Weak adjectives need not be definite

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Indogermanische Forschungen Pub Date : 2018-08-01 DOI:10.1515/IF-2018-0002
Artūras Ratkus
{"title":"Weak adjectives need not be definite","authors":"Artūras Ratkus","doi":"10.1515/IF-2018-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Gothic and, more generally, early Germanic, adjectives can be declined for gender, number, case and determination. The latter category refers to a morphologically realised distinction (opposition) of indefiniteness and definiteness, traditionally presented in terms of the strong (indefinite) and weak (definite) types of inflection: cf. strong ubils‘evil’ vs. weak sa ubila‘the evil (one)’. The definite (weak) form of the adjective is conventionally said to be triggered by the definite determiner (pronoun) that precedes it. By examining the evidence of variation between determined and undetermined weak forms of adjectives in the Gothic Bible, I argue that the weak inflection performs a broader range of functions than conventionally assumed. In particular, I show that the weak form of the adjective is indefinite in the presence of a classifying or identifying feature. However, it accompanies a D-word projected from a noun (which may be null) bearing a definite feature. In other words, the weak inflection is not an autonomous carrier of definiteness and is definite only by association with the determiner. The evidence of variation between Lithuanian short (indefinite) and long (definite) forms of adjectives provides compelling support for this presentation of the Gothic facts.","PeriodicalId":13385,"journal":{"name":"Indogermanische Forschungen","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/IF-2018-0002","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indogermanische Forschungen","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/IF-2018-0002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract In Gothic and, more generally, early Germanic, adjectives can be declined for gender, number, case and determination. The latter category refers to a morphologically realised distinction (opposition) of indefiniteness and definiteness, traditionally presented in terms of the strong (indefinite) and weak (definite) types of inflection: cf. strong ubils‘evil’ vs. weak sa ubila‘the evil (one)’. The definite (weak) form of the adjective is conventionally said to be triggered by the definite determiner (pronoun) that precedes it. By examining the evidence of variation between determined and undetermined weak forms of adjectives in the Gothic Bible, I argue that the weak inflection performs a broader range of functions than conventionally assumed. In particular, I show that the weak form of the adjective is indefinite in the presence of a classifying or identifying feature. However, it accompanies a D-word projected from a noun (which may be null) bearing a definite feature. In other words, the weak inflection is not an autonomous carrier of definiteness and is definite only by association with the determiner. The evidence of variation between Lithuanian short (indefinite) and long (definite) forms of adjectives provides compelling support for this presentation of the Gothic facts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
弱形容词不必是确定的
在哥特语和早期日耳曼语中,形容词的性别、数、格和定语都可以省略。后者是指在形态上实现的不确定和确定的区别(对立),传统上表现为强(不确定)和弱(确定)类型的屈折变化:例如,强ubila“邪恶”与弱sa ubila“邪恶(一个)”。形容词的确定(弱)形式通常被认为是由它前面的确定限定词(代词)触发的。通过研究哥特圣经中确定和未确定弱形式形容词之间变化的证据,我认为弱屈变的功能比通常认为的更广泛。特别是,我证明了形容词的弱形式在存在分类或识别特征时是不确定的。然而,它伴随着一个从名词(可能是null)投射出来的d字,具有明确的特征。换句话说,弱屈折并不是确定的自主载体,而只是通过与限定词的联系才确定。立陶宛短(不定)和长(确定)形式的形容词之间的变化的证据提供了令人信服的支持这哥特事实的介绍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Indogermanische Forschungen publishes contributions (essays and reviews) mainly in the areas of historical-comparative linguistics, historical linguistics, typology and characteristics of the languages of the Indogermanic language family. Essays on general linguistics and non-Indogermanic languages are also featured, provided that they coincide with the main focus of the journal with respect to methods and language history.
期刊最新文献
Tocharian B ore (plural wrenta) and nominal reduplication in Tocharian and PIE Avestan-Middle Persian tense mismatches in the Zand and the Middle Persian “performative preterite” Translation and transmission in the Armenian New Testament A note on the syntax of interrogation in Gothic Non-nominative subjects in Latin and Ancient Greek
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1