Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Historical Syntax
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 155–184

Anatolian morphosyntax

Inheritance and innovation

| Concordia University of Montreal
This paper addresses three interrelated topics in Anatolian syntax: the syntactic typology of the Anatolian languages, specifically the issue of argument structure, and the two most striking innovations in Anatolian morphosyntax, the putative split-ergativity, seen most clearly in Hittite, and the development, unique within the early Indo-European languages, of subject clitic pronouns. Revisiting earlier studies, especially those of Garrett in 1990 and subsequently, as well as others carried out in the meantime, the paper offers a reassessment of the status and function of these innovations against the background of a discussion of Indo-European syntactic structure, and suggests a motivation rooted in a context of language contact.
Keywords: Anatolian, argument structure, ergativity, Hittite, morphosyntactic innovation, subject clitic pronouns, syntactic typology
Published online: 29 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.06tef
References (123)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds), 40-48. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2009. The origin of the oblique-subject construction: An Indo-European comparison. In Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 305], Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds), 179-194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1962. Les substantifs en –ant- du Hittite. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 57: 44-51.Google Scholar
. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz (ed.). 1911. Handbook of American Indian Languages, I [Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40;1]. Washingdon DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bomhard, Allan R. 1988. The prehistoric development of the athematic verbal endings in Proto- Indo-European. In A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz, Yoël L. Arbeitman (ed.), 475- 488. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1878. Zur Geschichte der Personalendungen. Morphologische Untersuchungen 1: 133-186.Google Scholar
. 1886-92. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
. 1897-1916. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2nd edn. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1921. Zur Frage der Personalendungen des indogermanischen Verbums. Indogermanische Forschungen 39: 131-139.Google Scholar
Campbell, Dennis R.M. 2011. Agent, subject, patient, and beneficiary: grammatical roles in Hurrian. In Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques, Paris, 2-4 april 2007, Michele Fruyt & Michel Mazoyer (eds), 21-46. Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Carruba, Onofrio. 1992. Le notazioni dell’agente animato nelle lingue anatoliche (e l’ergativo). In Per una grammatica ittita, Onofrio Carruba (ed.), 61-98. Pavia: Iuculano.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15: 203-224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dardano, Paola. 2010. Zur anatolischen Morphosyntax: das Suffix –(a)nt- und seine Bildungen. In Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25-31, 2008. Aygül Süel (ed.), 173-188. Ankara: T. C. Çorum Valiliği.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2005. The blue bird of ergativity. In Ergativity in Amazonia, III: Proceedings of the Workshop on "Ergatividade na Amazônia", Francesc Queixalos (ed.), 1-15. Paris: Centre d'Études des Langues Indigènes d'Amérique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1877. Altindische Tempuslehre [Syntaktische Forschungen 2]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
. 1878. Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem Śatapathabrāhmaṇa dargestellt [Syntaktische Forschungen 3]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
. 1879. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax [Syntaktische Forschungen 4]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
. 1888. Altindische Syntax [Syntaktische Forschungen 5]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
. 1893-1900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Devine, Andrew M. & Stephens, Lawrence D. 2000. Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. Latin Word Order. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59-138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Ergativity [Cambridge Studies in Linguistis 69]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren (eds). 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dover, Kenneth J. 1960. Greek Word Order. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark 1985. A Grammar of Acehnese. On the Basis of a Dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2011. Differential agent marking and animacy. Lingua 121: 533-547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W.IV. 2004. Indo-European Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. & Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture, Part I: The Text. With a preface by Roman Jakobson; English version by Johanna Nichols; edited by Werner Winter. Berlin: de Gruyter. Original Russian edition published in 1984.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990a. The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
. 1990b. Hittite enclitic subjects and transitive verbs. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42: 227-242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990c. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 261-296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite. In Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Aaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 85-133. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Goedegebuure, Petra. 2013. Split-ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 102(2): 270-303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonda, Jan. 1952. Remarques sur la place du verbe dans la phrase active et moyenne en langue sanscrite. Utrecht: A. Oosthoek.Google Scholar
. 1959. On amplified sentences and similar structures in the Veda. In Four Studies in the Language of the Veda, 7-70. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 2003. On the significance of Eloise Jelinek’s Pronominal Argument Hypothesis. In Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar, In Honor of Eloise Jelinek [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 62], Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley & Mary Willie (eds), 11-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntax of bound person forms. In Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A.Jr. 1998. From the disciplines of a dictionary editor. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 50: 35-44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A.Jr., & Melchert, H. Craig. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1981. The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus, translated and with commentary [Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39-76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Auxiliaries and ergative splits: A typological parameter. In Historical Development of Auxiliaries, Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds), 85-108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Definiteness and second position clitics in Straits Salish. In Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Aaron L. Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2006. The Pronominal Argument Parameter. In Arguments and Agreement, Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike Schoorlemmer & Fred Weerman (eds), 261-288. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise & Demers, Richard. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70: 697-736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1994. On weak subjects and pro-drop in Greek. In Themes in Greek Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 117], Irene Philippaki-Warburton, Katerina Nicolaidis & Maria Sifanou (eds), 21-32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Josephson, Folke. 2004a. Semantics and typology of Hittite -ant-. In Indo-European Word Formation, James Clackson & Birgit Anette Olsen (eds), 91-118. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
. 2004b Singulative and agentive in Hittite and Germanic. In Per aspera ad asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV, Adam Hyllested (ed.), 257-262. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Dislocation. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2: An International Handbook, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1050-1078. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud & Lemoine, Kevin. 2005. Definite null objects in (spoken) French: A Construction-Grammar account. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 6], Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds), 13-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laroche, Emmanuel. 1962. Un «ergatif» en indo-européen d’Asie Mineure. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 57: 23-43.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1994. Person marking in Indo-European. Historische Sprachforschung 107: 1-11.Google Scholar
. 2002. Pre-Indo-European [Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series No. 41]. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1990. Old Hittite Sentence Structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2003. Definite referential null objects in Ancient Greek. Indogermanische Forschungen 108: 167-194.Google Scholar
. 2010a. Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, Ronald I. Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Riecken & Michael J. Weiss (eds), 249-264. Ann Arbor MI: Beach Stave Press.Google Scholar
. 2010b. The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. In The Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds), 212-229. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Anatolian syntax. In Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An International Handbook of Language Comparison and the Reconstruction of Indo-European, Matthias Fritz, Jared Klein & Brian D. Joseph (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
McCone, Kim R. 1979. The diachronic possibilities of the IE ‘amplified’ sentence: A case history from Anatolian. In Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and Typological Linguistics, Part 1 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 11], Bela Brogyanyi (ed.), 467-487. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 480-508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, Ian. 1963. The metre of the Hittite epic. Anatolian Studies 13: 237-242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1903[1937]. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes, 8th edn. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
. 1913. Aperçu d’une histoire de la langue grecque. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine & Vendryes, Joseph. 1924. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques, 5th edn. 1979. Paris: Librarie ancienne Edouard Champion.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig. 2007. Hittite morphology. In Morphologies of Asia and Africa, Vol. 2, Alan S. Kaye (ed.), 755-773. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
. 2008. Middle Hittite revisited. In Atti del 6° Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia II, Alfonso Archi & Rita Francia (eds), 525-531. Rome: Istituto di studi sulle civiltà dell’egeo e del vicino Oriente.Google Scholar
. 2010. Syntax and prosody in Hittite word order. Handout at Language Variation and Change Workshop , The University of Chicago , January 15.
. 2011a. Enclitic subject pronouns in Hieroglyphic Luvian. Aramazd: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6(2): 73-86.Google Scholar
. 2011b. The problem of the ergative case in Hittite. In Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques, Paris, 2-4 april 2007, Michèle Fruyt & Michel Mazoyer (eds), 161-167. Chicago IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67(3): 510-546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Typology and deep genetic relations in North America. In Reconstructing Languages and Cultures [Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 58], Edgar C. Polomé & Werner Winter (eds), 91-110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Pronouns and agreement: The information status of pronominal affixes. Transactions of the Philological Society 101: 235-278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The emergence of agentive systems in core argument marking. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichman (eds), 297-333. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne & Chafe, Wallace. 1999. What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language 23(3): 569-596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monro, David Binning. 1882[1891]. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect, 2nd edn. revised and enlarged. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1986. Karl Brugmann and late nineteenth-century linguistics. In Studies in the History of Western Linguistics in Honour of R. H. Robins, Theodora Bynon & Frank R. Palmer (eds), 150-171. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1998. History of Linguistics, Vol. IV: Nineteenth-Century Linguistics, Giulio Lepschy (ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mouton, Alice, Rutherford, Ian & Yakubovich, Ilya. 2013. Introduction. In Luwian Identities: Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean, Alice Mouton, Ian Rutherford & Ilya Yakubovich (eds), 1-21. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neu, Erich. 1989. Zum Alter der personifizierenden -ant- Bildung des Hethitischen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der indogermanischen Genuskategorie. Historische Sprachforschung 102: 1-15.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56-119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World. Language 66: 475-521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oettinger, Norbert. 2001. Neue Gedanken uber das nt-Suffix. Anatolisch und Indogermanisch, Onofrio Carruba & Wolfgang Meid (eds), 301-316. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Patri, Sylvain. 2007. L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie [Studien zu den Boğazköy Texten 49]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Comrie, Bernard. 1999. Agreement in Tsez. Folia Linguistica 33(2): 109-130. Special issue Agreement, Greville G. Corbett (ed.). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puhvel, Jaan. 1991. Whence the Hittite, whither the Jonesian vision? In Sprung from Some Common Source: Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages, Sydney M. Lamb & E. Douglas Mitchell (eds), 51-66. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Queneau, Raymond. 1950. Connaissez-vous le Chinook? In Bâtons, chiffres et lettres, 45-50. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald. 2009. The linguistic diversity of aboriginal Europe. Language Log, January 6, 2009. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald, Warnow, Tandy & Taylor, Ann. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100(1): 59-129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosén, Haiim B. 1987. Some more noteworthy features of ‘primitive’ Indo-European syntax. Journal of Indo-European Studies 15: 61-75.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1947. Zur Apposition. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin [Jahrgang 1945/46, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 3]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Shields, Kenneth. 1997. On the pronominal origin of the Indo-European athematic verbal suffixes. Journal of Indo-European Studies 25: 105-117.Google Scholar
Sideltsev, Andrey V. 2011a. Two systems of clitic doubling in Hittite. Abstract. In Eighth International Congress of Hittitology Abstracts, 30-31, Warsaw.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Two systems of clitic doubling in Hittite. Handout at Eighth International Congress of Hittitology , Warsaw, 5-9 September.
. 2011c. Clitic doubling: A new syntactic category in Hittite. Altorientalische Forschungen 38(1): 81-91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The origin of Hittite right dislocations. In Acts of the 8th International Congress of Hittitology, Piotr Taracha (ed.). Warsaw: Agade.
Siewierska, Anna. 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica 33(2): 225-251. Special issue Agreement, Greville G. Corbett (ed.). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112-171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Soysal, Oğuz. 2010. Philological contributions to Hattian-Hittite religion (II): 3. On the origin and the name of the ḫazkarai-women. In Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer [Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 51], Yoram Cohen & Amir Gilan (eds), 340-350. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald J.L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tchékoff, Claude. 1978. Le double cas-sujet des inanimées: Un archaïsme de la syntaxe Hittite? Bullein de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 73: 225-242.Google Scholar
Teffeteller, Annette. 2001. Greek syntax: Theoretical approaches from Meillet to Devine and Stephens. Mouseion 3(1): 251-279.Google Scholar
. 2010. Object clitics in the Modern Greek dialects of Asia Minor: Diachronic and dialectal variation in the encoding of argument structure. In On-line Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory (MGDLT4). Chios, 11-14 June 2009. Research on Greek Dialects: Institutions and Projects , Angela Ralli, Brian D. Joseph, Mark Janse & Athanasios Karasimos (eds), 186-196. Patras: University of Patras. <[URL]>Google Scholar
. 2014. Argument structure and adjunction in Anatolian syntax. In Acts of the 8th International Congress of Hittitology , Piotr Taracha (ed.), 964-977. Warsaw: Agade.
. Forthcoming. Epic Choices: Action and Agency in the Homeric Poems. Oxford: OUP.
Vendryes, Joseph. 1921. Le Langage. Introduction linguistique à l’histoire. Paris: Renaissance du livre.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1962. Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
. 1963. Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6: 1-49.Google Scholar
. 1964. Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, MA, Horace Gray Lunt (ed.), 1035-1045. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1968-69. The Celtic masculine and neuter enclitic pronouns. Études Celtiques 12: 92-95.Google Scholar
. 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik , Jerzy Kuryłowicz (ed.), Vol. III.1: Formenlehre: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
. 1976. Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems. In Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, Sanford Steever, Carol Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene (eds), 305-326. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
. 2001. An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the Comparative Method? In Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 44-63. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Yakubovich, Ilya. 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luwian Language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2011. Ergativity in Hittite. Paper presented at Die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft im 21. Jahrhundert/Historical-Comparative Linguistics in the 21st Century , Pavia, 22-25 September.
Zeilfelder, Susanne. 2001. Archaismus und Ausgliederung. Studien zur sprachlichen Stellung des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
. 2014. Probleme des hethitischen Nominativs: split-ergativity und Casus commemorativus. In Na-wa/i-VIR.ZI/A MAGNUS. SCRIBA. Festschrift für Helmut Nowicki zum 70. Geburtstag [Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 45], Cyril Brosch & Annick Payne (eds), 199-210. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Cennamo, Michela & Claudia Fabrizio
2022. Non-nominative arguments, active impersonals, and control in Latin. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 188 ff. DOI logo
Cotticelli, Paola & Eystein Dahl
2022. Split alignment, mixed alignment, and the spread of accusative morphosyntax in some archaic Indo-European languages. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Eystein Dahl
2022. Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2022. Alignment in Proto-Indo-European. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Dahl, Eystein
2022. Alignment and alignment change in the Indo-European family and beyond. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fabrizio, Claudia
2022. Infinitives and subjecthood between Latin and Old Italian. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Hock, Hans Henrich
2022. Passives and anticausatives in Vedic Sanskrit. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Luraghi, Silvia & Guglielmo Inglese
2022. The origin of ergative case markers. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Melis, Chantal
2022. Alignment changes with Spanish experiential verbs. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Meyer, Robin
2022. Armenian morphosyntactic alignment in diachrony. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Seržant, Ilja A., Björn Wiemer, Eleni Bužarovska, Martina Ivanová, Maxim Makartsev, Stefan Savić, Dmitri Sitchinava, Karolína Skwarska & Mladen Uhlik
2022. Areal and diachronic trends in argument flagging across Slavic. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. 300 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of abbreviations. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Series preface. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. vii ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Copyright Page. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of tables. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. ix ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of figures. In Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, ► pp. viii ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.