Non‐finite Forms, Periphrases, and Autonomous Morphology in Latin and Romance1

Nigel Vincent

34 citations0/0 files storedOxford University Press eBooks

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation Classical Studies and Philology Linguistics and language evolution

Abstract

This chapter considers the place of ‘pure’ morphology in the analysis of periphrastic members of paradigms, making particular reference to the Latin participles in ‐urus, ‐tus, and ‐ns and their subsequent history in Romance. We conclude that in most cases, even at late historical stages, a compositional analysis is available if the right theoretical tools are deployed, and consequently that the role of autonomous morphology in periphrasis is severely restricted.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.

Cited by

2014Subject clitics and macroparameters 2014The evolution of Italo-Romance clitic clusters 2012The Intramorphological Meanings of Thematic Vowels in Italian Verbs 2014Patterns of variation and diachronic change in Piedmontese object clitic syntax 2015On Auxiliary Chains: Lexical and Functional Auxiliaries at the syntax-semantics interface 2022Measuring and assessing indeterminacy and variation in the morphology-syntax distinction 2022Overlapping suppletion and periphrasis: On HAVE, BE, and GO in Gallo-Romance

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.