprinted in Émile Benveniste 1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale, 176–186. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
[ p. 412 ]
Bhaskararao, Peri & Karumuri Subbarao
(eds.) 2004Non-nominative subjects. 2vols Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
1999Grammatical relations, agreement, and genetic stability. Ms. University of California, Berkeley. http://​www​.uni​-leipzig​.de​/~bickel​/research​/papers.
Bossong, Georg
1997Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 259–294. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Buttmann, Philip
1840Lexilogus or critical examination of the meaning and etymology of numerous Greek words and passages, intended principally for Homer and Hesiod (translated and edited with explanatory notes and copious indexes by J. Fishlake), 2nd edn. London: Murray. Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph & Janda, 602–623. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Alice Harris
2002Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’. Journal of Linguistics 38. 599–618. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ciakciak, Emmanuele
1837Dizionario armeno-italiano. Venezia: Tipografia Mechitarista di S. Lazzaro.Google Scholar
Clackson, James
2007Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, Wayne Harbert, Gabriella Hermon & S. N. Sridhar
1980The acquisition of subjecthood. Language 56. 719–743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conti, Luz
2008Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt. Historische Sprachforschung 121. 94–113.Google Scholar
2009Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung 122. 182–207.Google Scholar
2010aAnálisis del dativo en construcciones impersonales: los conceptos de sujeto y de semisujeto en griego antiguo. Emerita 78. 249–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010bNota sobre Odisea 1.7. Exemplaria Classica 14. 1–10.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1993Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In James Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, 55–72. Boston: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Alan Cruse
2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Probal
2004Some non-nominative subjects in Bangla. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), vol. 1, 129–140.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice
1985Experiencers and patients as subjects in Hindi-Urdu. In Arlene Zide, David Magier & Erich Schiller (eds.), Proceedings of the conference on participant roles: South Asia and adjacent areas, 160–178. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
2004Non-nominative subjects in Hindi-Urdu. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), vol. 1, 141–168.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart
(eds.) 2009Differential Subject Marking. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
1893, 1897, 1900Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2007Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 108–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dihle, Albrecht
1982The theory of will in classical antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 413 ]
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann
(eds.) 2008The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro
1997Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2004A companion to linguistic anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas
2002Ethnosyntax: Introduction. In Nicholas Enfield (ed.), Ethnosyntax, 30–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara
2014Experiential constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Fox, Anthony
1995Linguistic reconstruction: an introduction to theory and method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015Phonological reconstruction. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), 49–71.Google Scholar
Friedrich Johannes
1960Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Thomas & Vjaceslav Ivanov
1995 [1984]Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans (translated from Russian by Johanna Nichols). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gante, Christiane
2008Objektkasus im Indogermanischen. Hamburg: Grin Verlag.Google Scholar
Gelman, Susan & ‎James Byrnes
(eds.) 1991Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grassmann, Hermann
1996 [1873]Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 6th ed. revised by Maria Kozianka.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude
1993The language builder. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice
2008On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. In Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 54–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell
1995Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2001Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds.), 53–84.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja Liisa. & Tuomas Huumo
(eds.) 2015Subjects in constructions – canonical and non-canonical. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hernández Muñoz, Felipe
1992βούλομαι y ἐθέλω en Demóstenes. In Joana Zaragoza & Antoni González Senmartí (eds.), Homenatge a Josep Alsina, 63–67. Tarragona: Tarragona Diputació.Google Scholar
Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik
2006From case to adpositions: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hjemslev, Louis
1935La catégorie des cas: étude de grammaire générale I. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1990Oblique subjects in Sanskrit? In Verma & Mohanan (eds.), 119–139.Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry & Craig Melchert
2008A grammar of the Hittite language. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann & Anton Szantyr
1965Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
2013Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In Seržant & Leonid (eds.), 257–282.Google Scholar
[ p. 414 ]
Holvoet, Axel & Nicole Nau
(eds.) 2014Grammatical relations and their non-canonical encoding in Baltic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hook, Peter
1990Experiencers in South Asian languages: A gallery. In Verma & Mohanan (eds.), 319–334.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick & Joseph Salmons
(eds.) 2015The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
1980Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1936Beiträge zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbeteutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle de Linguistique de Prague 6. 240–288.Google Scholar
1959On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. Brower (ed.), On translation, 232–239. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A.
2004The possessor-experiencer dative in Malayalam. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), I, 227–244.Google Scholar
Jensen, Hans
1959Altarmenische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
1964Altarmenische Chrestomathie. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1927A Modern English grammar on historical principles. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes
1996Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D.
2013Multiple sources and multiple causes multiply explored. Studies in Language 37. 675–691. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Richard Janda
(eds) 2003The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward
1976Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2009Case and the typology of transitivity. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 356–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam
1980Bengali dative subjects. Lingua 51. 275–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2008Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kölligan, Daniel
2013Non-canonical subject marking: Genitive subjects in Classical Armenian. In Seržant & Kulikov (eds.), 73–90.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli
2001The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic languages: Grammar and typology, II, 615–750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang
1955Tocharisch. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
1971Tocharisch, Nachdruck mit Zusätzen und Berichtigungen. Leiden & Cologne: Brill.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang & Werner Thomas
1960Tocharisches Elementarbuch, I, Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju
2003The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1935Études indo-européennes. Krakow: Gebethner & Wolff.Google Scholar
[ p. 415 ]
Lakoff, George
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmi Bai, B.
2004Acquisition of dative subjects in Tamil. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), I, 245–267.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
2015Interpreting alphabetic orthographies: Early Middle English spelling. In Honeybone & Salmons (eds.), 100–120.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred
1989Problems in Proto-Indo European grammar: Residues from Pre-Indo-European active structure. General Linguistics 29. 228–246.Google Scholar
1993Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2002Pre-Indo-European. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 41.)Google Scholar
Lewis, Charlton & Charles Short
1963 [1879]A new Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Liddell, Henry, Robert Scott, Henry Jones
1996A Greek-English lexicon: With a revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon. 9th ed.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David
1979Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2002aSyntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002bMyths and the prehistory of grammar. Journal of Linguistics 38. 619–626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LIV = Rix, Helmut (ed.) 2001Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie
2011Zur Validität linguistischer Theorien in der Indogermanistik. In Thomas Krisch (ed.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, 321–330. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2010Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken & Michael Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia lux, 249–264. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Madden, John
1975Boulomai and thelō. The vocabulary of purpose from Homer to Aristotle. New Haven: Yale University dissertation.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska
(eds.) 2011Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malzahn, Melanie
2010The Tocharian verbal system. Leiden & Boston: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, Michael, Demetra Katis, Annalisa Margheri
2000Can grammar make you feel different? In Susanne Niemeier & René Dirven (eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity, 53–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin
1976Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986Indogermanische Grammatik, I, Einleitung, Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1913Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
1936Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Vienna: Imprimerie des PP. Mekhitharistes. 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Minassian, Martiros
1976Manuel pratique d’arménien ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Mistry, P. J.
2004Subjecthood of non-nominatives in Gujarati. In Peri Bhaskarao & Karumuri Subbarao (eds.), II, 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1984Levels of linguistic structure and the rate of change. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Syntax, 301–332. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 416 ]
Monier-Williams, Monier
1899A Sanskrit-English dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Montaut, Annie
2012Hindi. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Murray, A.
1919Homer. The Odyssey. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nagy, Gregory
2013The Ancient Greek hero. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nathan, Tobie & Lucien Hounkpatin
1993Oro Lè – la puissance de la parole en psychoanalyse et dans les systèmes thérapeutiques yorubas. Revue Française de Psychanalyse 57. 787–805. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2007Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1992Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Diversity and stability in language. In Joseph & Janda (eds.), 283–310.Google Scholar
Niemeier, Susanne & René Dirven
(eds.) 1997The language of emotion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael
2004Subjectless clauses in Irish. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), II, 57–82.Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki
2001aIntroduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds.), 1–52.Google Scholar
2001bNon-canonically marked A/S in Bengali. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds.), 113–148.Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, Micheal
1995Learning Irish. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ottenheimer, Harriet
2006The anthropology of language. Belmont: Thomson.Google Scholar
OLD = Glare, P. 1982Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panieri, Luca
2015A new look at the Indo-European verb. Milan: Lulu.Google Scholar
Pinault, Georges-Jean
2008Chrestomathie tokharienne. Textes et grammaire. Leuven & Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Puhvel, Jaan
1984–Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ramonienė, Meilutė & Ian Press
1996Colloquial Lithuanian. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rani, A. Usha & V. Sailaja
2004Acquisition of non-nominative subject in Telegu. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), II, 209–222.Google Scholar
Rankin, Robert
2003The comparative method. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), 183–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rovai, Francesco
2007Tratti attivi in latino. Il caso del genere. Pisa: Università di Pisa dissertation.Google Scholar
Schmalstieg, William
1987A Lithuanian historical syntax. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Schmid, Josef
2006Die freien Dative. In Vilmos Ágel et al. (eds.), Dependenz und Valenz, II, 951–963. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Rüdiger
2007Grammatik des klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja
2015An approach to syntactic reconstruction. In Carlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax, 117–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja & Leonid Kulikov
(eds.) 2013The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sieg, Emil
1944Übersetzungen aus dem Tocharischen, I. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
1952Übersetzungen aus dem Tocharischen, II. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Sieg, Emil & Wilhelm Siegling
1949–1953Tocharische Sprachreste, Sprache B. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
[ p. 417 ]
Sigurðsson, Halldór
1989Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Lund: University of Lund dissertation.Google Scholar
Stempel, Reinhard
1996Die Diathese im Indogermanischen: Formen und Funktionen des Mediums und ihre sprachhistorischen Grundlagen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Taylor, John
1989Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
2002Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Werner
1983Tocharische Sprachreste, Sprache B. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Thomas, Werner & Wolfgang Krause
1964Tocharisches Elementarbuch, II, Texte und Glossar. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Hoskuldur
1979On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil
1987The Sanskrit gerund: A synchronic, diachronic, and typological analysis. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Tischler, Johann
1977– Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
(ed.) 1998The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
2011Sociolinguistic typology: social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1985Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21. 385–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Gaaf, Willem
1904The transition from impersonal to the personal constructions in Middle English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik de Smeet & Lobke Ghesquière
2013On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 37. 473–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra & K. P. Mohanan
(eds.) 1990Experiencer subjects in South-Asian languages. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta
2015Variation und Wandel in der Syntax der alten indogermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2016aThe morphosyntax of experience predicates in Tocharian. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 45. 26–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016bAreal distribution of argument marking of Indo-European experience predicates. Journal of Indo-European Studies 44. 1–84.Google Scholar
2016cContrastive syntax of argument marking in Latin and in Ancient Greek. In Sergio Neri, Roland Schumann & Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Linguistische, germanistische und indogermanistische Studien Rosemarie Lühr gewidmet, 477–494. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
von Mengden, Ferdinand
2008Reconstructing complex structures: A typological perspective. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction, 97–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wali, Kashi
2004Non-nominative subjects in Marathi. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), II, 223–252.Google Scholar
Walkden, George
2013The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica 30. 95–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert
1995How to kill a dragon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1999Emotions across languages and cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 418 ]
Wifstrand, Alfred
1942Die griechischen Verba für Wollen. Eranos 40. 16–36.Google Scholar
Zeilfelder, Susanne
2004Gibt es nullstellige Verben? In Maria Kozianka, Rosemarie Lühr & Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Indogermanistik – Germanistik – Linguistik, 249–259. Hamburg: Kovač.[ p. 419 ]Google Scholar