Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?

One of the most characteristic features of the grammar of the Lindisfarne Gospel gloss is the absence of the etymological -e inflection in the dative singular in the paradigm of the strong masculine and neuter declension (a-stems). Ross (1960: 38) already noted that endingless forms of the nominativ...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Fernández Cuesta, Julia María, Rodríguez Ledesma, M. Nieves
Formato: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2020
País:España
Recursos:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
Repositorio:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
OAI Identifier:oai:idus.us.es:11441/153320
Acesso em linha:https://hdl.handle.net/11441/153320
https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2020-0002
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:Glosses
Lindisfarne gloss
Old Northumbrian
Syncretism
id ES_438bbd3fc0f01435ed7f74d0d96ccc78
oai_identifier_str oai:idus.us.es:11441/153320
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?Fernández Cuesta, Julia MaríaRodríguez Ledesma, M. NievesGlossesLindisfarne glossOld NorthumbrianSyncretismOne of the most characteristic features of the grammar of the Lindisfarne Gospel gloss is the absence of the etymological -e inflection in the dative singular in the paradigm of the strong masculine and neuter declension (a-stems). Ross (1960: 38) already noted that endingless forms of the nominative/accusative cases were quite frequent in contexts where a dative singular in -e would be expected, to the extent that he labeled the forms in -e ‘rudimentary dative.’ The aimof this article is to assess to what extent the dative singular is still found as a separate case in the paradigms of the masculine and neuter a-stems and root nouns. To this end a quantitative/statistical analysis of nouns belonging to these classes has been carried out in contextswhere the Latin lemma is either accusative or dative.Wehave tried to determine whether variables such as syntactic context, noun class, and frequency condition the presence or absence of the -e inflection, andwhether the distribution of the inflected and uninflected forms is different in the various demarcations that have been identified in the gloss. The data have been retrieved using the Dictionary of Old English Corpus. All tokens have been checked against the facsimile edition and the digitised manuscript in order to detect possible errors.Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad FFI2017-88725-PDe GruyterFilología Inglesa (Lengua Inglesa)Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO). España2020info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/11441/153320https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2020-0002reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevillainstname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)InglésFolia Linguistica Historica, 41 (1), 37-65.FFI2017-88725-Phttps://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2020-0002info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:idus.us.es:11441/1533202026-06-17T12:51:07Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?
title Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?
spellingShingle Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?
Fernández Cuesta, Julia María
Glosses
Lindisfarne gloss
Old Northumbrian
Syncretism
title_short Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?
title_full Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?
title_fullStr Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?
title_full_unstemmed Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?
title_sort Reduced forms in the nominal morphology of the Lindisfarne Gospel Gloss. A case of accusative/dative syncretism?
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Fernández Cuesta, Julia María
Rodríguez Ledesma, M. Nieves
author Fernández Cuesta, Julia María
author_facet Fernández Cuesta, Julia María
Rodríguez Ledesma, M. Nieves
author_role author
author2 Rodríguez Ledesma, M. Nieves
author2_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Filología Inglesa (Lengua Inglesa)
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO). España
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Glosses
Lindisfarne gloss
Old Northumbrian
Syncretism
topic Glosses
Lindisfarne gloss
Old Northumbrian
Syncretism
description One of the most characteristic features of the grammar of the Lindisfarne Gospel gloss is the absence of the etymological -e inflection in the dative singular in the paradigm of the strong masculine and neuter declension (a-stems). Ross (1960: 38) already noted that endingless forms of the nominative/accusative cases were quite frequent in contexts where a dative singular in -e would be expected, to the extent that he labeled the forms in -e ‘rudimentary dative.’ The aimof this article is to assess to what extent the dative singular is still found as a separate case in the paradigms of the masculine and neuter a-stems and root nouns. To this end a quantitative/statistical analysis of nouns belonging to these classes has been carried out in contextswhere the Latin lemma is either accusative or dative.Wehave tried to determine whether variables such as syntactic context, noun class, and frequency condition the presence or absence of the -e inflection, andwhether the distribution of the inflected and uninflected forms is different in the various demarcations that have been identified in the gloss. The data have been retrieved using the Dictionary of Old English Corpus. All tokens have been checked against the facsimile edition and the digitised manuscript in order to detect possible errors.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/11441/153320
https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2020-0002
url https://hdl.handle.net/11441/153320
https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2020-0002
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Folia Linguistica Historica, 41 (1), 37-65.
FFI2017-88725-P
https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2020-0002
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv De Gruyter
publisher.none.fl_str_mv De Gruyter
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
instname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
instname_str Universidad de Sevilla (US)
reponame_str idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
collection idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869407031613456384
score 15,300719

Registos relacionados