Topics in Anatolian Historical Grammar Prof. Dr. H. Craig Melchert

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18 Mattyas Huggard The context and semantics of the relative clause in (28) corresponds to a Reporting focus: the king is simply reporting how many deportees he brought back, and thus the object DP rel remains in situ with all of its constituents (34). The internal structure in (29) results from more than one syntactic operation. First, there is a change in Topic: in the previous clause, the king is reporting his own actions, and now the topic switches to the actions of the infantry, cavalry, and arikuwa-troops of attua. Thus the subject DP is topicalized and marked with the contrastive enclitic particle =ma indicating the contrast in agents from the previous context. Secondly, the context in (29) gives the semantics of a comment focus. To expand on this type of focus, in the context The books on the desk are gone! [Who took] Foc [them] Top ?, the question is a comment about the previous statement. In the context of a declarative, as in I put the books on the desk. [You should read] Foc [them] Top ., the focus assigned on [You should read] is that of a comment. In the Hittite example the comment focus has the relative pronoun
On the Hittite Preposed Relative Clause 19 remaining in situ in a preverbal position, but the head noun NAM.RA receives additional focus and is fronted (35). (34) = (28) It would thus appear that clauses that are marked +RELATIVE are also subject to the same Focus/Topic patterns as for declaratives and interrogatives, which would account for the various possible permutations of the relative pronoun with respect to its head NP and other clausal constituents observed in the corpus. As shown in §2.2, Hittite is a wh-in-situ language like Mandarin Chinese and does not show wh-movement. The variety in word order in these clause types is driven rather by the focus and topicalization phenomena motivated by the discourse. 5. Concluding remarks In this paper I have examined some data from preposed headed relative clauses in Hittite that appeared problematic for Garrett’s (1994) account. New proposals which have become prominent since then, notably Rizzi’s proposal of the split
Page 1 and 2:
Universität zu Köln Institut für
Page 3 and 4:
2 4. Accented *-u: no certain examp
Page 5 and 6:
4 Melchert 1994: 186-7). NB makes v
Page 7 and 8:
6 ēšta ‘was’ < *h 1 és-t. Ge
Page 9 and 10:
8 References Agbayani, Brian, and C
Page 11 and 12:
10 ——. 2008. The Origin of the
Page 13 and 14:
2 No explanation is offered by Sihl
Page 15 and 16:
4 zarwaniya- ‘of horn’ (C) < *k
Page 17 and 18:
6 requires a preform with fixed mid
Page 19 and 20:
8 no conditioned change of posttoni
Page 21 and 22:
10 contrasting example to prove tha
Page 23 and 24:
12 Appendix: Evidence for Three Set
Page 25 and 26:
14 References Bader, Françoise. 19
Page 27 and 28:
16 Starke, Frank. 1990. Untersuchun
Page 29 and 30:
2 (1) HKM 18:18-20 (MH/MS) nu=mu k
Page 31 and 32:
4 For (“CAPERE”)u-pa- as ‘bri
Page 33 and 34:
6 Appendix 1 Provisional Analysis o
Page 35 and 36: 8 3. /o:/ < *uh 2 wa-šu-u-(ḫa)
Page 37 and 38: 10 Hackstein, Olav. 2007. Ablative
Page 39 and 40: 2 B. Evidence for basic types 1. Op
Page 41 and 42: 4 presents with 3Sg -atär/-etär o
Page 43 and 44: 6 2. Effects of change of state oft
Page 45 and 46: H. Craig Melchert Università di Ro
Page 47 and 48: 3 As to Grk. γέγωνε ‘shout
Page 49 and 50: Hittite ḫi-Verbs of the Type -āC
Page 51 and 52: 3 would like to attribute the alter
Page 53 and 54: 5 wappu- ‘river-bank’ reflects
Page 55 and 56: 7 totally exclude laḫḫiya- < l
Page 57 and 58: 9 *n e h 2 - > naḫḫ-. However,
Page 59 and 60: 11 attempts Tischler (1983: 8-9). P
Page 61 and 62: 13 We may thus assume that the preh
Page 63 and 64: 15 Kimball, Sara. 1988. Analogy, Se
Page 65 and 66: H. Craig Melchert University of Sie
Page 67 and 68: 3 E. Ergo not coincidental that onl
Page 69 and 70: On Wh-(Non)-Movement and Internal S
Page 71 and 72: On the Hittite Preposed Relative Cl
Page 73 and 74: 2.1. Movement driven by features On
Page 85: On the Hittite Preposed Relative Cl
Page 91 and 92: Focus structure and Q-word question
Page 93 and 94: Hittite Q-word questions 947 di¤er
Page 95 and 96: Hittite Q-word questions 949 This q
Page 97 and 98: Hittite Q-word questions 951 Figure
Page 99 and 100: 4.2. Identifying focus and Q-word q
Page 101 and 102: Hittite Q-word questions 955 (T I )
Page 103 and 104: Hittite Q-word questions 957 with i
Page 105 and 106: quires a lexically expressed subjec
Page 107 and 108: Hittite Q-word questions 961 In (3)
Page 109 and 110: Hittite Q-word questions 963 revers
Page 111 and 112: Hittite Q-word questions 965 uris
Page 113 and 114: Hittite Q-word questions 967 27. In
Page 115: Hittite Q-word questions 969 É. Ki
Page 127 and 128: kaiå eœlonto iërÈa SimÌan Kond
Page 129 and 130: H. Craig Melchert 57th R.A.I. Unive
Page 131 and 132: 3 (7) TÜNP 1 (text after Hawkins 2
Page 133 and 134: 5 MU.ḪI.A-uš ušneškemi kāša
Page 135 and 136: H. Craig Melchert Naming in Anatoli
Page 137 and 138:
3 (a) /pi:hamma/i-/ ‘resplendent;
Page 139 and 140:
5 4. Ethnica (in contrast with Hitt
Page 141 and 142:
7 5.2. Adverb+Noun (with deity or t
Page 143 and 144:
9 (36) */Tarhu(nta)-tsalma-/, i.e.
Page 145 and 146:
11 8.3 m Tarḫu(n)miya- (Maşat, H
Page 147 and 148:
13 ——. 1994. Über die chronolo
show all

Topics in Anatolian Historical Grammar Prof. Dr. H. Craig Melchert

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?