THE RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE MIDDLE KINGDOM AND THE HYKSOS PERIOD (DYNS. 12–17)

2006 ◽  
pp. 168-196 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Middle Kingdom ◽  
Relative Chronology

scholarly journals Breton a-marking of (internal) verbal arguments: A result of language contact?

Linguistics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 745-766
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Stark ◽  
Paul Widmer
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Object Position ◽  
Relative Chronology ◽  
Celtic Languages ◽  
Potential Case ◽  
Existential Constructions ◽  
History Of ◽  
Internal Change ◽  
Pronominal System ◽  
Verbal Arguments

AbstractWe discuss a potential case of borrowing in this paper: Breton a- ‘of’, ‘from’ marking of (internal) verbal arguments, unique in Insular Celtic languages, and reminiscent of Gallo-Romance de/du- (and en-) arguments. Looking at potential Gallo-Romance parallels of three Middle Breton constructions analyzed in some detail (a with indefinite mass nominals in direct object position, a-marking of internal arguments under the scope of negation, a [allomorphs an(ez)-/ahan-] with personal pronouns for internal arguments, subjects (mainly of predicative constructions) and as expletive subjects of existential constructions), we demonstrate that even if there are some semantic parallels and one strong structural overlap (a and de under the scope of negation), the amount of divergences in morphology, syntax and semantics and the only partially fitting relative chronology of the different constructions do not allow to conclude with certainty that language-contact is an explanation of the Breton facts, which might have come into being also because of internal change (bound to restructuring of the pronominal system in Breton). More research is necessary to complete our knowledge of a-marking in Middle Breton and Modern Breton varieties and on the precise history of French en, in order to decide for one or the other explanation.

Verbal Serialization in Biblical Aramaic

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-33
Author(s):  
Alexander Andrason ◽  
Bonsam Koo
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Typology ◽  
Verbal System ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
Serial Verb Constructions ◽  
Relative Chronology ◽  
Verb Constructions ◽  
Recent Modification ◽  
Serial Verb

AbstractThe present paper discusses the issue of Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) in Biblical Aramaic within the dynamic grammaticalization-based model of verbal serialization – a recent modification of a prototype-driven approach to SVCs used in linguistic typology. Having analyzed the entire corpus of Biblical Aramaic, the authors conclude the following: (a) verbal serialization constitutes an integral part of the verbal system of Biblical Aramaic; (b) pre-canonical SVCs are more common that canonical SVCs, and no cases of post-canonicity are attested; (c) Biblical Aramaic is a semi-advanced serializing language. Overall, the research corroborates the tendency of Semitic languages to gradually increase their serializing profile; a tendency that is often – albeit not without exception – correlated with the languages’ relative chronology.

Timaeus 38A8–B5

1957 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold Cherniss
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
The Other ◽  
Current Opinion ◽  
Relative Chronology ◽  
First Time

In a recent article written by Mr. G. E. L. Owen to prove that contrary to the general current opinion the composition of theTimaeusmust have antedated that of theParmenidesand its dialectical successors, it is contended that when theTimaeuswas written the analysis of negation given in theSophistcould not yet have been worked out. ‘For’, Mr. Owen writes, ‘the tenet on which the whole new account of negation is based, namely thatτὸ μὴ ὄν ἔστιν ὄντως μὴ ὄν(Soph.254D1), is contradicted unreservedly by Timaeus' assertion that it is illegitimate to sayτὸ μὴ ὄν ἔστι μὴ ὄν(38B2–3); and thereby theTimaeusat once ranks itself with theRepublicandEuthydemus.'After brushing aside Cornford's attempt to reconcile this passage of theTimaeuswith theSophist, Mr. Owen concludes his treatment of it with the words: ‘So theTimaeusdoes not tally with even a fragment of the argument in theSophist.That argument is successful against exactly the Eleatic error which, for lack of the later challenge to Father Parmenides, persists in theTimaeus.’An examination of the other arguments put forward by Mr. Owen in support of his thesis concerning the relative chronology of theTimaeusI reserve for another place. Here I propose to consider only the meaning of this one passage and whether it really does imply that theTimaeusmust have been written before Plato had conceived the doctrine enunciated in theSophist.It is a question not now raised for the first time. More than half a century ago Otto Apelt asserted that this passage of theTimaeusis enough to prove that work earlier than theSophists.His assertion did not go unchallenged; and Apelt himself appears to have lost his original confidence in it, for in his later writings on the relative chronology of the two dialogues he did not again refer to it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document