Old Church Slavonic grammar

Lunt, Horace G.

doi:10.1515/9783111563053

Cited by 24 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For all these reasons, we do not think that Bopp's reasoning represents a valid base for rejecting our claim that there are roots which require the pattern with C1 overt and C2 silent. This conclusion seems to have been also adopted in the later descriptive tradition (Aitzetmüller :131‐2 and Lunt :77‐8), who rejected the innovative forms as such, and removed them from the descriptions.…”

Section: Comparatives In Old Church Slavonicmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…The table in (55) shows two such allomorphs: one is found with the adjective bol– ‘big’ (in the first row), the other with nov– ‘new’ (in the second row). According to Aitzetmüller (:131‐2) and Lunt (:77‐8), these are the only two types of comparatives in OCS (55)Two types of adjectives in OCS (Aitzetmüller :131‐2) m n f gloss gen bol‐jьš‐abol‐jьš‐abol‐jьš‐ę‘bigger’ gen nov‐ě‐jьš‐anov‐ě‐jьš‐anov‐ě‐jьš‐ę‘newer’…”

Section: Comparatives In Old Church Slavonicmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Fine Structure of the Comparative

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper provides evidence for a more articulated structure of the comparative as compared with the one in Bobaljik (2012). We propose to split up Bobaljik's cmpr head into two distinct heads, C1 and C2. Looking at Czech, Old Church Slavonic and English, we show that this proposal explains a range of facts about suppletion and allomorphy. A crucial ingredient of our analysis is the claim that adjectival roots are not a‐categorial, but spell out adjectival functional structure. Specifically, we argue that adjectival roots come in various types, differing in the amount of functional structure they spell out. In order to correctly model the competition between roots, we further introduce a Faithfulness Restriction on Cyclic Override, which allows us to dispense with the Elsewhere Principle.

show abstract

Section: Comparatives In Old Church Slavonicmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Comparatives In Old Church Slavonicmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fine Structure of the Comparative

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One should remember at this point that a noun in the genitive case in Old Russian and Old Church Slavonic could appear as a ‘complement to pronominal and adverbial expressions denoting or implying quantity or number’, as in (28) (Lunt : 147). Note for comparison that this relation is conveyed by a prepositional phrase in contemporary Russian, e.g., kto iz nix for (28a).…”

Section: Reconstructing the Emergence Of The Russian čTo Za Phrasementioning

confidence: 99%

What is for for?: Reconstructing the development of what for construction in russian

Kwon

2015

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article addresses the question of what for is for in the so‐called what for construction of Russian, namely, za in the čto za construction. Establishing that za in certain contexts is in fact a predicator that connects a subject to its predicate, this paper argues that the same element in the čto za construction also belongs to this grammatical category and should not be considered a preposition with an eccentric case assigning property. This analysis crucially assumes that the construction starts out as a wh‐question of a small clause base. Various aspects concerning the suggested development of the čto za construction are addressed in detail: (i) how a wh‐predication transforms into a wh‐modification, (ii) how the expressive semantics can be imbued by the expression, and (iii) whether German provided a source of the construction for other languages, including Russian.a crazy synchronic state of the grammar has arisen via diachronic changes that are highly natural and, presumably, motivated independently by various communicative factors. (Givón 1979: 235, emphasis added)

show abstract

“…Rule (iii) also contains a subpart which accounts for the iotation of labials mentioned in the beginning of this paper. Rule (v) is somewhat more complex in Lunt (1974): it also accounts for the rather unclear behavior of dental affricates, c/j, after s/z. 8.…”

Section: Trj -+ ίή By (3/ii' ) -> Irj By (4)/(iv)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) t/d -> tt/dd before / (2) t/d -+s/z before t/d (3) dentals become alveo-palatals before / (4) s/z ->· ί/f before an alveo-palatal (5) / -> φ after an alveo-palatal (6) an alveo-palatal stop or affricate becomes a non-strident dental stop after any alveo-palatal obstruent 5 (e.g., it -> Α, ϊ d -> zd, also sic -» it, Now, observe how these rules apply to tj: tj -> ttj by (1) -» stj by (2) -» stf by (3) -» iif by (4) -> if by (5) -» St by (6) The other solutions proposed, for example, bySaxmatov (191 5), Trubetzkoy (1936), Shevelov (1965), and most recently Lunt (1974), introduce lengthening by directly changing/ after t and d into some sort of stop. Since Lunt's Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 6/3/15 4:27 AM formulation is by far the most complete and coherent, it most readily can serve the purposes of this discussion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC tj/dj~št/žd

Scatton¹

1978

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Old Church Slavonic grammar

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

The Fine Structure of the Comparative

The Fine Structure of the Comparative

What is for for?: Reconstructing the development of what for construction in russian

OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC tj/dj~št/žd

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About