11

The similarity is due to a common pathway of grammaticalistion. The have + past participle form comes from a resultative construction (Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca, 1994), which commonly leads to the perfect. Note that Bybee et al. do not use the term resultative in the usual complex-predicate sense, but use it to mean sentences like 'The door is opened', ...


9

To the excellent answer by @WavesWashSands I'll only add that some Latin verbs employed a perfective construction with the verb esse "to be" and a participle, which at some point could have motivated the appearance of the other well-known pattern for the compound perfect as found in Italian and French, for example: Siamo arrivati. "We have arrived." (lit. "...


6

The question addresses an aspect of English syntax that is still somewhat in flux. The mechanism known as copular inversion should be part of the answer. The direct answer to the question(s) is that acceptability judgments exist on a cline. There is more than one principle that influences the choice of subject. When these principles conflict, acceptability ...


5

Case assignment is a big problem for formal frameworks that postulate some sort of deep agentive case-like structures like theta roles in GB because whenever the morphology clashes with the deep structure. It's not too difficult to deal with it as part of the morphology module but cases like this have to be dealt with as an exception. On the other hand, it ...


5

eSpeak, or its more current fork eSpeakNG, are formant-based speech synthesizers that cover a decently large number of languages, although not all with the same quality. Their grapheme-to-phoneme conversion is rule-based (or dictionary-based when rules fail, as is often the case for English), which means the distribution contains a number of rule files of ...


4

It's one of many kinds of compounds, and is not even exocentric (its head is "learning"). As it happens, it is exactly parallel to "machine stitching" (recorded in COHA in 1917) and "book learning" (in COHA from 1835).


4

Latin is full of these: Illum meum amicum appelo. (I call him my friend) Romulum regem romanum fecerun. (They made Romulus into a king) This is with verbs of change (somebody changed/made into something), verbs of appelation (somebody being called something but also nominated to be something, similarly to the previous example) and verbs of considering/...


4

If you mean literally all "rules of pronunciation", you are extremely out of luck. That's a call for "knowledge of all phonological and phonetic systems of all languages", which we don't have, not even close. If you mean "rules for orthographic interpretation such that I can pronounce any word in that standardized written language" (e.g. what does "ł" stand ...


3

Usually the difference between Fut. I and Fut. II has been argued to be aspectual. For example, Ernout and Thomas 1964 mention that Fut. II often expresses "une antériorité par rapport à un fait qui se produira" (p. 226) and this use is rather common in the protasis - cf. their " cette dernière fonction est surtout frequenté en proposition subordonnée, ...


3

Though there is no clear measure for linguistic independence, I'd be tempted to say no to your question: "are words more independent from syntax in non-analytical languages?". Analytical languages rely heavily on word order to convey a particular meaning whereas say agglutinating languages are a lot more generous so word or constituent orders. But there are ...


3

Elamite is agglutinative and (mainly) right-branching, though quotative phrases are left branching. https://archive.org/stream/TheElamiteLanguage1969/Reiner1969TheElamiteLanguagetext#page/n15/mode/2up


3

Russian actually presents a curious example here: on the one hand, as Dominik Lukes pointed out above, it lost the original Slavic vocative case save for a few remnants, but it's also innovated a vocative form entirely unrelated to the original one. It's highly colloquial and only exists for a single paradigm — if it can even be called a paradigm, because it'...


3

Vocative is problematic because it's not even clear, it should be considered a case since it plays a discursive rather than syntactic role (although you could make an outside case for the syntax by saying it marks it as not nominative or accusative). In Indo-European languages with preserved vocative morphology, it is generally considered to be part of the ...


3

The question is too broad to answer completely (to start with, it presupposes a shibboleth to distinguish formal theories of syntax), but the answer is easy for minimalism. The comment in the question does not apply to minimalist syntax in that minimalist syntax does not assume that the leaves of a syntax tree must necessarily host words. On the other hand, ...


3

Preliminary point: The verb-form is the single word "used", not *"used to". Take your example: My car used [to malfunction a lot]. The bracketed sequence is a non-finite clause acting as complement to "used". "To" belongs in the complement clause; it's simply a marker, a subordinator whose function is to mark to-infinitival clauses. No, it’s not an ...


3

The first example that comes to my mind is the dative shift in English, i.e. the construction found in the following sentence: I gave John a book. Both arguments are NPs (rather than PPs), so formally you can consider it a sort of "same case" situation. Both arguments can become Subjects of a passive sentence (The book has been given to John by ...


2

Given your examples, I'd recommend that you don't think of the case as GENITIVE at all but only a LOCATIVE with a metaphorical extension of property and possession. You have a very good precedent with languages like Russian which expresses possession as location: SHE HAS A BOOK = A BOOK IS BY HER. This sort of semantic extension is very common with cases. ...


2

Sticking to the question of the title, yes, some languages exhibit clearly both a nominative-accusative syntactic systems and an ergative-absolutive system. A famous example of such a language is Warlpiri, in which agreement follows a nominative-accusative pattern and case marking follows an ergative-absolutive system. References for this, and more generally ...


2

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty straightforward: From the Halliday's functional standpoint, both sentences are equivalent, since they deliver the same message and have exactly the same communicative implications — in this particular case, they both denote two acting subjects: my mother and I. From the Chomsky's generativist standpoint, the ...


2

I don't see why this should be an adverb phrase. Of course, the construction is highly conventionalised, probably even lexicalised and no longer productive (you probably couldn't say My car uses to malfuction a lot), but syntactically, this is a perfectly valid past tense verb which takes a verb in bare infinitive as an argument (this is why * used to ...


2

I take that to mean that morphology, grammar inside the word, and syntax, grammar outside the word, share the same concerns, methods, and assumptions, with the only difference being that the first deals with how morphemes go together to make words, and the second deals with how words go together to make phrases. I don't think there is any truth to this at ...


2

“‘Me and her’ meets ‘he and I’: Case, person, and linear ordering in English coordinated pronouns”, by Thomas Grano (2006) seems relevant. Grano says The puzzling distribution of case in English coordinated pronouns has sparked a number of attempted explanations. Some explanations take case variation to be syntax-internal, and among these, some ...


2

In present-day English ought may behave like a 'modal' verb, taking an unmarked infinitive, only in negatives and questions, not in ordinary declaratives: Ought I take that seriously? You ought not take that seriously. BUT You ought to take that seriously. But even in negatives and questions the unmarked infinitive is not always required; for many ...


2

Geert Booij defines inherent inflection as “inflection of a word that is not required by its syntactic context” whereas by contextual inflection he understands “inflection that is required by the syntactic context in which a word occurs” (Booij 2007). He gives some examples, e.g. he argues that case markings on nouns are contextual but the present tense on ...


2

It's not clear what you are looking for (alternatively, your expectation is unrealistic). Drawing on the Cree example, you can locate the gloss "2-like-DIR?-N thus:CNJ-speak.Cree-3" or "1-see-INV-3" in that database. I assume you did not know that you have to enter those particular glosses (why not "see-1-3-INV"? – because the gloss ...


2

Wikipedia articles titled "[language name] orthography" or "[language name] alphabet" typically have a list of grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences. A site called Omniglot also has summaries of writing systems.


2

Basically, the variations in pronunciations of the written letters based on the context. There are two separate steps here. The first is going from the orthography (written language) to the underlying form (list of phonemes). In some languages, this is pretty easy: the Russian letter о (according to most analyses) represents a single phoneme /o/. In some ...


2

The terminology is most commonly used in Sino-Tibetan, Japanese and Korean contexts. I suggest taking a look at this (warning: gigantic volume, probably a good idea to find an electronic version if you have access to one): Yap, F. H., Grunow-Hårsta, K., & Wrona, J. (Eds.). (2011). Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological ...


2

None of your examples has a present participle. All the examples have gerunds or, in other words, Poss-ing nominalizations: a sentence with the verb "bake" has been converted into a noun phrase. This would be more obvious if you supplied your examples with a subject or object for "bake": "Joyce enjoys my baking cookies for her."


2

Well, nouns in German do show case. In particular Mann shows case and declines as such: sing plur nom Mann Männer acc Mann Männer dat Mann(e) Männern gen Mann(e)s Männer The dative is only optionally distinct from the nominative in singular, but mandatorily in the plural, the genitive singular is always distinct. It is true that for ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible