Chapter published in:
Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Na'ama Pat-El and Stephen Mark Carey
[Studies in Language Companion Series 200] 2018
► pp. 181212
References

References

Baldi, Pierluigi & Nuti, Andrea
2010Possession. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. 3: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 239–388. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2001aThe perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24: 47–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001bCase in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach [Lundastudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap A 57]. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
2004The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Focus on Germanic Typology, Werner Abraham (ed.), 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2008Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic [Constructional Approaches to Language 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar approach. Lingua 121(1): 60–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur
2012‘Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies’: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 363–393.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Dewey, Tonya Kim
2014Alternating predicates in Icelandic and German: A sign-based construction grammar account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 93: 50–101.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smitherman, Thomas, Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður, Danesi, Serena, Jenset, Gard B. & McGillivray, Barbara
2012Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3): 511–547.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte
2000Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Irène
2001Possession in noun phrases: A functional analysis. In Baron, Herslund & Sørensen (eds), 115–130.Google Scholar
Baron, Irène, Herslund, Michael, Sørensen, Finn
(eds) 2001Dimensions of Possession [Typological Studies in Language 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1966“Être” et “avoir” dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. In Problèmes de Linguistique générale, 140–148. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Benvenuto, Maria Carmela & Pompeo, Flavia
2012Expressions of predicative possession in Ancient Greek: “εἶναι plus dative” and “εἶναι plus genitive constructions. AION – Annali del Dipartimento di Studi Letterari, Linguistici e Comparati 1: 77–104.Google Scholar
Bolkestein, A. Machtelt
1983Genitive and dative possessors in Latin. In Advances in Functional Grammar, Simon C. Dik (ed.), 55–91. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
2001Possessors and experiencers in Classical Latin. In Baron, Herslund & Sørensen (eds), 275–290.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl
1911Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweiter Band: Lehre von der Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar
Bugenhagen, Robert D.
1986Possession in Mangap-Mbula: Its syntax and semantics. Oceanic Linguistics 25: 124–166.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve V.
1978Existential, locative, and possessive construction. In Universals of Human Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 85–126. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1998Event structure in argument linking. In The Projection of Arguments; Lexical and Compositional Factors, Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 1–43. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Verbs: Aspect and Clausal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Johnson, Cynthia A. & Barðdal, Jóhanna
2018Where does the modality of Ancient Greek modal verbs come from? The relation between modality and oblique case marking. Journal of Greek Linguistics 18(1): 45–92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Bertold
1869Ueber den indogermanischen, speciell den vedischen Dativ. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen 18(2): 81–106Google Scholar
1888Altindische Syntax. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Elizarenkova, Tatyana
1995The possessivity in the Rigveda. Cracow Indological Studies 1: 109–119.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Barðdal, Jóhanna
2005Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4): 824–881.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara
2011Experiential metaphors in Latin: Feelings were containers, movements and things possessed. Transactions of the Philological Society 109(3): 307–326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaedicke, Carl
1880Der Akkusativ im Veda. Breslau: Koebner.Google Scholar
Geldner, Karl Friedrich
1951Der Rig-Veda: Aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche Übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen. Erster Teil. Erster bis vierter Liederkreis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1951Der Rig-Veda: Aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche Übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen, Zweiter Teil: Fünfter bis achter Liederkreis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1951Der Rig-Veda: Aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche Übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen, Dritter Teil: Neunter bis zehnter Liederkreis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grassmann, Hermann
1873Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
1887Rig-Veda. Übersetzt und mit kritischen und erläuternden anmerkungen versehen von Hermann Grassmann, Zweiter Teil. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm
1911Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herslund, Michael & Baron, Irène
2001Introduction: Dimensions of possession. In Baron, Herslund & Sørensen (eds), 1–27.Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich
2007Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Ṛgveda. Würzburg: Institut für Altertumswissenschaften Lehrstuhl für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. http://​www​.verglsprachwissenschaft​.phil1​.uniwuerzburg​.de​/fileadmin​/04080400​/_temp_​/Materialien​.pdf
Hopkins, E. Washburn
1906The Vedic dative reconsidered. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 37: 87–120.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1907Aspects of the Vedic dative. Journal of the American Oriental Society 28: 360–406.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark
1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2003Strategies of clausal possession. Contrastive Cognitive Linguistics 3(2): 1–34.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1967A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3(4): 390–396.Google Scholar
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony
1910Vedic Grammar. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar
[1916]1993A Vedic Grammar for Students. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Magni, Elisabetta
1999La significazione del possesso in latino. Il tipo MIHI EST ALIQUID come manifestazione della transitività ridotta. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 84: 44–66.Google Scholar
Müller, Friedrich Max
1859A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature So Far as it Illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans. London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar
Nuti, Andrea
2005Possessive sentences in Early Latin: Dative vs. genitive constructions. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 27(2): 145–173.Google Scholar
Renou, Louis
1961Grammaire Sanscrite. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob
1973Zum Problem der sprachlichen Possessivität. Folia Linguistica 6: 231–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1983Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Speijer, Jakob Samuel
1886Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon
2009Predicative Possession. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Taylor, John
1989Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta
2004Funzioni semantiche e pragmatiche nelle strategie di possesso dell’ antico Indico. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 89(1): 41–83.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert
1967Remarks on the genitive. To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his 70th birthday, Vol III, 2191–2198. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight
[1889]1955Sanskrit Grammar: Including Both the Classical Language, and the Older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Dahl, Eystein
2021. Pathways to split ergativity. Diachronica Crossref logo
Friedman, Victor A. & Brian D. Joseph
2018.  In Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 200],  pp. 23 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2021. 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.