Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area

Genetti, Carol

doi:10.1075/tsl.96.06gen

Cited by 27 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Noonan's (1997) notion of "versatile nominalization" in Tibeto-Burman, and Genetti's (2011) discussion; see also Matisoff (1972) and DeLancey 2002). Synchronically, this includes morphological nominalization at the word-level, and syntactic nominalization at the clause-level, i.e., derivational vs. clausal nominalization (Genetti et al 2008;Genetti 2011). Diachronically, we find a variety of finite clause constructions that can be traced back to nominalized origins.…”

Section: Forms and Functionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Proto-Tibeto-Burman*gV-nominalizing prefix

Konnerth¹

2016

LTBA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Matisoff (2003) reconstructs an "adjectival prefix" *gV-, based on work by Wolfenden (1929). As a result of surveying grammatical descriptions of more than 90 Tibeto-Burman languages, the present study provides evidence to reconstruct Matisoff 's adjectival prefix as a nominalizer whose functional range includes (but is not limited to) the adjectival marking. Evidence for the prefix is found in three major genetic subdivisions. Within Bradley's (2002) Western branch, Baram (Newaric) has a particularly versatile nominalizer ki-~gi-, and Eastern Kiranti languages have *gV-…-pa nominalizing circumfixes. In Bradley's Eastern branch, rGyalrongic languages have velar prefixes that function as the main nominalizers. Further, in DeLancey's (2015) Central branch of Trans-Himalayan (Sino-Tibetan), we find reflexes of *gV-in many languages, most notably the versatile nominalizer kV-in Lamkang (Northwest Kuki-Chin). Other languages of the India-Myanmar border with unresolved phylogenetic status within Tibeto-Burman also have reflexes of *gV-, most prominently Karbi and Tangkhul (Konnerth 2012).

show abstract

Section: Forms and Functionsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Noonan (1997); Bickel (1999); LaPolla (2008); Genetti et al (2008); DeLancey (2011); Post (2011); Yap, Grunow-Hårsta, and Wrona (2011), inter alia). A terminological distinction between 'nominalization' and 'participle' or 'gerund' is not pursued in this study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Proto-Tibeto-Burman*gV-nominalizing prefix

Konnerth¹

2016

LTBA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The two directions of change dead against each other have been proposed, for example, by Noonan (1997) and DeLancey (1999) on the one hand and by LaPolla (2003 with Huang) on the other. These two opposing ideas are nicely summarized in Genetti (2008). However, the languages surveyed in these preceding works are not always abundant in historical materials, but rather little or almost none, in comparison to languages relatively rich in historical documents such as Japanese and Okinawan.…”

Section: Nominalization-relativization Syncretism Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it should be pointed out that preceding research cannot give a full account of the directions with a paucity of crucial historical evidence. Genetti (2008) embarks on a reconstructing research into the diachronic process in which relativization and nominalization each give rise to the other based on five Tibeto-Burman languages; she provides a good syntactic analysis, but any synchronic study seems to have its own limits. Building on these preceding works, this study addresses the historical development of the Okinawan nominalizer si, which used to be sï (see the next section), out of its earlier usage as the head of relative clause i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Relativization to Nominalization and More: Evidence from the History of Okinawan

Shibasaki¹

2010

BLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt:The nominalization-relativization syncretism is characteristic of languages in Tibeto-Burman areas (e.g. Noonan 1997; DeLancey 1999), whilst the diachronic process of the phenomenon is now pursued in East and Southeast Asian languages as well (e.g. Yap and Wrona forthcoming). These preceding works propose two different directions of change. One is that nominalization has developed into relativization (e.g. Yap and Matthews 2008) albeit with a lack of syntactic explicitness in some cases by the want of historical documents. The other concerns the inverse direction from relativization to nominalization, which is proposed by researchers such as LaPolla (2003 with Huang). Although they are opposing against each other, each survey result remains and raises an intriguing possibility, which is worth reconsideration through the analysis of other languages. However, it should be pointed out that preceding research cannot give a full account of the directions with a paucity of crucial historical evidence. Genetti (2008) embarks on a reconstructing research into the diachronic process in which relativization and nominalization each give rise to the other based on five Tibeto-Burman languages; she provides a good syntactic analysis, but any synchronic study seems to have its own limits. Building on these preceding works, this study addresses the historical development of the Okinawan nominalizer si, which used to be sï (see the next section), out of its earlier usage as the head of relative clause i.e. from relativization to nominalization.

show abstract

“…The issue of whether all such clauses are genuinely noun phrase structures remains a point of inquiry for investigation on a language-by-language basis (Genetti 2011, Simpson 2008. In this paper we restrict ourselves to relatively straightforward synchronic cases of NENs.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demonstratives and non-embedded nominalisations in three Papuan languages of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family

Schapper

Roque

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the use of demonstratives in non-embedded clausal nominalisations. We present data and analysis from three Papuan languages of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family in south-east Indonesia. In these languages, demonstratives can apply to the clausal as well as to the nominal domain, contributing contrastive semantic content in assertive stance-taking and attention-directing utterances. In the Timor-Alor-Pantar constructions, meanings that are to do with spatial and discourse locations at the participant level apply to spatial, temporal and mental locations at the state or event level.

show abstract

Nominalization in Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

The Proto-Tibeto-Burman*gV-nominalizing prefix

The Proto-Tibeto-Burman*gV-nominalizing prefix

From Relativization to Nominalization and More: Evidence from the History of Okinawan

Demonstratives and non-embedded nominalisations in three Papuan languages of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About