Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 37:2 (2020) ► pp.215–263

The diachrony of participles in the (pre)history of Greek and Hittite

Losing and gaining functional structure

ORCID logo | University of Vienna

This article discusses two case studies of diachronic “voice flipping” in which the syntax of a participle appears to change from active or “subject-oriented” to passive (Ancient Greek ‑menos to Modern Greek ‑menos) and from resultative/stative to active (Proto-Indo-European *-nt-; Hittite ‑ant‑ vs. Ancient Greek ‑nt‑). While the first type of change is the result of a diachronic reanalysis by which a functional projection (VoiceP) is lost, the second type in fact adds an active Voice head. Both changes are the result of the simultaneous availability of a stative and an eventive reading in deverbal adjectival forms and could belong to a larger “participle cycle”. However, unlike in other changes usually discussed under the label “cycle”, unidirectional economy principles do not apply in these cases. Rather, these cases provide evidence that some types of morphosyntactic change, especially those related to event and argument structure, are driven by reanalysis of the feature content of functional heads under local structural ambiguity.

Keywords: participles, voice morphology, voice flipping, adjectives, passives, structural reanalysis, cyclic change, Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Hittite
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background: Participles and voice
    • 2.1Participles
    • 2.2Modern Greek “passive” participles
    • 2.3Voice morphology
  • 3.Case study I: Greek ‑menos
    • 3.1Ancient Greek ‑menos
    • 3.2Modern Greek ‑menos
    • 3.3Analysis
      • 3.3.1AG vs. MG ‑menos
      • 3.3.2Diachrony of ‑menos
    • 3.4Summary
  • 4.Case study II: “Passive”/stative → active
    • 4.1Losing and gaining functional projections
    • 4.2PIE *-nt-
    • 4.3Hittite ‑ant‑
    • 4.4Analysis
      • 4.4.1The Problem: Active or Passive?
      • 4.4.2 The origins of *‑nt‑ revisited
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18040.gre
References
AiG II,2 = Debrunner, Albert
1954 Altindische Grammatik, vol. II,21: Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis
2013 Where is non-active morphology? In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 244–262. CSLI publications.Google Scholar
2018 ‑able adjectives and the syntax of psych verbs. Glossa 3(1): 74, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou
2008 Structuring participles. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 33–41. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer
2015 External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Edit Doron
2012 The syntactic construction of two non-active voices: Passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics 481: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou
2007 Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Gianina Iordăchioaia
2014 The psych causative alternation. Lingua 1481: 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allan, Rutger J.
2003 The middle voice in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Gieben. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2003 Participles and voice. In Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Armin von Stechow (eds.), Perfect explorations, 1–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, David W. & Don Ringe
2015 The Indo-European homeland from linguistic and archaeological perspectives. Annual Review of Linguistics 2015(1): 199–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley
(eds.) 2007 Deponency and morphological mismatches. Proceedings of the British Academy 145. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark & Nadya Vinokurova
2009 On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations. Language 85(3): 517–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Egbert
1994 Voice, aspect and Aktionsart: Middle and passive in Ancient Greek. In Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function, 23–47. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentein, Klaas
2012 Perfect periphrases in Post-Classical and Early Byzantine Greek: An ecological-evolutionary account. Journal of Greek Linguistics 121: 205–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn
2011 BE-ing default: The morphosyntax of auxiliaries. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
2017 Distributed morphology. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin
2013 By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16(1): 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chantraine, Pierre
1926 Histoire du parfait grec. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
CHD = Güterbock, Hans G. and Harry A. Hoffner
1989 The Hittite dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, vol. L-N. Chicago.Google Scholar
Clark, Robin & Ian Roberts
1993 A computational model of language learnability and language change. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 299–345.Google Scholar
Cotticelli-Kurras, Paola & Velizar Sadovski
(eds.) 2017 “In participle we predicate”: Con-tributions of the comparative and historical linguistics to grammar and semantics of participle. Wien: Holzhausen.Google Scholar
Cournane, Ailís
2017 In defense of the child innovator. In Eric Mathieu & Robert Truswell (eds.), Micro-change and macro-change in diachronic syntax, 10–24. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David
1997a Voice and the interfaces of syntax. University of Pennsylvania dis-sertation.Google Scholar
1997b Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. In Heidi Harley (ed.), Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, 41–72. MITWPL 32.Google Scholar
2000 Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004a Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle, 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004b On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 355–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 The morpheme. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer
2007 Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fellner, Hannes A.
2014 Tocharian special agents: The nt-participle. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 151: 53–67.Google Scholar
Fellner, Hannes A. & Laura Grestenberger
2018 Die Reflexe der *-nt‑ und *-mh1no‑Partizipien im Hethitischen und Tocharischen. In Elisabeth Rieken (ed.), 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen: Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 23. September 2015 in Marburg, 63–82. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar & Andrew Koontz-Garboden
2015 Semantic variation and the grammar of property concepts. Language 91(3): 533–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frotscher, Michael
2013 Das hethitische ‑ant-Partizip und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen: Semantik, Morphologie, Syntax. Università degli Studi di Verona dissertation.Google Scholar
Garcia Ramón, José Luis
2017 Heterogenous correspondences and reconstruction: The ‘gerundive’ in ‑mi-na in Hieroglyphic Luvian. In Claire Le Feuvre, Daniel Petit & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Verbal adjectives and participles in Indo-European languages. Proceedings of the conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Paris, 24th to 26th September 2014, 85–103. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew
1996 Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite. In Aaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena, 85–134. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2008 Negative cycles. Linguistic Typology 121: 195–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2009 Cyclical change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2016a Cyclical change continued. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b Cyclical change continued: Introduction. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical change continued, 3–17. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 The diachrony of verb meaning: Aspect and argument structure. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
George, Coulter H.
2005 Expressions of agency in Ancient Greek. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grestenberger, Laura
2014 Feature mismatch: Deponency in Indo-European languages. Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
2016 More span-conditioned allomorphy: Voice morphology in Classical Greek. In Christopher Hammerly & Brandon Prickett (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 46, vol. 21, 1–10. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
2017 On the syntax of the participles of Indo-European deponent verbs. In Claire Le Feuvre, Daniel Petit & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Verbal adjectives and participles in Indo-European languages. Proceedings of the conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Paris, 24th to 26th September 2014, 105–117. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
2018 Deponency in finite and nonfinite contexts. Language 94(3): 487–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Deponency in morphology. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming a. The ín-group: Indo-Iranian in-stems and their Indo-European relatives. In a forthcoming Festschrift, Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.
Forthcoming b. Two types of passive? Voice morphology and “low passives” in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. In Kleanthes K. Grohmann, Akemi Matsuya & Eva-Maria Remberger eds. Passives cross-linguistically: Theoretical and experimental approaches Leiden Brill
Hajnal, Ivo
1994 Die lykischen a-stämme. Zum Werdegang einer Nominalklasse. In Jens Elmegård Rasmussen & Benedikte Nielsen (eds.), In honorem Holger Pedersen. Kol-loquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Kopenhagen 1993, 307–330. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark
2007 Historical linguistics: Theory and method. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz
1993 Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2009 The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Monika Rathert & Anastasia Giannadikou (eds.), Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, 320–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer
1999 State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. GLOT International 41: 3–9.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1994 Passive participles across languages. In Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function, 151–177. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hearn, Ryan
. Forthcoming. Disharmonic headedness in Homeric Greek and Tocharian and implications for Proto-Indo-European reconstruction. Proceedings of DiGS 20, University of York, June 18–21 2018.Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. & H. Craig Melchert
2008 A grammar of the Hittite language. Part I: Reference grammar. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Holton, David, Peter Mackridge & Irene Philippaki-Warburton
1997 Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the modern language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holton, David & Io Manolessou
2010 Medieval and Early Modern Greek. In Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), A companion to the Ancient Greek language, 539–563. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inglese, Guglielmo
2018 The Hittite middle voice. University of Bergamo dissertation.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael, Christopher Johnson & Patricia J. Brooks
2000 From states to events: The acquisition of English passive participles. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1–2): 1003–1029.Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. & Joel P. Brereton
2014 The Rigveda: The earliest religious poetry of India, vol. I-III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jankuhn, Harald
1969 Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H.
2003 Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20th Century and beyond. In Jared Klein, Brian Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Hand‑ book of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics (Handbucher zur Sprach‑ und Kommunikationswissenschaft 41(1)), 220–238. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina
2013 (Non-)canonical passives and reflexives: Deponents and their like. In Artemis Alexiadou & Florian Schäfer (eds.), Non-canonical passives, 337–358. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf & Hedde Zeijlstra
2014 The Rich Agreement Hypothesis rehabilitated. Linguistic Inquiry 45(4): 571–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
2001 Building statives. In Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on aspect (2000), 385–399. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Lavidas, Nikolaos
2012 Passive in the history of Greek: Evidence for the role of the passive suffix. Folia Linguistica Historica 331: 87–121.Google Scholar
Le Feuvre, Claire, Daniel Petit & Georges-Jean Pinault
(eds.) 2017 Verbal adjectives and participles in Indo-European languages. Proceedings of the conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Paris, 24th to 26th September 2014. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu
1977 Lateinische Laut‑ und Formenlehre. Lateinische Grammatik, vol. I1. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
1995 Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David
2006 How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowe, John J.
2014 Indo-European Caland adjectives in *-nt‑ and participles in Sanskrit. Historische Sprachforschung 1271: 166–195.Google Scholar
2015 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit: The syntax and semantics of adjectival verb forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Transitive nouns and adjectives: Evidence from early Indo-Aryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manolessou, Io
2005 From participles to gerunds. In Melitta Stavrou & Arhonto Terzi (eds.), Advances in Greek generative syntax: In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, 241–283. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark & Alexander Williams (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4(2), 201–225.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig
1998 The dialectal position of Anatolian within Indo-European. In Benjamin K. Bergen, Madelaine C. Plauché & Ashlee C. Bailey (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, special session on Indo-European subgrouping and internal relations, 24–31. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
2014 Anatolian nominal stems in *-(C)o-. In Norbert Oettinger & Thomas Steer (eds.), Das Nomen im Indogermanischen. Morphologie, Substantiv versus Adjektiv, Kollektivum. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 14. bis 16. September 2011 in Erlangen, 205–214. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
2017a The source(s) of Indo-European participles in *-e/ont . In Claire Le Feuvre, Daniel Petit & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Verbal adjectives and participles in Indo-European languages. Proceedings of the conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Paris, 24th to 26th September 2014, 217–220.Google Scholar
2017b “Western affinities” of Anatolian. In Bjarne Simmelkjaer Sandgaard Hansen, Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander & Birgit Annette Olsen (eds.), Etymology and the European lexikon. Akten der 14. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Kopenhagen, 17.-22. Sept., 2012, 297–305.Google Scholar
2018 Hittite and Indo-European: Revolution and counter-revolution. In Elisabeth Rieken (ed.), 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen: Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Arbeitstagung der lndogermanischen Gesellschaft, Philipps-Universität Marburg, 21. bis 23. September 2015, 289–294. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
To appear. The position of Anatolian. In Andrew Garrett & Michael Weiss eds. Handbook of Indo-European studies Oxford Oxford University Press
Müller, Gereon
2013 Approaches to deponency. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(6): 351–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Maria
2017 To what extent does the Greek participle participate in the passive voice system? In Paola Cotticelli-Kurras & Velizar Sadovski (eds.), “In participle we predicate”: Contributions of the comparative and historical linguistics to grammar and semantics of participle, 109–127. Wien: Holzhausen.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Alan J.
1976 Caland’s “Law” and the Caland-System. Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
2017 Agentive and other derivatives of ‘τóμος-type’ nouns. In Claire Le Feuvre, Daniel Petit & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Verbal adjectives and participles in Indo-European languages. Proceedings of the conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Paris, 24th to 26th September 2014, 233–266. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Oettinger, Norbert
1986 “Indo-Hittite”-Hypothese und Wortbildung. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
2001 Neue Gedanken über das ‑nt-Suffix. In Onofrio Carruba & Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Anatolisch und Indogermanisch/Anatolico e Indoeuropeo. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Pavia, 22.-25. September 1998, 301–315. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
2017 Der Ursprung des indogermanischen Caland-Systems und die nt‑Stämme. In Claire Le Feuvre, Daniel Petit & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Verbal adjectives and participles in Indo-European languages. Proceedings of the conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Paris, 24th to 26th September 2014, 267–275. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel
1999 On the notion of theme vowel: A new approach to Catalan verbal morphology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology MA thesis.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel & Karlos Arregi
2005 Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 16(1): 43–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos, Vassilios Spyropoulos & Anthi Revithiadou
2017 Little v as a categorizing verbal head: Evidence from Greek. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco & Ángel J. Gallego (eds.), The verbal domain, 29–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Papangeli, Dimitra & Nikolaos Lavidas
2009 Deponents and non-finite constructions in Greek. In Claire Halpert, Jeremy Hartman & David Hill (eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop in Greek syntax and semantics at MIT. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 571, 197–211.Google Scholar
Rau, Jeremy
2009 Indo-European nominal morphology: The decads and the Caland system Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Rieken, Elisabeth
2009 Der Archaismus des Hethitischen – eine Bestandsaufnahme. Incontri Linguistici 321: 37–52.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don
1988–1990[1991] Evidence for the position of Tocharian in the Indo-European family? Die Sprache 341: 59–123.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don & Joseph F. Eska
2013 Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first century reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor
2002 Indo-European and computational cladis-tics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100(1): 59–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2007 Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou
2003 Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammat-icalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothmayr, Antonia
2009 The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Romance and Greek medio-passives and the typology of Voice. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco & Ángel J. Gallego (eds.), The verbal domain, 129–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Klaus T.
1992 Archaismen des Tocharischen und ihre Bedeutung für Fragen der Rekonstruktion und der Ausgliederung. In Robert Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky & Jos Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden, 31. Aug.-4. Sept. 1987, 101–112. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard
1939 Griechische Grammatik, vol. I1: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wort-bildung, Flexion . Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
1943 Zum persönlichen Agens beim Passiv, besonders im Griechischen. Berlin: Abh. d. preuß. Akad. d. Wissensch., Jahrg 1942.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard & Albert Debrunner
1950 Griechische Grammatik, vol. II1: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik . Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
2016 How are words related? In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory, 1–26. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann
1994 The change from SOV to SVO in Ancient Greek. Language Variation and Change 61: 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George
2014 Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willis, David
2011 Reconstructing last week’s weather: Syntactic reconstruction and Brythonic free relatives. Journal of Linguistics 471: 407–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, Werner
1998 Lexical archaisms in the Tocharian languages. In Victor H. Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age peoples of Western Central Asia. Vol. I, Archeology, migration and nomadism, linguistics, 347–357. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Wodtko, Dagmar S., Britta Irslinger & Carolin Schneider
(eds.) 2008 Nomina im Indoger-manischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Zombolou, Katerina
2004 Verbal alternations in Greek: A semantic analysis. University of Reading dissertation.Google Scholar
Zombolou, Katerina & Artemis Alexiadou
2014 The canonical function of the deponent verbs in Modern Greek. In Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschützky & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), Morphology and meaning: Selected papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012, 331–344. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar