Nov 15, 2010

Zkovst en Kaeren


Zkovst en Kaeren


Nar jimadyrizyt otivadroven daam zabde gys geanen ekskemtyanr, een dasen daam evbojien dabij faribove inrmandir: ane jaarg er dee en ‘ekvote eboji’ dy ekskemtyanen en een dasenboee insoke dy feritai (id est kaadi eyn ‘insoktyanzin‘ emmdaok); dy jimadyrizyt otivadrov daamet ijzid ‘oboravona’, anfijvobove. Evnadttaivavji, ane jaarg vaoroin dy feritai en er dee gys ekvote et (id est kaadi eyn ‘feritaizin‘ emmdaok); dy otivadrov daamet ijzid ‘zstazitykov’ en fijvobove gys eyn ergine dasen jaarg see vaoroins:



An alignment set a is marked relative to another alignment set b iff a
contains less argument roles than b and b contains S



Eyn ekve erzon eyn ‘insoktyanzin’ emmdaok daamet Kimerkee (2008) nasttaiva etovjirzi sy Erindste: een Erindste (exempli gratia,  Memerstbe Erindste: Vivkter, 2009), vidzs fanran ztegover fanaoten en taoten geanen angtaiva kodi meerkteg, kaag eel fanaoten zab ekkortaiva evigtvast:







the chances of finding a specific alignment set on a specific pronoun in a specific language may just as well be determined by the fact that the language inherited its pronoun system from its ancestor language or that the case distribution assimilated to neighboring languages. Therefore, any typological statistical test needs to control for the confounding factors of family relations and areas.


Odan eyn insoktyanzite etovjirzi, de otekeknas szindibotyan jaarg see ekkaostyt erzon rees kvoiteg dasen ermdite nijnee emmeerdeke, vidzs fanran fanaoten daam taoten een de degoge, ee.e. dasen adzijn sevang gys dy zova ferte sy zoeek meer veksikov taotr, traa eel fanaoten kanzsditona eyn ferte sy zoeek sy nijnee oebt:





Dy gevgege erzon zok eyn emmdaok daamet sy kaoddi gys tes anermgeerst efiertke erzon dy etovjirzi:







Ko ver, zin daam nij ebere sy ennak zok efiertke evdaog zin nee jaarg oebofijorvee ekskvoer dy fariboivditee sy testeg efiertke. Dy anndterik dzik sy dy insoktyanzite emmdaok daamet tan-nazsoboivditee ereefag een dasen daamet evbojien eyn tan-zanij getke sy szikavadteg voddys emmergete kaos-tanekvst sy dy Erindste tes, en erzon dezij zin nee jaarg ettykimtae nedys adzijn jaarg see ekvoteyt eboji.




  1. Adams, J. N. (1977). A typological approach to Latin word order.
    Indogermanische Forschungen 81: 70-99.
  2. Bartos, H. (1996). Object Agreement Licensing in Hungarian. TLP
    Yearbook, Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Theoretical
    Linguistics, Budapest.
  3. Bickel, Balthasar (2000): ‘Person and evidence in Himalayan languages’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 23, 1 – 12.
  4. Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang and Yogendra P. Y¯adava (1999): ‘Face vs. empathy: the social foundations of Maithili verb agreement’, Linguistics 37, 481 – 518.
  5. Brown, Lea (2001): A Grammar of Nias Selatan. PhD thesis, University of Sydney
  6. Corbett, Greville & Norman Fraser (1993): Network Morphology: A DATR Account of Russian Nominal Inflection, Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–142.
  7. Gernsbacher, M. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, Erlbaum.
  8. Haig, Geoffrey L. J (2008): Alignment change in Iranian languages: a construction grammar approach.Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
  9. Harbour, Daniel (2008): The Syntactic Basis of Phi-Case Interaction. Ms., Queen Mary College, University of London.
  10. Kiessling, Roland (2007): ‘The “marked nominative” in Datooga’, Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 28(2), 149–191.
  11. Kiparsky, Paul (2001): Structural Case in Finnish, Lingua 111, 315–376.
  12. Klamer, Marian (1998a): A Grammar of Kambera. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
  13. Karadne, K. (2010): Obscure internet: beyond the invisible web. Iskänyar, FL.
  14. Mallinson, G. & B. Blake (1981). Language typology. Seventh revised edition. Amsterdam, New Holland.
  15. Manninen, Satu & Diane Nelson (2004): What is a passive? The case of Finnish, Studia Linguistica 58(3), 212–251.
  16. Nichols, Johanna (1993): ‘Ergativity and linguistic geography’, Australian Journal of Linguistics 13, 39 – 89.
  17. Opitz, Andreas (2008): Case and Markedness in Tlapanec, Linguistische Berichte 214, 211–237.
  18. Stiebels, Barbara (2000): Linker Inventories, Linking Splits and Lexical Economy. In: B. Stiebels & D. Wunderlich, eds., Lexicon in Focus. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 211–245.
  19. Stiebels, Barbara (2002): Typologie des Argumentlinkings: Ökonomie und Expressivität. Akademie Verlag, Berlin.
  20. Stiebels, Barbara (2008): Scales in the Various Types of Argument Linking. Talk, Workshop on Scales, Leipzig.
  21. Viti, C. (2008a). Genitive word order in Ancient Greek: a functional analysis of word order freedom in the noun phrase. To appear in Glotta 2008.
  22. Vort, J. (2009): Natural language injection techniques and Ivanov polynomials. Iskänyar, FL.
  23. Wilkins, David (1989): Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. PhD thesis, Australian National University.
Template Design by SkinCorner