Ranko Matasović

Latin paenitet me, miseret me, pudet me and active clause alignment in Proto-Indo-European

Abstract Some Latin verbs take the the experiencer argument in the accusative case. The case-frames of these verbs has been interpreted as evidence for active clause alignment in PIE. According to this hypothesis, the case syntax of Latin verbs like paenitet, pudet, piget, and miseret is inherited from PIE and represents an archaic pattern originally affecting all stative intransitives. However, Latin verbs with case-frames like paenitet belong to the second conjugation, which includes the PIE causatives (e. g. PIE *mon-eye-ti ‘admonishes’ > Lat. monet) and statives (PIE *tak-eh1-ti ‘is silent’ > Lat. tacet). This is the consequence of the regular sound changes (*eh1> ē, *eye > ē) by which the stative and causative suffixes merged as Latin -ē-. We argue that the irregular case-frames of the Latin bivalent statives are innovations based on the analogy with the case-frames of causative verbs, which had the Causee argument in the accusative case.

The Proto-Indo-European syllabic resonants in Balto-Slavic

The problem of reflexes of PIE. syllabic resonants in Balto-Slavic is one of the most difficult unresolved problems not only in Balto-Slavic historical phonology, but in Indo-European linguistics as well1. It has long ago been noted that syllabic *r, *n, *m, and *l have two sets of reflexes in Baltic and Slavic, which can be labeled “I-reflexes” (*r > *ir, *l, > *il, *m > *im, *n > *in), and “U-reflexes” (*r > *ur, *l > *ul, *m > *um, *m > *un)2. However, even a hundred years ago it was clear to Endzelins that no simple solution, involving clearly definable environments for different reflexes, can be found: “Ne trudno ved’ ubedit’sja, čto balt. ir i t.d., praslav. цr i t.d. s odnoj storony, i balt. ur i t.d. praslav. чr i t.d. s drugoj storony, vstrečajutsja v sosedstve vsevozmoznyx zvukov” (Endzelı̄ns 1911: 17). Some linguists, notably A. Vaillant (1950) and J. Kuryłowicz (1956: 272–3), have tried to show that there indeed are phonological environments in which U-reflexes are regular, namely, after velars, but their view has not met with general acceptance. like J. Endzelins (1911) and R. Trautmann (1923), have argued that U-reflexes are regular only in roots, whose full grade contains the vowel *o, while I-reflexes are regular where full grade in

An Areal Typology of Agreement Systems

Surveying over 300 languages, this typological study presents new theoretical insights into the nature of agreement, as well as empirical fi ndings about the distribution of agreement patterns in the world’s languages. Focusing primarily on agreement in gender, number and person, but with reference to agreement in other smaller categories, Ranko Matasovi ć aims to discover which patterns of agreement are widespread and common in languages, and which are rather limited in their distribution. He sheds new light on a range of important theoretical questions such as what agreement actually is, what areal, typological and genetic patterns exist across agreement systems, and what problems in the analysis of agreement remain unresolved.

Nominal Agreement in PIE from the Areal and Typological Point of View

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) nominal agreement is typologically unusual when compared to systems of nominal agreement in other language families of Eurasia. The remarkable cross-linguistic stability of gender has been noted by Johanna Nichols. The particular type of nominal agreement found in PIE and the early IE languages, with fused morphemes for agreement in gender, number and case, is rather rare in Eurasia. Languages in the sample come from almost all the language families of Eurasia and Africa, though at present Africa is somewhat underrepresented. Languages with nominal agreement predominate in SW Eurasia, including the Caucasus, and they are rather rare in north (N) and north east (NE) Eurasia. The different agreement patterns arose primarily in the nominative, where common gender nouns, adjectives, and pronouns had different case/number endings in contrast to neuter nouns, which did not distinguish the nominative and the accusative. Keywords: Africa; Caucasus; early Indo-European (IE) languages; Eurasia; Johanna Nichols; nominal agreement; Proto-Indo-European (PIE)