The dialectological position of Illyrian within the Indo-european, language-family and its implications for Prehistory

Iliria ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-66
Author(s):  
Ronald A. Crossland
Author(s):  
З.И. Годизова ◽  
Д.В. Габисова

Актуальность предпринятого исследования обусловлена тем, что причастие в современном осетинском языке не привлекало активного внимания ученых, имеются лишь общие описания причастий, а специальные исследования, посвященные причастиям, практически отсутствуют. Представляется интересным и актуальным сравнение системы причастий и их грамматических особенностей в осетинском и русском языках. Этот интерес обусловлен принадлежностью сопоставляемых языков к общей индоевропейской семье языков, а также тесным их взаимодействием в условиях двуязычия, что, очевидно, может отразиться и на системе причастий. Научная новизна данной статьи заключается в том, что в ней исследуются грамматические особенности всех разрядов причастий в осетинском языке в сопоставлении с русским языком. На основании проведенного анализа установлено, что в современном осетинском языке система причастий включает пять разрядов, разнообразных в своих грамматических проявлениях, в степени регулярности, в склонности переходить в состав других частей речи. Выявлены наиболее значительные отличия осетинских причастий от русских: существование причастий будущего времени в системе осетинского языка, отсутствие у причастий показателей времени и залога, а также именных грамматических категорий (падежа, числа, рода). Установлено также, что в осетинском языке категория вида в большей степени управляет категорией времени, в силу чего несовершенный вид причастий предполагает только настоящее время, а совершенный только прошедшее отсутствует четкая залоговая оппозиция причастий в осетинском языке. Определено также, что осетинские причастия не имеют членных (полных) форм, но функционируют в роли и сказуемого, и определения, хотя в большей степени тяготеют к предикативной роли. В осетинском языке причастия гораздо менее употребительны сравнительно с причастиями в русском языке и чаще вступают в отношения грамматической омонимии с другими частями речи. The relevance of the undertaken study is determined by the fact that participles in the modern Ossetian language are still insufficiently studied. There are only the most general descriptions of grammar features of participles. The comparison of the system of participles and their grammar features seems interesting and actual, especially considering the fact that the Ossetian and Russian languages belong to different groups of the Indo-European language family. Furthermore, in the context of bilingualism the Russian and Ossetian languages interact actively and that can affect the system of participles. The scientific novelty of the article is determined by the fact that it examines the grammatical features of all categories of participles in the Ossetian language in comparison with the Russian language. The conducted research allowed to elicit five categories in the system of participles in the modern Ossetian language. The analysis of the results showed the participles are diverse in their grammatical characteristics, in the degree of regularity, and in the tendency to transition into other parts of speech. The research defined the most significant differences between Ossetian and Russian participles: existence of future participles in the system of the Ossetian language absence of adjectival grammar categories of gender, number and case as well as formal markers of tense and voice in Ossetian participles. The tense category in Ossetian subordinates to the aspect category to a far greater extent therefore the imperfective aspect of participles accepts the present tense forms only, while perfective acts in the past tense forms Ossetian participles lack explicit voice opposition. Ossetian participles do not have full forms, but they can have syntactic functions of both the predicate and the attribute in a sentence, although the predicative function is more typical for them. Participles in the Ossetian language are much less common compared to participles in Russian and are more disposed to conversion (transition to the category of nouns, verbal adverbs, adjectives, words of the state category).


Author(s):  
Sanjin Grgic

Language is a mean of communication among people including speech, writing, and singing. Language is an important factor in geographical diversity. The English word language drives from the Indo-European. Language is the human ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication. The scientific study of language is called linguistic. Language is a strong element of culture. "Language is a systematic means of communicating ideas and feeling by the use of conventionalized sings, gestures, marks or especially articulate vocal sounds”. At present 5-6, thousands of languages are present in the world. Between them 1200, languages are present in Africa and 600 languages in India. Language provides the single most common variable by which cultural groups are identified. Language provides the main means by which learned customs and skills pass from one generation to the next. Facilitates cultural diffusion of innovations. Because languages vary spatially, they reinforce the sense of region and place. Study of language called linguistic geography and geolinguistics by geographers.


2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 13-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Considine

Summary This paper attempts to establish the authorship of a milestone in the development of the concept of the Indo-European language family, the dissertation De lingua vetustissima Europae (Wittenberg, 1686). Since the work of G. J. Metcalf in 1966 and 1974, this dissertation has been ascribed to Andreas Jäger (c.1660–1730), the Swedish student who played the part of respondens in the public disputation in which the dissertation was discussed. The paper sets out the arguments for identifying Georg Caspar Kirchmaier, the praeses in that disputation, as at least the collaborative author of the De lingua vetustissima. It examines a crucial mistaken argument of Metcalf’s, shows that it was usual in the late 17th and early 18th centuries for the praeses to write such a dissertation alone or in collaboration with the respondens, discusses the testimony of contemporaries in this particular case, and remarks on the relationship of the dissertation to Kirchmaier’s own scholarly interests.


Author(s):  
Raymond Hickey

There is little doubt that the early stages of the subgroups of the Indo-European language family involved extensive contact. The movements of early groups of speakers across large stretches of land in Euroasia meant that these people came into contact with others who spoke genetically unrelated languages. This contact is responsible for the non Indo-European lexis in Indo-European languages and may also be the source of non-inherited grammatical features. Establishing the precise source of such lexis and grammar is a daunting task, given the great time-depth involved and the dearth of textual records that could provide helpful data for reconstructing the sources of borrowings external to this language family. But there was also contact within the orbit of the Indo-European languages when members of different subgroups came into close geographical proximity with each other due to repeated migrations. This fact accounts for borrowings across Indo-European subgroups (e.g. from Celtic into Germanic). This chapter examines cases of contact and probable borrowing both within the Indo-European language family and at its external interface to languages from other families, inasmuch as this can be established with reasonable certainty. The focus for this treatment is on early stages both of Celtic and of the Irish language as one of the main members of this group. The consideration of contact effects in Irish is limited to the language as it developed up to the late Middle Ages.


Science ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 337 (6097) ◽  
pp. 957-960 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Bouckaert ◽  
P. Lemey ◽  
M. Dunn ◽  
S. J. Greenhill ◽  
A. V. Alekseyenko ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Asim-ul Islam Twaha ◽  
Shakuntala Mahanta

The present study investigates how Standard Colloquial Assamese (henceforth SCA) underlines contrastive focus (henceforth CF) phonologically, and what are the phonetic cues it employs in doing so. Assamese belongs to the Eastern Indo-Aryan language area of the Indo European language family (Goswami, 1982; Goswami & Tamuli, 2003) with SOV as the canonical word order. SCA variety is mostly spoken in the eastern districts of Assam: Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Sibsagar, Jorhat, Golaghat and Sonitpur (Moral, 1992).The present paper has been arranged into five sections: first section (§2) elaborates CF and the perspective in which the concept has been used in this paper, the second section (§3) deals with the post-lexical prosody of SCA. Subsequently in the next section (§4) phonological manifestation of CF in SCA has been explained. The following section (§5) concentrates on how cross-linguistically attested phonetic correlates of CF such as pitch and duration values interact with CF in SCA. Finally the conclusion (§6) consolidates the entire discussion with respect to the findings of the present study.


2022 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 304-307
Author(s):  
D. Kenzhebaev ◽  
D. Abdullaev

The relevance of studying the oronymy of the Chatkal area of Kyrgyzstan is associated with the fact that many mountain names are well preserved in sound and semantic terms. This factor is an important condition for studying the retrospective of any language, including the Turkic languages too. Also, in the sound shells of mountain names, despite their deep antiquity, long disappeared elements of languages that are in contact in the same linguistic area in the deep past have survived. As part of the mountain names of the Chatkal zone of the mountain ranges of Kyrgyzstan, individual morphemes and sounds of the ancient Turkic languages have been preserved, and at the same time, East Iranian topolexemes of the Indo-European language family are found. At the same time, the structure of oronyms to some extent shows the evolution of the language as a whole and of each tier in it - in particular. The history of the Kyrgyz language and its interaction with various systemic linguistic structures are reflected in the stratigraphy of oronymy. This allows you to explore the historical plan of the Turkic languages in more depth in the diachronic sense.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document