Norsk ordbok, band VIII

Anmeldt værk:Norsk Ordbok. Ordbok over det norske folkemålet og det nynorskeskriftmålet. Band VIII. Mugg–ramnsvart. Oslo: Det norske samlaget2009

Extra argumentality - affectees, landmarks, and voice

This article investigates sentences with additional core arguments of a special type in three languages, viz. German, English, and Mandarin. These additional arguments, called extra arguments in the article, form a crosslinguistically homogeneous class by virtue of their structural and semantic similarities, with so-called "raised possessors" forming just a sub-group among them. Structurally, extra arguments may not be the most deeply embedded arguments in a sentence. Semantically, their referents are felt to stand in a specific relation to the referent of the/a more deeply embedded argument. There are two major thematic relations that are instantiated by extra arguments, viz. affectees and landmarks. These thematic role notions are justified in the context of and partly in contrast to, Dowty's (1991) proto-role approach. An affectee combines proto-agent with proto-patient properties in eventualities that are construed as involving causation. A landmark is a ground with respect to some spatial configuration denoted by the predication at hand, but a figure at the highest level of gestalt partitioning that is relevant in a clause. Thereby, both affectees and landmarks are inherently hybrid categories. The account of extra argumentality is couched in a neo-Davidsonian event semantics in the spirit of Kratzer (1996, 2003), and voice heads are assumed to introduce affectee arguments and landmark arguments right above VP

Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features:Short-vowel stød in Danish

This paper presents a phonological analysis of a glottalization phenomenon in dialects of Danish known as ‘short-vowel stød’. It is argued that both short-vowel stød and common Danish stød involve the attachment of a laryngeal feature to a prosodic node—specifically the mora. In the case of short-vowel stød that mora lacks segmental content, as it is projected top-down due to local prosodic requirements, not bottom-up by segmental material. I show that this device provides an account of the distribution of short-vowel stød as arising from the interplay of constraints on metrical structure (both lexically stored and computed by the grammar) and the requirement for morae to be featurally licensed. The analysis provides further evidence for the analysis of ‘tonal accents’ and related phenomena in terms of metrical structure rather than lexical tone or laryngeal features, and contributes to our understanding of the relationship between segmental and suprasegmental phonology in Germanic languages

A cluster of changes: Norwegian word order

Among the syntactic changes that can be observed in the transition from Old Norwegian to Modern Norwegian are the following word order changes: loss of OV order, object shift from a VP containing a verb (non-finite verb or any verb in a subordinate clause), preverbal preposition, and topicalization of a bare head. The fact that these changes all seemto occurat the same timeis not accidental. Old Norwegian was arguably a VO language, like Modern Norwegian, but unlike Modern Norwegian, OV order was also possible.It can be shown that it is possible to derive sentences with object shift with a verb in VP, sentences with preverbal prepositions, and with topicalized heads only from an OV structure. Therefore, when the OV order was no longer available, the other three structures could no longer be derived

Trapped Morphology

We argue that there is a diachronic process, distinct from phonological erosion, that results in the loss of inflectional morphology that is trapped when a clitic attaches to a host, becoming an affix. This is supported with attested examples from Mainland Scandinavian, Georgian, Spanish, and Greek, as well as shallow, well-accepted reconstructions from Slavic and Georgian. It is further supported by new reconstructions from Zoque (Mixe-Zoquean) and Andi (Northeast Caucasian). For example, in Old Norse the postposed article is a clitic, and there is a case ending between the noun stem and the article: hest-s=in-s ‘the horse (gen)’. The first s is trapped morphology, and it is subsequently lost: hest-en-s. Similarly, in pre-Georgian, the postposed article traps the ergative case marker, *-n: *k\u27ac-n=ma-n ‘the man (erg)’; it is subsequently lost: k\u27ac-man. We argue that the loss of trapped morphology is not sound change or another phonological process, but a morphological process