Introduction published In:
The Northumbrian Old English glosses
Edited by Elly van Gelderen
[NOWELE 72:2] 2019
► pp. 119133
References (31)
References
Benskin, M. 2011. Present Indicative Plural Concord in Brittonic and Early English. Transactions of the Philological Society 109(2). 158–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berndt, R. 1956. Form und Funktion des Verbums im nördlichen Spätaltenglischen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bergen, L. van. 2008. Negative contraction and Old English dialects. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 1091. 275–312.Google Scholar
Carpenter, H. C. A. 1910. Die Deklination in der nordhumbrischen Evangelienübersetzung der Lindisfarner Handschrift. Bonn: Hanstein.Google Scholar
2016. Identifying the author(s) of the Lindisfarne Gloss. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 169–188.Google Scholar
2018. Where did THEY come from? A native origin for THEY, THEIR, THEM. Diachronica 35(2). 165–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DOE. Dictionary of Old English (DOE) texts. [URL]
Facsimile 2002. The Lindisfarne Bible. Munich: Faksimile Verlag.Google Scholar
Fernández Cuesta, J. 2016. Revisiting the manuscript of the Lindisfarne Gospels. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds), 257–285.Google Scholar
Fernández Cuesta, J. & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.). 2016. The Old English gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels: Language, author and context. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, E. van. 2000. A History of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The diachrony of pronouns and demonstratives. In T. Lohndal (ed.), In search of Universal Grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, 195–218. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmqvist, E. 1922. On the history of the English present inflections particularly -th and -s. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: Høst.Google Scholar
Jones, C. 1970. Some features of determiner usage in the Old English glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Durham Ritual. Indogermanische Forschungen 751. 198–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, T. D. et al. 1956. Evangeliorum quattuor Codex Lindisfarnensis. Lausanne: Graf.Google Scholar
Klemola, J. 2013. English as a contact language in the British Isles. In D. Schreier & M. Hundt (eds.), English as a contact language, 75–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, C. 2006. Reflexivity and intensification in English. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Levin, S. 1958. Negative contraction: An Old and Middle English dialect criterion. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 571. 492–501.Google Scholar
Moore, S. & A. H. Marckwardt. 1951. Historical outlines of English sounds and inflections. Ann Arbor, MI: Wahr.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki [2016 reprint. Amsterdam: Benjamins].Google Scholar
Nagucka, R. 1997. Glossal translation in the Lindisfarne Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 311. 179–201.Google Scholar
Pons-Sanz, S. 2013. The lexical effects of Anglo-Scandinavian linguistic contact on Old English. Turnhout: Brepols. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R. & C. L. Wrenn. 1957. An Old English grammar, 3rd edn. London: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, A. 1937. Studies in the accidence of the Lindisfarne Gospels. Leeds: School of English.Google Scholar
Skeat, W. 1871–87. The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John. [1970 reprint. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, C. 2009. On the syntactic differences between OE dialects: Evidence from the Gospels. English Language and Linguistics 13(1). 57–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. 1992. Syntax. In R. Hogg et al. (eds.), The Cambridge history of the English language, 168–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. 2001. Atlantis Semitica: Structural contact features in Celtic and English. In L. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999, 351–369. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walkden, G. 2016. Null subjects in the Lindisfarne Gospels as evidence for syntactic variation in Old English. In J. Fernández Cuesta & S. Pons-Sanz (eds.), 239–256.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Pons-Sanz, Sara M.
2021. Aldred’s Glosses to thenotae iurisin Durham A.iv.19: Personal, Textual and Cultural Contexts. English Studies 102:1  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fernández-Cuesta, Julia & Nieves Rodríguez-Ledesma
2020. Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1  pp. 37 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.