Cover not available
Review article published In:
NOWELE Volume 56/57 (June 2009)
[NOWELE 56/57] 2009
► pp. 163–176
Review article

Jurij Kusmenko. Der samische Einfluss auf die skandinavischen Sprachen. Ein Beitrag zur skandinavischen Sprachgeschichte [Berliner Beiträge zur Skandinavistik, 10]. Berlin: Nordeuropa-Institut der Humboldt-Universität, 2008. 462 pp. 12 Karten, 2 Abb. + 1 Tab..

| Høgskulen i Volda
Published online: 1 June 2009
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.56-57.08sch
References (23)
Literatur
Broch, Ingvild & Ernst Håkon Jahr. 1984. Russenorsk: et pidginspråk i Norge. 2. Aufl. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Christophe, Bernardo. 2001. ‘Zur Kategorie der Diathese in den skandinavischen Sprachen: Versuch einer sprachhistorischen Interpretation’. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 191:207–28.Google Scholar
Collinge, Neville Edgar. 1985. The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series 41, vol. 351. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. 1992. Language Typology around the Baltic Sea. A problem inventory. Papers from the Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm, 61. Stockholm: Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
. 2001. The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and contact, 21 vols. Studies in Language Companion Series, vol. 54–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
DR = Jacobsen, Lis & Erik Moltke. 1941–42. Danmarks runeindskrifter, 1–21 (atlas, tekst). København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Geniusiene, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 21. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusler, Andreas. 1950. Altisländisches Elementarbuch. Germanische Bibliothek, Erste Reihe. 4. Aufl. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hreinn Benediktsson. 1961–62. ‘Óákveðin fornöfn nokkur, nokkuð ’. Íslenzk tunga 31:7–38.(Überarb. engl. Übers.: ‘The Moderen Icelandic indefinite pronouns nokkur, nokkuð’. In: Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir et al. (eds.), Linguistic Studies, Historical and Comparative. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics. Pp. 470–519.)Google Scholar
KJ = Krause Wolfgang und Herbert Jankuhn. 1966. Die Runeninschriften im älteren Fuþark, I-II. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philol.hist. Klasse, 3. Folge, Nr. 651. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Koivulehto, Jorma. 1999. Verba mutuata. Quae vestigia antiquissimi cum Germanis aliisque Indo-Europaeis contactus in linguis Fennicis reliquerint, ed. Klaas Ph. Ruppel. Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia. Helsinki: Finnisch-Ugrische Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
Kylstra, Andries Dirk 1967. ‘Zur Substratforschung’. Orbis 161:101–21.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Gary 1993. Complex Verb Formation. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series 41, vol. 951. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Lena. 2006. Svenskt runordsregister. Runrön 2.3. Aufl. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet. Zugänglich unter: [URL] (17–08–2006).
Salmons, Joe. 1992. Accentual Change and Language Contact. Comparative survey and a case study of early northern Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sandøy, Helge. 2007. ‘Kvantifisering og typologisering av språkendring og samfunn’. In: Lennart Elmevik (ed.), Nya perspektiv innom nordisk språkhistoria. Föredrag hållna vid ett symposium i Uppsala 20–22 januari 2006. Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi 971: 145–60. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar
Schulte, Michael. 2004. ‘Zwei Miszellen zum Transfer und zur Adaption von Präfixstrukturen: Germanisch-Finnisch und Niederdeutsch-Norwegisch’. In: Irma Hyvärinen, Petri Kallio & Jarmo Korhonen (eds.), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen. Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 631: 367–78. Helsinki: Société Neophilologique.Google Scholar
. 2005. ‘Nordic prefix loss and metrical stress theory. With particular reference to *ga- and *bi- ’. In: Michael Fortescue et al. (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2003. Selected Papers from the 16th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Copenhagen, 11–15 August 2003. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series 41, vol. 2571: 241–55. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. ‘Stylistic variation in runic inscriptions? A testcase and preliminary assessment’. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 1231:5–22.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1997. ‘Typology and sociolinguistics: Linguistic structure, social structure and explanatory comparative dialectology’. Folia linguistica 311:349–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ureland, P. Sture. 1975. ‘The rise of the Swedish clitical passive in verba dicendi and putandi ’. In: Karl-Hampus Dahlstedt (ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 21:704–31. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Wagner, Heinrich. 1964. ‘Nordeuropäische Lautgeographie’. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 291:225–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zachrisson, Inger. 2004. ‘Samisk-nordiska kulturkontakter i Mellanskandinavien under 600–700-talen e.Kr. (vendeltid) – utifrån det arkeologiska materialet’. In: Jurij Kusmenko (ed.), The Sámi and the Scandinavians. Aspects of 2000 years of contact. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač. Pp. 916.Google Scholar