Reassessing Karnic: A Reply to Breen (2007)

Bowern, Claire

doi:10.1080/07268600903232733

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tamás Halm Bowern 1998). Of particular interest for us is the cross-linguistically well-attested strategy of turning a clause-sized element into an adjective or noun without any morphological marking.…”

Section: [2]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Personal names (such as nicknames or nickname-derived family names) often preserve archaic features of phonology, morphology, and even syntax (for the latter, cf. Layton 1990 andBowern 1998). Of peculiar interest for our purposes is the cross-linguistically well-attested strategy of turning a clause-sized element into an adjective or noun without any morphological marking.…”

Section: New Evidence: Archaic Syntax Preserved In Personal Namesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reconstructing the decoupling of case and agreement in Old Hungarian

Halm

2024

DIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interdependence of accusative case and object agreement has changed dramatically during the history of Ugric languages. While Proto-Ugric exhibited full interdependence (mediated by topicality), this connection has loosened in the extant Ob-Ugric languages (Mansi and Khanty), and it is severed completely in Late to Modern Hungarian. In this paper, I introduce new, hitherto unreported empirical evidence from nicknames and family names that preserve archaic syntactic features for an intermediate stage of Early Old Hungarian (which predates our earliest written records) where case assignment was still a function of topicality but object agreement was already a function of definiteness. In addition to providing insight into an unrecorded stage of Hungarian, my findings also contribute to a more thorough understanding of the connection between case, agreement and information structure in Ugric and beyond.

show abstract

Section: [2]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: New Evidence: Archaic Syntax Preserved In Personal Namesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing the decoupling of case and agreement in Old Hungarian

Halm

2024

DIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is little agreement beyond the lowest level groups. A summary is given in Breen (2007) and further discussion in Bowern (2009). I see the following issues as being most important for the study of the subgroup and its theoretical historical implications: What are the innovations which would characterize each of these groups?…”

Section: Case Study: the Lake Eyre Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical linguistics in Australia: trees, networks and their implications

Bowern

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an overview of the current state of historical linguistics in Australian languages. Australian languages have been important in theoretical debates about the nature of language change and the possibilities for reconstruction and classification in areas of intensive diffusion. Here are summarized the most important outstanding questions for Australian linguistic prehistory; I also present a case study of the Karnic subgroup of Pama-Nyungan, which illustrates the problems for classification in Australian languages and potential approaches using phylogenetic methods.

show abstract

“…A reviewer informs me that, while he did not know much language, he did seem to have more knowledge on other matters, such as language territories and boundaries.Reassessing Karnic: A Reply toBowern (2009) 139 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reassessing Karnic: A Reply to Bowern (2009)

Breen

2011

Australian Journal of Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is written as a response to Bowern (2009); however, it provides an opportunity for me to correct errors in Breen (2007). Bowern's paper has also had the positive result of forcing me to make a stronger case for my modified lexicostatistical method first outlined in Breen (1990 Chapter 7); however, this has grown into a second paper (referred to below as 'the companion paper') which goes far beyond considerations of Karnic languages. Other matters discussed include misunderstandings of my writings, perhaps not entirely the reader's fault, and lack of care and thoroughness in research.

show abstract

Reassessing Karnic: A Reply to Breen (2007)

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

Reconstructing the decoupling of case and agreement in Old Hungarian

Reconstructing the decoupling of case and agreement in Old Hungarian

Historical linguistics in Australia: trees, networks and their implications

Reassessing Karnic: A Reply to Bowern (2009)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About