Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:4 (2017) ► pp.956–1006

A synchronic and diachronic typology of Hittite reciprocal constructions

| Università degli Studi di Pavia | Università degli Studi di Bergamo
This paper discusses reciprocal constructions in Hittite, framed within the typology of reciprocals laid out by Nedjalkov (2007), König & Gast (2008), and Evans et al. (2011). Hittite attests to at least three reciprocal markers, that is, the middle voice, the particle =za, and three different polyptotic constructions, based on the iteration of the numeral šia- ‘one’, the demonstrative ka- ‘this’, and the noun ara- ‘fellow, comrade’ respectively. Synchronically, these three strategies cover different sub-domains of reciprocity, as they encode different kinds of reciprocal situations and display different syntactic properties. These differences can be accounted for by taking into account the processes out of which these constructions developed, which can be described in terms of grammaticalization (Heine & Miyashita 2008). In this respect, beside enriching our knowledge of reciprocals in Indo-European languages, this paper also contributes to our general understanding of the diachronic typology of reciprocal constructions.
Keywords: Hittite, Indo-European, reciprocal constructions, diachronic typology, middle voice, bipartite reciprocal markers, reflexivity and reciprocity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Typology of reciprocal constructions: function and encoding
    • 2.1Semantics of reciprocal situations
    • 2.2Classification of reciprocals constructions
  • 3.Reciprocal constructions in Hittite: A survey
    • 3.1Lexical reciprocals
    • 3.2Morphological reciprocals: the middle voice
    • 3.3Reciprocal lability
    • 3.4The clitic particle =za
    • 3.5Syntactic reciprocals: polyptotic constructions
    • 3.6Marginal reciprocal constructions and related domains: Adverbs, adpositions, and sentence particles
  • 4.Discussion of the data: A synchronic typology of Hittite reciprocal constructions
  • 5.The diachrony of Hittite reciprocal constructions
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17019.ing
References (106)
References
Archi, Alfonso. 1977. I poteri della dea Ištar hurrito-ittita. Oriens Antiquus 161. 297–311.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 2011. Notes on reciprocal constructions in Akkadian in light of typological and historical considerations. Semitica et Classica 41. 23–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur. A. 2014. NP-strategies in Semitic languages in a typological perspective. Diachronica 31(3). 337–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekes, Robert. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Boley, Jacqueline. 1989. The sentence particles and the place words in Old and Middle Hittite [Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 60]. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
. 1993. The Hittite particle -z/-za [Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft]. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brosch, Cyril. 2014. Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Raumgrammatik [TOPOI: Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 20]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cambi, Valentina. 2007. Tempo e Aspetto in ittito. Con particolare riferimento al suffisso -ske/a. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
CHD =Güterbock, Hans Gustav, Harry A. Jr. Hoffner & Theo P. J. van den Hout. 1989-. The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cotticelli-Kurras, Paola & Alfredo Rizza. 2011. Die hethitische Partikel -z(a) im Licht neuer theoretischer Ansätze. In Thomas Krisch & Thomas Lindner (eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 120–130. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Cuzzolin, Perluigi, Ignazio Putzu & Paolo Ramat. 2006. The Indo-European adverb in diachronic and typological perspective. Indogermanische Forschungen 1111. 1–38.Google Scholar
Darlymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam Mchombo & Stanley Peters. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 211. 159–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis. 2008. Irreducible symmetry in reciprocal constructions. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 375–410. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Iterativum, Distributivum, Durativum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, im Lateinischen und Hethitischen. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse: Sitzungsberichte, 259/11. Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Dunkel, George E. 2014. Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominal-stämme. Band 2: Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Eichner, Heiner. 1992. Anatolian. In Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European Numerals, 29–96. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2008. Reciprocal constructions: Towards a structural typology. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 33–103. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Stephen C. Levinson, Alice Gaby & Asifa Majid. 2011. Introduction: Reciprocals and semantic typology. In Nicholas Evans, Stephen C. Levinson, Alice Gaby & Asifa Majid (eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology [Typological Studies in Language 98], 1–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanelli, Valentina. 2009. Le costruzioni reciproche nella lingua latina. Roma: Universitaria editrice.Google Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W. 2004. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. Chichester: Blackwell Wiley.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Traci S. Curl (eds.). 2000. Reciprocals: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in Language 41]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francia, Rita. 1995. Costruzione e valore del pronome possessivo enclitico di prima plurale in Hittito. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 351. 93–99.Google Scholar
. 2002. Le funzioni sintattiche degli elementi avverbiali di luogo ittiti: anda(n), āppa(n), katta(n), katti-, peran, šer, šar, šarā [Studia Asiana 1]. Roma: Herder.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Johannes. 1950. Churritische Märchen und Sagen in hethitischer Sprache. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 491. 213–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1960. Hethitisches Elementarbuch, 1. Teil: Kurzgefaßte Grammatik (2nd ed.) [Indogermanische Bibliothek, 1. Reihe: Lehr- und Handbücher]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew J. 1996. Wackernagel’s Law and Unaccusativity in Hittite. In A. L. Halpern & A. M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena, 83–133. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gast, Volver & Florian Haas. 2008. Anaphors in German and other European languages. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 307–346. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goedegebuure, Petra. 2003. The Hittite distal demonstrative ASI (UNI, ENI, etc.). Die Sprache 431. 1–32.Google Scholar
. 2006. A new proposal for the reading of the Hittite numeral ‘1’: šia- . In Theo P. J. van den Hout & C. H. van Zoest (eds.), The life and times of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV: Proceedings of a symposium held in honour of J. de Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden, 65–88. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Instanbul.Google Scholar
. 2014. The Hittite demonstratives. Studies in deixis, topics, and focus [Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 55]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Goetze, Albrecht. 1933. Über die Partikeln -za, -kan und -šan der hethitischen Satzverbindung. Archiv Orientální 51. 1–38.Google Scholar
Grestenberger, Laura. 2016. Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European deponents. Journal of Indo-European Linguistics 41. 98–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Güterbock, Hans G. 1983. A Hurro-Hittite hymn to Ishtar. Journal of the American Oriental Society 1031. 155–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haas, Florian. 2007. The development of English each other: grammaticalization, lexicalization, or both?. English Language and Linguistics 11(1). 31–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Reciprocity in English: Historical development and synchronic structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Susanne Maria Michaelis. 2017. Analytic and synthetic: typological change in varieties of European languages. In Isabelle Buchstaller & Beat Siebenhaar (eds.), Language variation – European perspectives VI: Selected papers from the 8th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 8), Leipzig 2015: 3–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type [Arbeitspapiere, N. F. 5]. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
. 1993. More on the typology of the inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1). 40–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
HED =Puhvel, Jaan. 1984 – Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
HEG =Tischler, Johann. 1983–2010. Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Hiroyuki Miyashita. 2008. The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: A grammaticalization perspective. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 169–224. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], 83–101. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. & Craig H. Melchert. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language. Part I: reference grammar. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. 1969. On the use of Hittite -za in nominal sentences. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 281. 225–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
HW2 =Friedrich, Johannes, Annelies Kammenhuber & Inge Hoffmann. 1975-. Hethitisches Worterbuch [Indogermanische Bibliothek. 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2015. Towards a Hittite treebank. Basic challenges and methodological remarks. In Marco Passarotti, Francesco Mambrini & Caroline Sporleder, (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Corpus-Based Research in the Humanities (CRH), 10 December 2015, Warsaw, Poland, 59–68. <[URL]>.
. In preparation. The Hittite middle voice. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD Dissertation.
Josephson, Folke. 2003. The Hittite reflexive construction in a typological perspective. In Brigitte L. M. Bauer & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Language in time and space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 211–232. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Actionality and aspect in Hittite. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses, 131–147. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Knjazev, Jurij P. 2007. Lexical reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal situations. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 115–146. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2008. Reciprocity and reflexivity – description, typology and theory. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 1–32. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Shigehiro Kokutani. 2006. Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44(2). 271–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: a typological perspective. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in Language 41], 41–74. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Letizia Vezzosi. 2004. The role of predicate meaning in the development of reflexivity. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its fringes and its components, 213–244. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krisch, Thomas. 1999. Zur Reziprozität in altindogermanischen Sprachen. In Heiner Eichner & Hans-Christian Luschützky (eds.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler Gedenkschrift für Jochern Schindler, 275–297. Praha: enigma corporation.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2007. Reciprocal constructions in Vedic. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 709–738. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Middle and reflexive. In Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, 261–280. London/New Delhi/New York/Sydney: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
. 2014. Grammaticalization of reciprocal pronouns in Indo-Arian: Evidence from Sanskrit and Indo-European for a diachronic typology of reciprocal constructions. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 1(2). 117–156 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Letuchiy, Alexander. 2009. Towards a typology of labile verbs: lability vs. derivation. In Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds.), New challenges in typology: Transcending the borders and refining the distinctions, 223–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. Australian Journal of Linguistics 51. 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Reciprocals without reflexives. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in Language 41], 32–62. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1990. Old Hittite sentence structure. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2010. The rise (and possible fall) of configurationality. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, 212–229. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2012. Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite. Studies in Language 36(1). 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Basic valency orientation in PIE. Paper presented at the 15th Fachtagung of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft “Back to the Root – The Structure, Function, and Semantics of the PIE Root” , Wien 12–16/09/2016.
Majid, Asifa, Nicholas Evans, Alice Gaby & Stephen C. Levinson. 2011. The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages: an extensional approach. In Nicholas Evans, Stephen C. Levinson, Alice Gaby & Asifa Majid (eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology [Typological Studies in Language 98], 29–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2015. Valency classes and alternation: parameters of variation. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol. 1, 73–130. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena & Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. 2005. Reciprocal constructions. In Mattew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Accessed at <[URL]>.
Maslova, Elena. 2008. Reflexive encoding of reciprocity: Cross-linguistic and language-internal variation. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 225–258. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mattiola, Simone. 2017. The conceptual space of pluractional constructions. Lingue e Linguaggio 16(1). 119–146.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina. 2008. Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William. 2000. Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in Language 41], 85–122. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melchert, Craig H. 2005. Latin insolēscō, Hittite šulle(šš)- and PIE Statives in -ē- . In Nikolak N. Kazansky (ed.), Hṛdā́ mánasā. Studies presented to Professor Leonard G. Herzenberg on his 70th birthday, 90–98. St. Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
2009. Local adverbs in Hittite: Synchrony and diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(2). 607–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Semantics and etymology of Hittite takš- . To appear in Indo-Iranian and Its Indo-European Origin. Studies in honor of Alexander Lubotsky.
Miller, Jared L. 2013. Royal Hittite instructions and related administrative texts [Writings from the Ancient World 31]. Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Emma Genušiene. 2007. Questionnaire on reciprocals. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 379–434. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007a. Overview of the research. Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 3–114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b. Encoding of the reciprocal meaning. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 147–208. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007c. Polysemy of reciprocal markers. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 231–334. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmann, Paul. 1990. Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neu, Erich. 1968a. Interpretationen der hethitischen mediopassiven Verbalformen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1968b. Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nikolaev, Alexander. 2010. Hittite menaḫḫanda . Journal of the American Oriental Society 130(1). 36–71.Google Scholar
Nowicki, Helmut. 2000. Zum Einleitungsparagraphen des Anitta-Textes (CTH 1, 1–4). In Christian Zinko & Michaela Ofitsch (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz, 411–419. Graz: Leykam.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 2008. Thoughts on the origin, progress, and pronominal status of reciprocal forms in Germanic, occasioned by those of Bavarian. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 347–374. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankho, Sergueï & Nicole Tersis. 2008. Is a “friend” an “enemy”? Between “proximity” and “opposition”. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change [Studies in Language Companion 106], 314–340. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 2017. Where do antipassives constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica 34(2). 175–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starke, Frank. 1977. Die Funktionen der dimensionalen Kasus und Ortsadverbien im Hethitischen [Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 22]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2014. Constructionalization and constructional changes [Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 6]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vezzosi, Letizia. 2010. Micro-processes of grammaticalization. The case of Italian l’un l’altro . In Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization. Current views and issues, 343–372. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wali, Kashi. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Marathi. In Barbara C. Lust, Kashi Wali, James W. Gair & K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 22], 513–574. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yakubovich, Ilya & Elisabeth Rieken. 2016. The derivational history of the PIE root *al- ‘other’. Paper presented at the 15th Fachtagung of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft “Back to the Root – The Structure, Function, and Semantics of the PIE Root” , Wien 12–16/09/2016.
Yakubovich, Ilya. 2006. Prehistoric contacts between Hittite and Luwian: The case of reflexive pronouns. In Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Dexter Robbins (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference [Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 52], 77–106. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Kazuhiko. 1990. The Hittite mediopassive endings in -ri. Berlin/New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, Anna A. & Aleksej D. Shmelev. 2007. Sociativity, conjoining, reciprocity, and the Latin prefix com- . In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 209–230. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Inglese, Guglielmo & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
2023. Evidence against unidirectionality in the emergence of middle voice systems. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:2 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo & Simone Mattiola
2020. Pluractionality in Hittite. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:2 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo & Chiara Zanchi
2020. Reciprocal constructions in Homeric Greek: A typological and corpus-based approach. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. The NP-strategy for Expressing Reciprocity [Typological Studies in Language, 127], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 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.