Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:1 (2020) ► pp.27–69

On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic

Why lexical constructions are important

ORCID logo | National Research University - Higher School of Economics (HSE University) | University of Liège
| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
| National & Kapodistrian University of Athens
| University of Neuchâtel
In this paper, we propose a constructional analysis of the meanings of two generic motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic (Sahidic dialect), the verbs baínō and bôk, respectively, both of which are glossed as ‘go’ and are characterized by extensive polysemy. We argue that an adequate analysis of these meanings can only be achieved in a framework that recognizes lexical constructions at the level of the verb sense, showing that each meaning correlates with encoding features (ranging from morpho-syntactic to semantic, discursive, and lexical ones) that are not predictable, or at best are only partially motivated. Through extensive corpus analysis, we identify such significant, frequency-based patterns of correlation, each of which represents a lexical construction. Our data thus argue strongly for an approach to polysemy in which individual meanings are represented as enriched lexical constructions, which include morphological and discursive specifications (in addition to standard valence information).
Keywords: lexical constructions, polysemy, motion verbs, Ancient Greek, Coptic (Sahidic dialect)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.Lexical meaning in constructional contexts: Ancient Greek baínō
    • 3.1 Baínō in Homer
      • 3.1.1The ‘go somewhere’ construction
      • 3.1.2The ‘leave’ construction
      • 3.1.3The ‘mount/climb’ construction
      • 3.1.4The inchoative ‘start/ set out’ construction
      • 3.1.5The ‘make go’ construction
    • 3.2 Baínō in Εuripides
      • 3.2.1The ‘go’ and ‘come’ constructions
      • 3.2.2The ‘die’ construction
      • 3.2.3The ‘leave’ construction
    • 3.3 Baínō in Plato
      • 3.3.1The ‘stand (on)’ construction
      • 3.3.2The ‘overstep’ construction
  • 4.Lexical meaning in constructional contexts: Sahidic Coptic bôk
    • 4.1The ‘go’ construction
    • 4.2The ‘go away’ construction
    • 4.3The progressive ‘be on the way’ construction
    • 4.4The ‘went and did’ construction
    • 4.5The ‘go-do’ construction
  • 5.Idiosyncrasy and predictability in lexical patterns: Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of glosses used in Coptic and Greek examples that are not included in Leipzig Glossing Rules 2015 (https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf)
  • References
Published online: 6 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18047.geo
References (108)
References
Abdulrahim, Dana. 2019. GO constructions in Modern Standard Arabic: A corpus-based study. Constructions and Frames 111. 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, James P. 2013. The Ancient Egyptian language: An historical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aranda Pérez, Gonzalo. 1984. El Evangelio de San Mateo en copto sahídico: Texto de M 569, estudio preliminar y aparato critic (Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros 35). Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Or constructions: Code, inference and cue too. Constructions and Frames 111. 193–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Askeland, Christian. 2013. The Coptic versions of the New Testament. In Bart D. Ehrman & Michael W. Holmes (eds.), The text of the New Testament in contemporary research: Essays on the status quaestionis, 201–229. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkins, Beryl T. S. 1987. Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. The 3rd Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, 17–36.Google Scholar
Bachmann, Ingo. 2013. Has go-V ousted go-and-V? A study of the diachronic development of both constructions in American English. In Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe O. Ebeling (eds.), Corpus perspectives on patterns in lexis (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 57): 91–112. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartolotta, Annamaria. 2017. On deictic motion verbs in Homeric Greek. In Felicia Logozzo & Paolo Poccetti (eds.), Ancient Greek linguistics: New approaches, insights, perspectives, 277–291. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Charles J. Fillmore & Beau Cronin. 2003. The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography 161. 281–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald. 2009. Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berez, Andrea L. & Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. In defense of corpus-based methods: A behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English. In Steven Moran, Darren S. Tanner & Michael Scanlon (eds.), The 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference (University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics), vol. 271, 157–166. Seattle, WA: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
. 2005. From theory to practice: Frame semantics and the design of FrameNet. In Stefan Langer & Daniel Schnorbusch (eds.), Semantik im lexikon, 129–160. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 61. 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2006. Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples? The Linguistic Review: Special issue on exemplar-based models of language 231. 291–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny. 2009. Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 213–241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Talmy Givón & Bertram F. Malle (eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language, 109–134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crum, Walter E. 1939. A Coptic dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, René Dirven & John Taylor (eds.). 2003. Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depuydt, Leo. 1986. The semantic structure of jw-ei ‘come’ and šm-bōk ‘go’. In James P. Allen, Leo Depuydt, Hans J. Polotsky & David P. Silverman (eds.), Essays on Egyptian grammar (Yale Egyptological Studies 1), 22–30. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar.Google Scholar
Engsheden, Åke. 2008. Differential object marking in Sahidic Coptic. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses (Studies in Language Companion Series 103), 323–344. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1972. How to know whether you’re coming or going. Studies in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics: Bulletin of the Summer Institute in Linguistics 51. 3–17.Google Scholar
1977. The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole & Jerry Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations, 59–82. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982. Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1997. Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Beryl T. S. Atkins. 1992. Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantics and lexical organization, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher R. Johnson & Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3). 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer & Abby Wright. 2003. Framenet in action: The case of attaching. International Journal of Lexicography 161. 297–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2015. Let’s go look at usage. In Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3(1). 231–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2009. Verbal aspect and personal pronouns: The history of aorist markers in North Vanuatu. In Andrew Pawley & Alexander Adelaar (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Bob Blust (Pacific Linguistics 601), 179–195. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2015. Construction Grammar, 2nd edn. In Artemis Alexiadou & Tibor Kiss (eds.), Handbook of Syntax, vol. 41, 974–1003. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Funk, Christine. 1995. Fortbewegungsverben in Luthers übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. (Europäische Hochschulschriften 1517). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Funk, Wolf-Peter. 2013. The translation of the Bible into Coptic. In James Carleton Paget & Joachim Schaper (eds.), The new Cambridge history of the Bible, vol. 11 (From the Beginnings to 600), 536–546. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Don’t stop – Please go on…”: On verbs of phase specification in Coptic. In Nathalie Bosson, Anne Boud’hors & Syndey H. Aufrère (eds.), Labor omnia uicit improbus: miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 256), 193–252. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis. 2018. A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry: Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek. Constructions and Frames. 10(1). 61–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
George, H. Coulter. 2004. Expression of agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014. The many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 117–144. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 29–40 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run . In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Eitan. 2015. No case before the verb, obligatory case after the verb in Coptic. In Eitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 203–225. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan & Martin Haspelmath. 2015. The Leipzig-Jerusalem transliteration of Coptic. In Eitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 145–153. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan, Guillaume Lescuyer & Stéphane Polis. 2014. Contexts and inferences. The grammaticalization of the Later Egyptian allative future. In Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, Andreas Stauder & Jean Winand (eds.), On forms and functions: Studies in Ancient Egyptian grammar (Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 15), 87–136. Hamburg: Widmaier.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan & Stéphane Polis. 2014. On the pragmatics of subjectification: The grammaticalization of verbless allative futures (with a case study in Ancient Egyptian). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 46(1). 25–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, Patrick. 1996. Contextual dependency and lexical sets. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1(1). 75–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. A grammatical overview of Egyptian and Coptic. In Eitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 103–143. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haug, Dag. 2011. Tmesis in the epic tradition. In Øvind Andersen & Dag Haug (eds.), Relative chronology in early Greek epic poetry, 96–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik. 2006. From case to adposition. The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may . Constructions and Frames 8(1). 66–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2002. Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse. Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 145–173. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 1981. Space and time in Homer. Prepositional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
2004. Aspect and verbs of movement in the history of Greek: Why Pericles could ‘walk into town’ but Karamanlis could not. In John H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European perspectives: Studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, 182–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey C. & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Grammaticalized aspect and spatio-temporal culmination. Lingua 1171. 605–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th. Gries. 2017. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1–43 [online first] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2013. The limits of Construction Grammar. In Graeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Layton, Bentley. 2011. A Coptic grammar with chrestomathy and glossary. Sahidic dialect, 3rd edn., (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 20). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Liddell, Henry G. & Robert Scott. 1996. A Greek-English lexicon [revised and complemented throughout by Henry Stuart Jones]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio & Matthias Müller. 2012. Ancient Egyptian and Coptic. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay (eds.), The Afroasiatic languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 102–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio, Matthias Müller & Sami Uljas. 2017. Non-verbal predication in Ancient Egyptian (The Mouton Companions to Ancient Egyptian 2). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and cases: The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Greek prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and semantic bleaching. In Emilio Crespo, Jesús de la Villa & Antonio R. Revuelta (eds.), Word classes and related topics in Ancient Greek, 482–499. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Noriko. 2015. Multi-verb sequences in English: Their classification and functions. Kobe: Kobe University dissertation.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1912 [1958]. L’ evolution des formes grammaticales. In Antoine Meillet (ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 130–148. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Montanari, Franco. 2015. The Brill dictionary of Ancient Greek. [URL] (12 January, 2019).
Moser, Amalia. 2008. The changing relationship of tense and aspect in the history of Greek. STUF 611. 5–18.Google Scholar
Napoli, Maria. 2006. Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek: A contrastive analysis. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Nemoto, Noriko. 2005. Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in Construction Grammar. In Mirjam Fried & Hans Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 118–136. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 2004. Motivating the uses of basic verbs: Linguistic and extralinguistic considerations. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 193–218. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Newman, John & Jingxia Lin. 2007. The purposefulness of going: A corpus-linguistic study. In Jacek Waliński, Krzysztof Kredens & Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds.), Corpora and ICT in language studies (Łódź Studies in Language 13), 293–308. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Newman, John & Sally Rice. 2006. Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 225–260. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. Asymmetry in English multi-verb sequences: A corpus-based approach. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), Asymmetric events, 3–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 2009. Go-and-V, come-and-V, go-V and come-V. A corpus-based account of deictic movement verb constructions. English Text Construction 2(2). 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana & Boris Maslov. 2013. Redefining constructio praegnans: On the variation between allative and locative expressions in Ancient Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics. 13(1). 105–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana. 2013. Lexical splits in the encoding of motion events from Archaic to Classical Greek. In: Juliana Goschler & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Variation and Change in the Encoding of Motion Events, 185–202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pantazidis, Ioannis. 1888. Homeric lexicon [in Greek]. Athens: Anestis Konstantinidis.Google Scholar
Quecke, Hans. 1972. Das Markusevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 182 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana 4). Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.Google Scholar
. 1977. Das Lukasevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 181 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana 6). Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.Google Scholar
. 1984. Das Johannesevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 183 mit den Varianten der Handschriften 813 und 814 der Chester Beatty Library und der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana 11). Rome/Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter. 1996. Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In Eugene H. Casad (ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, 423–458. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reintges, Chris. 2015. The Old and Early Middle Egyptian Stative: Morphosyntax – Semantics – Typology. In Eitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 387–454. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988. Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, 140–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros. 2002. Lokale konstruktionen im Griechischen: Sprachwandel in funktionaler Sicht. Erfurt: University of Erfurt dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2008a. Grammaticalization and sets of form-function pairs: Encoding spatial concepts in Greek. In Elisabeth Verhoeven, Stavros Skopeteas, Yong-Min Shin, Yoko Nishina & Johannes Helmbrecht (eds.), Studies on grammaticalization, 25–56. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. Encoding spatial relations: Language typology and diachronic change in Greek. Language Typology and Universals 61(1). 54–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2000. The English GO-(PRT)-AND-VERB construction. In Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good et al. (eds.), The 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 259–270. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Thomas Herbst. 2011. Argument structure – Valency and/or constructions? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4). 315–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vries, Lourens de. 2007. Some remarks on the use of Bible translations as parallel texts in linguistic research. Language Typology and Universals 21. 148–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westendorf, Wolfhart. 2008. Koptisches Handwörterbuch, 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P. & Deborah Hill. 1995. When ‘go’ means ‘come’: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6(2–3). 209–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilmet, Michel. 1957. Concordance du Nouveau Testament sahidique II. Les mots autochthones 1. ⲁ-ⲛ (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 173. Subsidia 11). Louvain: Sécretariat du Corpus SCO.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2006. Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy?. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 101–125. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yates, Anthony D. 2011. Homeric BH Δ’IENAI: A diachronic and comparative approach. Georgia: University of Georgia MA thesis.Google Scholar
2014a. Homeric ΒΗ Δ’ΙΕΝΑΙ: A serial verb construction in Greek?. The 145th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association, [URL]
2014b. On the PIE ‘Quasi-serial verb’ construction: Origin and development. In Stephanie W. Jamison, Harold C. Melchert et al. (eds.), The 25th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 237–255. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Zalizniak, Anna, Maria Bulakh, Dimitrij Ganenkov, Ilya Gruntov, Timur Maisak & Maxim Russo. 2012. The catalogue of semantic shifts as a database for lexical semantic typology. Linguistics 50(3). 633–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

De Pasquale, Noemi
2021. ‘Invisible’ spatial meaning: a text-based study of covert Path encoding in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 485 ff. DOI logo
De Pasquale, Noemi
2021. ‘Invisible’ spatial meaning: a text-based study of covert Path encoding in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 485 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2020. Image schemas as prototypes in the diachronic evolution of kámnō and eutheiázō in Greek: A behavioural-profile analysis. Lingua 245 ► pp. 102938 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.