Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Historical Syntax
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 155–184

Anatolian morphosyntax

Inheritance and innovation

| Concordia University of Montreal

This paper addresses three interrelated topics in Anatolian syntax: the syntactic typology of the Anatolian languages, specifically the issue of argument structure, and the two most striking innovations in Anatolian morphosyntax, the putative split-ergativity, seen most clearly in Hittite, and the development, unique within the early Indo-European languages, of subject clitic pronouns. Revisiting earlier studies, especially those of Garrett in 1990 and subsequently, as well as others carried out in the meantime, the paper offers a reassessment of the status and function of these innovations against the background of a discussion of Indo-European syntactic structure, and suggests a motivation rooted in a context of language contact.

Keywords: Anatolian, argument structure, ergativity, Hittite, morphosyntactic innovation, subject clitic pronouns, syntactic typology
Published online: 29 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.06tef
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian
2006 Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds), 40-48. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur
2009 The origin of the oblique-subject construction: An Indo-European comparison. In Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 305], Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds), 179-194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte
2000 Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1962 Les substantifs en –ant- du Hittite. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 57: 44-51.Google Scholar
1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz
(ed.) 1911 Handbook of American Indian Languages, I [Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40;1]. Washingdon DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bomhard, Allan R
1988 The prehistoric development of the athematic verbal endings in Proto- Indo-European. In A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz, Yoël L. Arbeitman (ed.), 475- 488. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl
1878 Zur Geschichte der Personalendungen. Morphologische Untersuchungen 1: 133-186.Google Scholar
1886-92 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
1897-1916 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2nd edn. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
1904 Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1921 Zur Frage der Personalendungen des indogermanischen Verbums. Indogermanische Forschungen 39: 131-139.Google Scholar
Campbell, Dennis R.M
2011 Agent, subject, patient, and beneficiary: grammatical roles in Hurrian. In Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques, Paris, 2-4 april 2007, Michele Fruyt & Michel Mazoyer (eds), 21-46. Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Carruba, Onofrio
1992 Le notazioni dell’agente animato nelle lingue anatoliche (e l’ergativo). In Per una grammatica ittita, Onofrio Carruba (ed.), 61-98. Pavia: Iuculano.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G
1979 The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15: 203-224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Agreement. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dardano, Paola
2010 Zur anatolischen Morphosyntax: das Suffix –(a)nt- und seine Bildungen. In Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25-31, 2008. Aygül Süel (ed.), 173-188. Ankara: T. C. Çorum Valiliği.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2005 The blue bird of ergativity. In Ergativity in Amazonia, III: Proceedings of the Workshop on "Ergatividade na Amazônia", Francesc Queixalos (ed.), 1-15. Paris: Centre d'Études des Langues Indigènes d'Amérique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
1877 Altindische Tempuslehre [Syntaktische Forschungen 2]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
1878 Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem Śatapathabrāhmaṇa dargestellt [Syntaktische Forschungen 3]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
1879 Die Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax [Syntaktische Forschungen 4]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
1888 Altindische Syntax [Syntaktische Forschungen 5]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
1893-1900 Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Devine, Andrew M. & Stephens, Lawrence D
2000 Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2006 Latin Word Order. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W
1979 Ergativity. Language 55: 59-138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Ergativity [Cambridge Studies in Linguistis 69]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren
(eds) 2008 The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dover, Kenneth J
1960 Greek Word Order. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark
1985 A Grammar of Acehnese. On the Basis of a Dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie
2011 Differential agent marking and animacy. Lingua 121: 533-547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W.IV
2004 Indo-European Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. & Ivanov, Vjačeslav V
1995 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture, Part I: The Text. With a preface by Roman Jakobson; English version by Johanna Nichols; edited by Werner Winter. Berlin: de Gruyter. Original Russian edition published in 1984.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew
1990a The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
1990b Hittite enclitic subjects and transitive verbs. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42: 227-242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990c The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 261-296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite. In Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Aaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 85-133. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Goedegebuure, Petra
2013 Split-ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 102(2): 270-303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonda, Jan
1952 Remarques sur la place du verbe dans la phrase active et moyenne en langue sanscrite. Utrecht: A. Oosthoek.Google Scholar
1959 On amplified sentences and similar structures in the Veda. In Four Studies in the Language of the Veda, 7-70. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth
2003 On the significance of Eloise Jelinek’s Pronominal Argument Hypothesis. In Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar, In Honor of Eloise Jelinek [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 62], Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley & Mary Willie (eds), 11-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2013 Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntax of bound person forms. In Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A.Jr
1998 From the disciplines of a dictionary editor. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 50: 35-44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A.Jr., & Melchert, H. Craig
2008 A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W
1981 The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, translated and with commentary [Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise
1984 Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39-76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987 Auxiliaries and ergative splits: A typological parameter. In Historical Development of Auxiliaries, Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds), 85-108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Definiteness and second position clitics in Straits Salish. In Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Aaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2006 The Pronominal Argument Parameter. In Arguments and Agreement, Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike Schoorlemmer & Fred Weerman (eds), 261-288. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise & Demers, Richard
1994 Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70: 697-736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D
1994 On weak subjects and pro-drop in Greek. In Themes in Greek Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 117], Irene Philippaki-Warburton, Katerina Nicolaidis & Maria Sifanou (eds), 21-32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Josephson, Folke
2004a Semantics and typology of Hittite -ant-. In Indo-European Word Formation, James Clackson & Birgit Anette Olsen (eds), 91-118. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
2004b Singulative and agentive in Hittite and Germanic. In Per aspera ad asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV, Adam Hyllested (ed.), 257-262. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Dislocation. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2: An International Handbook, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1050-1078. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Lemoine, Kevin
2005 Definite null objects in (spoken) French: A Construction-Grammar account. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 6], Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds), 13-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laroche, Emmanuel
1962 Un «ergatif» en indo-européen d’Asie Mineure. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 57: 23-43.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P
1994 Person marking in Indo-European. Historische Sprachforschung 107: 1-11.Google Scholar
2002 Pre-Indo-European [Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series No. 41]. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
1990 Old Hittite Sentence Structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2003 Definite referential null objects in Ancient Greek. Indogermanische Forschungen 108: 167-194.Google Scholar
2010a Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, Ronald I. Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Riecken & Michael J. Weiss (eds), 249-264. Ann Arbor MI: Beach Stave Press.Google Scholar
2010b The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. In The Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds), 212-229. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. Anatolian syntax. In Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An International Handbook of Language Comparison and the Reconstruction of Indo-European, Matthias Fritz, Jared Klein & Brian D. Joseph (eds) Berlin Mouton de Gruyter
McCone, Kim R
1979 The diachronic possibilities of the IE ‘amplified’ sentence: A case history from Anatolian. In Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and Typological Linguistics, Part 1 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 11], Bela Brogyanyi (ed.), 467-487. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B
2009 Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 480-508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, Ian
1963 The metre of the Hittite epic. Anatolian Studies 13: 237-242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1903[1937] Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes, 8th edn. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
1913 Aperçu d’une histoire de la langue grecque. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine & Vendryes, Joseph
1924 Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques, 5th edn. 1979. Paris: Librarie ancienne Edouard Champion.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig
2007 Hittite morphology. In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, Vol. 2, Alan S. Kaye (ed.), 755-773. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
2008 Middle Hittite revisited. In Atti del 6° Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia II, Alfonso Archi & Rita Francia (eds), 525-531. Rome: Istituto di studi sulle civiltà dell’egeo e del vicino Oriente.Google Scholar
2010 Syntax and prosody in Hittite word order. Handout at Language Variation and Change Workshop , The University of Chicago , January 15.
2011a Enclitic subject pronouns in Hieroglyphic Luvian. Aramazd: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6(2): 73-86.Google Scholar
2011b The problem of the ergative case in Hittite. In Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques, Paris, 2-4 april 2007, Michèle Fruyt & Michel Mazoyer (eds), 161-167. Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1991 Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67(3): 510-546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Typology and deep genetic relations in North America. In Reconstructing Languages and Cultures [Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 58], Edgar C. Polomé & Werner Winter (eds), 91-110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Pronouns and agreement: The information status of pronominal affixes. Transactions of the Philological Society 101: 235-278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 The emergence of agentive systems in core argument marking. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichman (eds), 297-333. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne & Chafe, Wallace
1999 What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language 23(3): 569-596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monro, David Binning
1882[1891] A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect, 2nd edn. revised and enlarged. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, Anna
1986 Karl Brugmann and late nineteenth-century linguistics. In Studies in the History of Western Linguistics in Honour of R. H. Robins, Theodora Bynon & Frank R. Palmer (eds), 150-171. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1998 History of Linguistics, Vol. IV: Nineteenth-Century Linguistics, Giulio Lepschy (ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mouton, Alice, Rutherford, Ian & Yakubovich, Ilya
2013 Introduction. In Luwian Identities: Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean, Alice Mouton, Ian Rutherford & Ilya Yakubovich (eds), 1-21. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neu, Erich
1989 Zum Alter der personifizierenden -ant- Bildung des Hethitischen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der indogermanischen Genuskategorie. Historische Sprachforschung 102: 1-15.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1986 Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56-119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World. Language 66: 475-521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oettinger, Norbert
2001 Neue Gedanken uber das nt-Suffix. Anatolisch und Indogermanisch, Onofrio Carruba & Wolfgang Meid (eds), 301-316. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Patri, Sylvain
2007 L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie [Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 49]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Comrie, Bernard
1999 Agreement in Tsez. Folia Linguistica 33(2): 109-130. Special issue Agreement, Greville G. Corbett (ed.). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puhvel, Jaan
1991 Whence the Hittite, whither the Jonesian vision? In Sprung from Some Common Source: Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages, Sydney M. Lamb & E. Douglas Mitchell (eds), 51-66. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Queneau, Raymond
1950 Connaissez-vous le Chinook? In Bâtons, chiffres et lettres, 45-50. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald
2009 The linguistic diversity of aboriginal Europe. Language Log, January 6, 2009. [URL]Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald, Warnow, Tandy & Taylor, Ann
2002 Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100(1): 59-129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosén, Haiim B
1987 Some more noteworthy features of ‘primitive’ Indo-European syntax. Journal of Indo-European Studies 15: 61-75.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard
1947 Zur Apposition. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin [Jahrgang 1945/46, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 3]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Shields, Kenneth
1997 On the pronominal origin of the Indo-European athematic verbal suffixes. Journal of Indo-European Studies 25: 105-117.Google Scholar
Sideltsev, Andrey V
2011a Two systems of clitic doubling in Hittite. Abstract. In Eighth International Congress of Hittitology Abstracts, 30-31, Warsaw.Google Scholar
2011b Two systems of clitic doubling in Hittite. Handout at Eighth International Congress of Hittitology , Warsaw, 5-9 September.
2011c Clitic doubling: A new syntactic category in Hittite. Altorientalische Forschungen 38(1): 81-91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 The origin of Hittite right dislocations. In Acts of the 8th International Congress of Hittitology, Piotr Taracha (ed.). Warsaw: Agade.
Siewierska, Anna
1999 From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica 33(2): 225-251. Special issue Agreement, Greville G. Corbett (ed.). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L
1995 New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112-171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Soysal, Oğuz
2010 Philological contributions to Hattian-Hittite religion (II): 3. On the origin and the name of the ḫazkarai-women. In Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer [Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 51], Yoram Cohen & Amir Gilan (eds), 340-350. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald J.L
1996 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tchékoff, Claude
1978 Le double cas-sujet des inanimées: Un archaïsme de la syntaxe Hittite? Bullein de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 73: 225-242.Google Scholar
Teffeteller, Annette
2001 Greek syntax: Theoretical approaches from Meillet to Devine and Stephens. Mouseion 3(1): 251-279.Google Scholar
2010 Object clitics in the Modern Greek dialects of Asia Minor: Diachronic and dialectal variation in the encoding of argument structure. In On-line Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory (MGDLT4). Chios, 11-14 June 2009. Research on Greek Dialects: Institutions and Projects , Angela Ralli, Brian D. Joseph, Mark Janse & Athanasios Karasimos (eds), 186-196. Patras: University of Patras. [URL]Google Scholar
2014 Argument structure and adjunction in Anatolian syntax. In Acts of the 8th International Congress of Hittitology , Piotr Taracha (ed.), 964-977. Warsaw: Agade.
Forthcoming. Epic Choices: Action and Agency in the Homeric Poems. Oxford: OUP.
Vendryes, Joseph
1921 Le Langage. Introduction linguistique à l’histoire. Paris: Renaissance du livre.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert
1962 Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
1963 Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6: 1-49.Google Scholar
1964 Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, MA, Horace Gray Lunt (ed.), 1035-1045. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1968-69 The Celtic masculine and neuter enclitic pronouns. Études Celtiques 12: 92-95.Google Scholar
1969  Indogermanische Grammatik , Jerzy Kuryłowicz (ed.), Vol. III.1: Formenlehre: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
1976 Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems. In Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, Sanford Steever, Carol Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene (eds), 305-326. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
2001 An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the Comparative Method? In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 44-63. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Yakubovich, Ilya
2010 Sociolinguistics of the Luwian Language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2011 Ergativity in Hittite. Paper presented at Die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft im 21. Jahrhundert/Historical-Comparative Linguistics in the 21st Century , Pavia, 22-25 September.
Zeilfelder, Susanne
2001 Archaismus und Ausgliederung. Studien zur sprachlichen Stellung des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
2014 Probleme des hethitischen Nominativs: split-ergativity und Casus commemorativus. In Na-wa/i-VIR.ZI/A MAGNUS. SCRIBA. Festschrift für Helmut Nowicki zum 70. Geburtstag [Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 45], Cyril Brosch & Annick Payne (eds), 199-210. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 16 other publications

Cennamo, Michela & Claudia Fabrizio
2022. Non-nominative arguments, active impersonals, and control in Latin. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 188 ff. DOI logo
Cotticelli, Paola & Eystein Dahl
2022. Split alignment, mixed alignment, and the spread of accusative morphosyntax in some archaic Indo-European languages. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Eystein Dahl
2022. Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2022. Alignment in Proto-Indo-European. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2022. Alignment and alignment change in the Indo-European family and beyond. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fabrizio, Claudia
2022. Infinitives and subjecthood between Latin and Old Italian. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Hock, Hans Henrich
2022. Passives and anticausatives in Vedic Sanskrit. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Luraghi, Silvia & Guglielmo Inglese
2022. The origin of ergative case markers. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Melis, Chantal
2022. Alignment changes with Spanish experiential verbs. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Meyer, Robin
2022. Armenian morphosyntactic alignment in diachrony. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A., Björn Wiemer, Eleni Bužarovska, Martina Ivanová, Maxim Makartsev, Stefan Savić, Dmitri Sitchinava, Karolína Skwarska & Mladen Uhlik
2022. Areal and diachronic trends in argument flagging across Slavic. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 300 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of abbreviations. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Series preface. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. vii ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Copyright Page. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of tables. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. ix ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of figures. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. viii ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.