Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 17:2 (1993) ► pp.469474
References (9)
References
De Dardel, Robert. 1987. “Limites et possibilités de la reconstruction syntaxique”. Linguisticae Investigationes 111: 337–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1980. “Noun phrases and verb phrases in Romance”. Transactions of the Philological Society. 62–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herman, József. 1989. “ Accusativus cum infinitivo et subordonée à quod, quia en latin tardif; nouvelles remarques sur un vieux problème”. In Subordination and Other Topics in Latin, ed. G. Calboli. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Du latin aux langages romanes, Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Panhuis, Dirk G. 1982. The communicative perspective in the sentence: A study of Latin word order. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1990. Latin syntax and semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Evidence for svo in Latin?”. In Latin and the Romance languages in the Early Middle Ages, ed. R. Wright. London: Routledge, 69–82.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1992. “Language universals: Endowment or inheritance?”. Diachronica 91: 47–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Roger. 1983. “Unity and diversity in the Romance languages”. Transactions of the Philological Society: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar