- Home
- e-Journals
- Diachronica
- Previous Issues
- Volume 32, Issue, 2015
Diachronica - Volume 32, Issue 1, 2015
Volume 32, Issue 1, 2015
-
D-possessives and the origins of Moroccan Arabic
Author(s): Jeffrey Heathpp.: 1–33 (33)More LessDespite the general view that Berber was the only important substratum for Maghrebi Arabic, Moroccan Arabic (MA) took shape in the 7th–8th centuries AD in Roman cities in which Late Latin (LL) was spoken. The occupation of Morocco was far more tenuous than in other areas conquered during the Arab expansion. Rapid language shift from LL to a contact Arabic introduced by eastern Berber troops left telltale signs in phonology and in morphological simplification. Archaic MA D-possessives di, d- and dyal- reflect Latin dē and pronominal combinations thereof, and must be dated to the language-shift period. Recognition of this has been delayed by hesitation to recognize the LL/MA relationship and by Arabic-internal explanations of D-possessives that must be rejected in light of what we now know about Maghrebi Arabic dialects.
-
Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification
Author(s): Jan Nuyts and Pieter Byloopp.: 34–68 (35)More LessThis paper presents the results of a corpus-based diachronic investigation into the semantic evolution of the Dutch modals kunnen “can”, mogen “may” and moeten “must”, revealing an interaction between processes of (inter)subjectification and of semantic competition (‘no synonymy’). Mogen and kunnen do, but moeten does not, show an evolution in terms of (inter)subjectification. But developments in mogen and kunnen also show an effect of the fact that historically they have been competing for the same semantic ground. There is no comparable competition for semantic ground in moeten. This strongly suggests an interaction between the ‘no synonymy’ principle and (inter)subjectification, whereby the former may actually trigger the latter.
-
Where do all the motion verbs come from?: The speed of development of manner verbs and path verbs in Indo-European
Author(s): Annemarie Verkerkpp.: 69–104 (36)More LessThe last four decades have seen huge progress in the description and analysis of cross-linguistic diversity in the encoding of motion (Talmy 1985, 1991, Slobin 1996, 2004). Comparisons between satellite-framed and verb-framed languages suggest that satellite-framed languages typically have a larger manner of motion verb lexicon (swim, dash), while verb-framed languages typically have a larger path of motion verb lexicon (enter, cross) (Slobin 2004, Verkerk 2013, 2014b). This paper investigates how differences between the motion verb lexicons of satellite-framed and verb-framed languages emerge. Phylogenetic comparative methods adopted from biology and an etymological study are used to investigate manner verb lexicons and path verb lexicons in an Indo-European dataset. I show that manner verbs and path verbs typically have different types of etymological origins and that manner verbs emerge faster in satellite-framed subgroups, while path verbs emerge faster in verb-framed subgroups.
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 41 (2024)
-
Volume 40 (2023)
-
Volume 39 (2022)
-
Volume 38 (2021)
-
Volume 37 (2020)
-
Volume 36 (2019)
-
Volume 35 (2018)
-
Volume 34 (2017)
-
Volume 33 (2016)
-
Volume 32 (2015)
-
Volume 31 (2014)
-
Volume 30 (2013)
-
Volume 29 (2012)
-
Volume 28 (2011)
-
Volume 27 (2010)
-
Volume 26 (2009)
-
Volume 25 (2008)
-
Volume 24 (2007)
-
Volume 23 (2006)
-
Volume 22 (2005)
-
Volume 21 (2004)
-
Volume 20 (2003)
-
Volume 19 (2002)
-
Volume 18 (2001)
-
Volume 17 (2000)
-
Volume 16 (1999)
-
Volume 15 (1998)
-
Volume 14 (1997)
-
Volume 13 (1996)
-
Volume 12 (1995)
-
Volume 11 (1994)
-
Volume 10 (1993)
-
Volume 9 (1992)
-
Volume 8 (1991)
-
Volume 7 (1990)
-
Volume 6 (1989)
-
Volume 5 (1988)
-
Volume 4 (1987)
-
Volume 3 (1986)
-
Volume 2 (1985)
-
Volume 1 (1984)
Most Read This Month
Article
content/journals/15699714
Journal
10
5
false

-
-
What happened to English?
Author(s): John McWhorter
-
- More Less