Master thesis | Classics and Ancient Civilizations (MA)
open access
2023-08-30T00:00:00Z
The Ancient South Arabian languages (ASA = Sabaic, Minaic, Qatabanic and Ḥaḍramitic) have traditionally been classified as South Semitic and since Nebes (1994) as Central Semitic, based on the...Show moreThe Ancient South Arabian languages (ASA = Sabaic, Minaic, Qatabanic and Ḥaḍramitic) have traditionally been classified as South Semitic and since Nebes (1994) as Central Semitic, based on the imperfect pattern of Sabaic in weak verbs, such as 2-W/Y. By analyzing inscriptions of all ASA languages from the CSAI-database, applying roughly the same method as Nebes (1994), this study does not only verify Nebes' conclusions for Sabaic, but also shows that not all ASA languages share the same imperfect pattern. Minaic is non-Central Semitic using the imperfect pattern *yVqattVl; the synchronic Qatabanic pattern b-yqtl could have originated from either *yVqtVl(u) or *yVqattVl(u); for Ḥaḍramitic the evidence is inconclusive. Therefore, ASA is no homogeneous group and the individual ASA languages should be reclassified within the Semitic language family.Show less
Research master thesis | Linguistics (research) (MA)
closed access
This thesis traces the lexical influence of Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-c. 1010) in two twelfth-century English translations: Ralph d'Escures' homily on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and...Show moreThis thesis traces the lexical influence of Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-c. 1010) in two twelfth-century English translations: Ralph d'Escures' homily on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and Honorius Augustodunensis' Elucidarium.Show less
This thesis investigates whether the demise of the cardinal posture verbs (CPVs): sit, stand, and lie, in Modern English can be ascribed to the rise of the [be +V-ing] construction. Using the data...Show moreThis thesis investigates whether the demise of the cardinal posture verbs (CPVs): sit, stand, and lie, in Modern English can be ascribed to the rise of the [be +V-ing] construction. Using the data from the Penn Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English and the Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English, together comprising a period from 1500 to 1914, the frequency with which the CPVs occur have been found to nearly half in size whereas the frequency of the [be + V-ing] construction increases by more than a tenfold. There is a strong negative relationship between these constructions ( = -0.733) but not significant (p < 0.055). However, the combined coefficient of the three CPVs cumulated improves compared to the correlation coefficient of each of the CPVs individually (r = 0.13 for sit, r = -0.67 for stand, and r = -0.64 for lie). A definite semantic clash between the CPVs and the [be +V-ing] construction has been found unlikely. Instead, competition within the functional-semantic domain of ongoingness in Modern English potentially lead to a period of attraction between these two construction types and possibly more, e.g. be busy and keep V-ing. Moreover, the English language became unbounded due to a larger change in the English aspectual system (Los, 2012). The other Germanic languages are bounded languages which use the CPVs richly but have no progressive that is equivalent to the [be +V-ing] construction. The typological switch in English may have, therefore, influenced the halted grammaticalisation of the CPVs and the thriving grammaticalisation of the [be +V-ing] construction and alike constructions.Show less
This thesis investigates the synchronic and diachronic identity of the Anatolian stops, and their implications for Proto-Indo-European phonology and subgrouping. Ever since Sturtevant (1932), it...Show moreThis thesis investigates the synchronic and diachronic identity of the Anatolian stops, and their implications for Proto-Indo-European phonology and subgrouping. Ever since Sturtevant (1932), it has been known that etymologically Hittite cuneiform VC-CV (fortis) spellings go back to PIE *t, and V-CV (lenis) spellings to *d/dh. This has been taken to stand either for a synchronic voicing or length contrast. Through an examination of the origins and use of Hittite cuneiform, combined with phonological evidence, it is concluded that the underlying contrast must be length. A typological survey of geminate evolution and Proto-Anatolian phonology further concludes that this contrast must be original, and cannot emerge from a voicing contrast. Therefore the Nuclear-Proto-Indo-European *t~*d~*dh contrast is an innovation, and a *t:~*t~*? system must be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. This is evidence of a significant innovation that Proto-Anatolian did not take part in, and thus strong evidence for the Indo-Hittite Hypothesis.Show less
My thesis treated the lemmas hasta ‘spear’, vastus ‘vast, desolate’, aestās ‘summer’, ‑us ‘heat’, custōs ‘guard’, cēdō ‘to go, cede’, crēdō ‘to believe’, and audiō ‘to hear, understand’. Three...Show moreMy thesis treated the lemmas hasta ‘spear’, vastus ‘vast, desolate’, aestās ‘summer’, ‑us ‘heat’, custōs ‘guard’, cēdō ‘to go, cede’, crēdō ‘to believe’, and audiō ‘to hear, understand’. Three reflexes of dental clusters in Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *dh are recognized in Latin: A) ‑ss‑ (iussus < PIE *Hi̯ou̯dh‑to‑); B) ‑st‑ (hasta < PIE *ǵhasdh‑eh2‑); C) ‑V̄d‑ (crēdere < PIE *ḱred‑dhh1‑). The question arises what the distribution is of these reflexes. Cluster A) confirms the usual development of dental clusters ending in *t in Latin (clusters in PIE show an epenthetic *‑s‑, thus *‑TT‑ > *‑TsT‑). Clusters B) and C) are both claimed to be the outcomes of clusters ending in *‑(z)dh‑. However, this was questioned by Lubotsky (2004), who argued that the etymology of the B) clusters either points at a non-PIE origin, or that they underwent a later reanalysis. Szemerényi (1952) claims that the development of ‑st‑ argues for a medial devoicing and that PIE voiced aspirates first lost voicing in Latin (thus, 1) *dh‑ > *th‑ > *þ‑ > f‑, and medially *‑dh‑ > *‑þ‑ > *‑ð‑ > ‑d‑ (cf. Ascoli 1868). However, if the cluster in question does not yield ‑st‑, but rather ‑V̄d‑, Szemerényi’s claim will lose its strength. If so, the loss of occlusion (thus, a trajectory like 2) *dh‑ > *ð‑ > *β‑ > f‑, and medially *‑dh‑ > *‑ð‑ > ‑d‑ (e.g. Hartmann 1890; Rix 1957; Kortlandt 1978, p. 109) will be a more likely development. Although there is more evidence for 2) (e.g the formīca (βormīkā < *mormīkā‑ < PIE *moru̯‑o/ī̆‑ ‘ant’) argument by Meillet 1918), Szemerényi’s argument for 1) cannot be ignored. I looked into the probability of the reconstruction of the lemmas. Since Szemerényi, many new insights have surfaced on the lemmas in question. My survey showed that the evidence is much more in favour of an outcome of ‑V̄d‑, rather than ‑st‑.Show less
