<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="cs">
	<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</id>
	<title>Wikisofia - Příspěvky uživatele [cs]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/wiki/Speci%C3%A1ln%C3%AD:P%C5%99%C3%ADsp%C4%9Bvky/Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova"/>
	<updated>2026-05-14T18:09:52Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Příspěvky uživatele</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.33.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=9._Old_English_Syntax&amp;diff=45690</id>
		<title>9. Old English Syntax</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=9._Old_English_Syntax&amp;diff=45690"/>
		<updated>2017-02-26T21:29:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1.What is meant by saying that some features that define the syntax of PDE can be in OE found but “in an embryonic form”? How does this relate to the idea/process of grammaticalisation?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Embryonic form''' = the form is already present in the language, but it usually has a different function.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Grammaticalization '''= process when lexical words become grammatical markers Example: pre-modals; articles → lexical “anum” (one) used sometimes in situations when it may function as indefinite article “an” (but often both interpretations are possible)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. Explain the functional difference between the strong and weak adjectives in the syntax of OE.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the ADJ functions as a '''premodifier of a NP''', it indicates the NP's reference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''weak adjectives''' – have to occur with a determiner (demonstrative, possessive pronoun) → they functionally correspond with the PDE '''definite reference''' (in fact, the definite article has developed from OE demonstrative (viz OED)).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hē wæs '''se spēdiga''' (WEAK) mann... (“He was '''the very rich''' man…“)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''strong adjectives''' – don't occur with a determiner as the ending expresses all grammatical categories on its own, they functionally correspond with the '''non-specific''' '''reference'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hē wæs swȳðe '''spēdig '''(STR) mann... (“He was '''a very rich''' man…“)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Using an example, explain the syntactic function(s) of the subjunctive in OE.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subjunctive = verbal mood expressing unreality, supposition, volition...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In '''non-dependent clauses''' it expresses '''wishes '''and '''commands''' (God ūre ''helpe ''– May God help us)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In '''noun clauses''' after verbs of saying/thinking/suggesting (“se prēost ''cwæð ''þæt ān wer ''wǣre ''on Īrlande” = PDE the priest ''said ''that + ''subjunctive'')&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In '''adverbial clauses of concession''' (introduced by þēah (þe))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. How did sound change and morphological analogy affect the syntax of OE?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Sound change''' leads (in most cases) to simplification of pronunciation → simplification of spelling → shorter, easier forms in language&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Analogy '''leads to '''morphological leveling''' (generalization of inflections).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the number of endings decreases, there is a growing need for a '''grammatical word order''' which would express grammatical categories which were previously expressed by the endings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''5. Describe briefly the character and systemic role of word order in OE.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ The word order of OE is (relatively) '''free '''and it rests heavily on '''grammatical concord'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes there is a '''variation '''in the grammatical concord, the variation signalizes the '''forthcoming change'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, sometimes there are '''ambiguities''', which are in PDE sorted by the fixed WO, example: He fulworhte on Eferwic ðæt ǣnlice mynster ðe his mæg Eadwine ''ǣr begunnen hæfde''. („He completed in York the noble minster that his kinsman Eadwine had previously begun.“) in OE, it can be read in two ways ↓ but in PDE there is no such ambiguity&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) he had started it = ''perfect''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) he had it started = ''causative''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similar case of ambiguity: scribes were sitting (''progressive'') X sitting scribes (''modification'') → in OE, both forms are identical&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Subject''': may be empty, SV and VS&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Object''': OV (originally) and VO (SOV, SVO)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=8._Old_English_Morphology&amp;diff=45689</id>
		<title>8. Old English Morphology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=8._Old_English_Morphology&amp;diff=45689"/>
		<updated>2017-02-26T21:21:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1.Define OE nouns and verbs in terms of grammatical categories they expressed.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''OE NOUNS'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''gender '''→ masculine, neuter, feminine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''number '''→ singular, dual, plural&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''case '''→ nominative (S), accusative (Od), genitive (possession), dative (Oi), instrumental (instrument)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''2 categories of declension''' → '''strong '''(it declines for case, gender and number), a/o/u stem X '''weak '''(less variation between gender and cases)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''OE VERBS'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''person '''→ 1st, 2nd, 3rd&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''number '''→ singular, plural&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''tense '''→ present, preterite&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''mood '''→ indicative, subjunctive (unreality, supposition, volition), imperative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(aspective meaning expressed by past or present participle, but no category of aspect)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''strong inflection''' = change of tense is indicated by '''vowel change''' (ablaut), 7 classes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''weak inflection''' = change of tense is indicated by the '''addition of an ending''', weak 1 (short X long), weak 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''preterite present verbs''' = originally strong verbs, they combine features of S and W verbs. '''The past tense acquired present tense meaning''', afterwards a new preterite form (WEAK) was created. The preterite-present verbs developed into PDE modals. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. Explain the principal difference in the functioning of sound change and analogy.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– both analogy and sound change create new forms in a language&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– but sound change is often regular but it often creates irregular patterns, whereas analogy is irregular and causes regularity (e.g. regular sound change umlaut brother → brethren X irregular analogical change using the non-alternating singular/plural pattern in such nouns as sister → sisters: brother → brothers)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples from PG → OE&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Sound change''': PG *beró &amp;gt; GT baíra, EOE 1. sg. beru &amp;gt; LOE bere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Analogy''': PG. 3. pl. weak vbs.*–ánthi&amp;gt;OE 3. (later 1.&amp;amp;2.) pl. –að (např. berað) → all plural indicative forms end with að&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Explain the following concepts: class/stem; thematic/athematic; strong/weak; strong/weak adjectives; strong/weak verbs; syncretism; allomorphy; levelling of endings; grammatical gender; dual; preterite present verb.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ '''class/stem''': '''the stem''' consists of what was in proto-germanic '''root and theme''' (e.g. stainaz → stain = ''root'', a = ''theme'', z = ''ending'', the root is therefore “staina”). Etymology: PGM “stainaz” → OE “stan”. The classes of nouns are classified accordingly to what was the theme, therefore the OE word “stan” belongs into the group of “a-stem nouns” because in the Proto-germanic there was a-theme. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OE verbs conjugate by a stem modification (strong verbs) and inflectional suffixes (weak verbs).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Strong verbs are divided into '''7 classes '''by how the ablaut operates (''the vowel in the stem changes'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Weak verbs → ''the stem remains the same'', conjugation formed by endings. Classification: 1st class - short X long (by the stem-vowel), 2nd class with “ian” (instead of “an”) '''thematic/athematic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''thematic formation''' = the proto-germanic word consists of root + theme + ending, the ending is attached to the theme (e.g. stain + a + z)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''athematic formation''' = there is no theme so the ending is attached directly to the root (e.g. fot+iz)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''strong/weak adjectives'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''strong adj.''' = there are more endings and there is no need for the adjective to co-occur with a determiner as the ending itself is able to express all grammatical categories on its own&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''weak adj.''' = there are just few distinct endings but there is a grammatical need of the adjective to cooccur with a determiner (e.g. demonstrative/possessive pronoun) '''strong/weak verbs'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''strong verbs''' = based on vowel change – ablaut (OE singan, sang, sungon,... PDE sing sang sung, Czech beru, sbírat, bral)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''weak verbs''' = based on the addition of the agglutinating dental/alveolar suffix&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''syncretism '''– the fusion of two or more originally different inflectional forms (=merging of endings), e.g. case system replaced by a system based on WO and formal words. allomorphy – alternation of two or more forms in a morphological or lexical unit. (*allomorph = different phonological variation of a morpheme, e.g. variation between plural /s/ /z/ /iz/)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''levelling of endings''' – generalization of inflections, this is done by sound change and analogy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''grammatical gender''' – category of OE nouns – masculine, feminine, neuter. Often the grammatical gender doesn't correspond with the natural gender (se wīfman (“woman”) – masculine gender). This clash is one of the reasons why the grammatical gender was lost (other reasons: phonetic, morphological)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''dual '''– category of number marking nouns, adjectives, pronouns (not verbs), meaning “two”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''preterite-present verb''' – originally strong verbs, they combine features of S and W verbs. The past tense acquired present tense meaning, afterwards a new preterite form (WEAK) was created. The preterite-present verbs developed into PDE modals. (OE durran “to dare” (but PDE must!)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=7._Old_English_Lexicon&amp;diff=45688</id>
		<title>7. Old English Lexicon</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=7._Old_English_Lexicon&amp;diff=45688"/>
		<updated>2017-02-26T21:10:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1.How is the associative/homogeneous principle reflected in the structure of Old English vocabulary? Are loan-translations in Old English part of this reflection?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The vocabulary is based on '''transparency '''of formation, '''etymology is recognizable''' in the word&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wordformation: mainly derivation, compounding&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are only some 3% of loan words&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Loan translation = '''calque '''= In linguistics, a calque (/ˈkælk/) is a word or phrase borrowed from another language by literal, word-for-word, or root-for-root translation. It reflects the homogenous nature of the language because there is a tendency to make the process of the word formation transparent. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. How can we support the claim about the stability of OE vocabulary in diachrony?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''core vocabulary''' remained (high frequency items)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– many '''recognizable items''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
→ '''little or no change''': stān, strǣt, his; god, gold, hand, helm, land, under, winter,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
→ '''word changes in sound, spelling and morphology''': munuc (‛monk’), hēafod (‛head’), bēc (‛books’), hlōh (‛laughed’)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''change of meaning''' (e.g. drēam (‛joy x dream)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''hidden relics''' (in phrases and idioms): one man’s meat is another man’s poison&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Name some of the reasons for the loss of Old English vocabulary in the later history of English.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lexical losses (Middle English)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''a) institutional replacement '''→ tungolcræft (‛astronomy, astrology’)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''b) structural replacement''' (change of word formation)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''c) losses of common items through domestic competition'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''d) through replacement by loans''' → Latin (OE gylt (‘crime’ &amp;gt;‘sin’), Old Norse (OE dréam (‘joy’ &amp;gt; ‘dream’)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. Using the diagram on p. 14 of the presentation, identify the most important sources of Old English vocabulary.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''Proto-Indo-European''' → foot (OE fōt), eye (ēage), mother (mōdor),snow (snāw)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''Proto-Germanic/Northwest Germanic''' → bath (bæð), ship (scip), drink (drincan), hand (hand)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''Later Indo-European''' → loaf (=‛bread’- hlāf); devil (deofol)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''Old Norse''' → take (tacan), root (OE rōt); die, sky, skirt, sister&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''Old Frisian''' → proud (OE prūd)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''Non-Indo-European''' (e.g. Finnish (Uralic))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''Celtic '''→ lead (OE léad)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''Latin '''→ wine (OE wīn); camp (OE camp), street (OE strǣt)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– '''Unknown origin'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=5._English_as_a_Germanic_Language_%26_Structural_Innovations&amp;diff=45687</id>
		<title>5. English as a Germanic Language &amp; Structural Innovations</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=5._English_as_a_Germanic_Language_%26_Structural_Innovations&amp;diff=45687"/>
		<updated>2017-02-26T20:41:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1. Important concepts and terms to explain'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Genetic origin''': languages of the same genetic origin have a common ancestor from which they developed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Proto-language''': common ancestor of languages, parent language (e.g. PIE, PG etc.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Proto-Indo-European''': common ancestor of all IE languages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Language family ('''“tree of languages”): a matter of decent, there is a parent (mother language) from which other languages (sister languages) developed (e.g. English, German, Icelandic (=sisters) developed from PG (=mother).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Mother and sister languages''': above&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Migration period''': dispersal of the original linguistic community (which started early on and took a long time), PIE around 3000BC, Germanic around 250BC expanding in all directions (possibly because of overpopulation or poor agricultural technique and natural resources&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Ingvaeones '''(=North Sea Germanic) – '''Istvaeones '''(=Central, the Rhine basin) – '''''Irminones '''''(associated with High German) = tribal groups of western Germanic people&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Northwest Germanic''': 1st - 3rd century AD – different dialects of PG → dialects, division between East Germanic and Northwest Germanic (NW – fragmented in 3rd-6th century AD)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Runes''': textual evidence – runic inscriptions (from 3rd century AD), short, fragmentary. Letters in a runic alphabet were used by Germanic languages before the adaptation of Latin alphabet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Viking Age''': 800-1050 AD, migrations, sea voyages, raids, overseas expansions, attacks on English coastal towns and they occupied large part of England → the “Danes”, but they were not successful in establishing their language on these newly conquered territories (only in Iceland and the Faroes)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. In what ways do we define English as a Germanic language? Explain.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
English is defined as a Germanic language based on historical grounds of being the product of unbroken transmission from a remote, unattested ancestor called Proto Germanic (PG). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Provide a rough chronology of the rise of English from its Indo-European background through the Germanic stage.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Proto-Indo-European''' (dividing into different branches by 3000BC at the latest, Germanic splitting from related languages around 1000BC) → '''Proto-Germanic''' (around 250BC→ linguistic community expanding in all directions) → '''North-west Germanic''' (NW is fragmented in 3rd-6th cent. AD) → '''West '''→ '''North-Sea Germanic''' (Ingvaeones) → '''Old English'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. Explain the principal geographical movements of the speakers of “Common Germanic” on their way towards becoming speakers of individual Germanic dialects and, later, languages.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Germanic = northwestern IE group (it shares a number of major affinities with the Slavic, Baltic, Celtic and Italic branches). Germanic as a '''unified language''' probably split from related Indo‐European languages sometime between the years ''1500 and 1000 B.C.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Archaeological evidence suggests that about ''750 BC'' a relatively uniform Germanic people was located in ''southern Scandinavia'' and along the ''North Sea'' and ''Baltic coasts'' from what is now ''The Netherlands'' to ''the Vistula River''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
250 BC linguistic community expanding in all directions, they had spread south and '''five general groups''' are distinguishable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– North Germanic in southern Scandinavia, excluding Jutland;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– North Sea Germanic, along the North Sea and in Jutland;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Rhine Weser Germanic, along the middle Rhine and Weser;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Elbe Germanic, along the middle Elbe;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– and East Germanic, between the middle Oder and the Vistula rivers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as a result of these expansions, differences of dialect within Proto Germanic became more marked:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– 1st 3rd century A.D.: the first major division into '''East Germanic''' and '''Northwest Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– 3rd 6th century A.D.: fragmentation of '''Northwest Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''5. Be prepared to classify Germanic languages, extant and living, into their genetic subbranches, along with their specific locations and most important historical and cultural dates/events.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''East Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The East Germanic subgroup was formed by the tribes that returned from Scandinavia back to the mainland. Their languages are now all extinct. The chief representatives are Gothic, Burgundian, Vandal, Langobardian or Lombardian, Rugian, Gepidic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Gothic '''= only recorded representative of the East Germanic family and it offers the oldest consistent textual record of Germanic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''North West Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''→ North Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This branch of languages was formed by the Germanic speakers who stayed in Scandinavia after the departure of the Goths. 4th to 9th cent. - “Old Norse”, written evidence – runic inscriptions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Viking Age – 800-1050 – sea voyages, raids, overseas expansions, attacks on English coastal towns and occupied large part of England → the “Danes”, but they were not successful in establishing their language on these newly conquered territories (only in Iceland and the Faroes)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''a) East Norse''' (→ ''Danish'', ''Swedish'')&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''b) West Norse''' (→ ''Norwegian'', ''Faroese ''(developed from West Norwegian dialects brought to the Faroe Islands by settlers) ''Icelandic'')&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''→ West Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''a) Ingvaeones (´North Sea Germanic´)'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Old Saxon → Middle Low German → Low German&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anglo-Frisian → English, Frisian&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''b) Istvaeones (central, the Rhine basin)''', - Franconian → Dutch (→ Afrikaans), Flemish&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''c) Erminones''' '''(mainly associated with High German)'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Old High German → Middle High German → German&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Old Yiddish → Yiddish&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''6. Describe briefly what principal kinds of evidence do we have to base our ideas of the history of the early Germanic languages upon?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Archaeological evidence'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Textual evidence'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) '''runic inscriptions''' (from 3rd century AD), short, fragmentary. Letters in a runic alphabet were used by Germanic languages before the adaptation of Latin alphabet. Many of these inscriptions are in Northwest Germanic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) '''writings of classical authors''' (Ceasar) BUT German words and other elements are scattered over Greek and Latin writings so they don't represent a balanced set of data and are difficult to interpret. The authors described the “group” (Old Irish gair = neighbour)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''7. Why is Tacitus particularly important as one of these sources of evidence?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tacitus = Roman historian recognizes the “Germani” as a threat to Rome (and when he wrote it, they were pressing on the borders of the Roman Empire).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Tacitus, the western Germanic peoples were divided into three major tribal groups,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ingvaeones (´North Sea Germanic´),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Istvaeones (central, the Rhine basin),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and Erminones (mainly associated with High German).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not clear just what these names correspond to ethnic, cultural or linguistic groupings, or a bit of all three&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''8. Which of the linguistic contacts the early Germanic peoples developed do you find most important? Why?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
close linguistic contact in the early days (warfare, trade, diplomacy, etc.) with:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Baltic speaking peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Celtic speaking peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Slavonic speaking peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Finns → borrowings into Finnish (Uralic language family = non indo-european), Finnish changed phonetically little since that time (modern Finnish “rengas” possibly closed to the early germanic word from which it was borrowed) → important for reconstruction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Latin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''9. Why are – of all the attested Germanic languages – Gothic and Frisian particularly important for the study of HEL?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gothic → it offers the oldest consistent textual record of Germanic, it is also the only recorded representative of the East Germanic family&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frisian → Old Frisian was very close to Old English, we can presuppose a prehistoric Anglo-Frisian linguistic relation or common dialect (it is likely that before the migration to England the ancestors of the English must have been close neighbors of the Frisians)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''GERMANIC INNOVATIONS'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''1. Explain the concept “(structural) innovation”'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All languages from a family (e.g. Germanic in Indo-European family) have a common ancestor. A new language is created when there is a split from a language family. This split is only possible because of innovations = development of new structural features. Because of that, there are languages with different structure but with the same origin (e.g. English and Icelandic).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. Describe briefly each of the principal Germanic innovations in phonology, morphology and lexis.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''a) Phonology'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. restructuring of the '''accent system''': change in the nature (acoustic loudness) and placing of stress (no longer free)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. a nearly complete transformation of the '''plosive system'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
→ a. ''Grimm’s Law'' (1st Germanic Consonant Shift)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
→ b. ''Verner’s Law''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.a number of '''individual sound developments''' (major vowel mergers,etc.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''b) Morphology'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''simplification of the inflectional system''' (linked to the weakening of inflectional endings)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. introduction of the '''weak declension of the adjective'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. re organization of the '''verb system''' on a new basis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
→ a. introduction of '''weak verbs'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
→ b. '''two tense system''' ‐ (present and preterite)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''c) Lexis'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
distinctive vocabulary, historical components: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. direct inheritances from PIE (by far the largest component: e.g. foot – eye – mother – two – sit – bind – full – new)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. borrowings from other (non Gmc) IE dialects (lead, iron, street, tile, pound);&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. Items of unknown etymology, with no clear cognates in IE outside of the Germanic, and not relatable to forms in other language groups that PG was in contact with (e.g. Balto Finnic) – these ‐ ‐ may be loans from extinct and unattested languages, or PG inventions (sail, sea, drink, boat, finger)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. new coinages of early date, before the E/NWGmc split, based on inherited IE materials (window, middle-earth).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Explain the following concepts: stress/accent; ablaut; strong/weak adjectives; strong/weak verbs.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Stress/accent''': accent on a syllable which depends either on stress (''acoustic loudness'') or/and on intonation (''musical pitch''). The transition from PIE to PG = from predominant musical accent to the predominant stress accent; from ''free ''accent to more ''fixed ''one&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Ablaut''': vowel gradation, change of the vowel sound in the root which leads to a change of meaning, it is employed in morphology and in word formation. PDE examples: bear / born / burden. Ablaut was probably closely related with stress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Strong/weak adjectives''': there are just '''few distinct endings''', there is a grammatical need of the adjective to co-occur with a '''determiner '''(e.g. demonstrative/possessive pronoun)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Strong/weak verbs''': PG had inherited a whole series of verbs which showed change of tense by changing the vowel of the stem: the '''strong ones based on ablaut'''. (czech: beru, sbírat, bral)... BUT, PG started a new development → the invention of '''weak verbs based on the addition of the agglutinating dental/alveolar suffix'''. Weak verbs – already in the times of OE are seen as a majority. (the latter development may be a response to the decline of productivity of the strong conjugation, introflextional strategies and ablaut.)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=5._English_as_a_Germanic_Language_%26_Structural_Innovations&amp;diff=45686</id>
		<title>5. English as a Germanic Language &amp; Structural Innovations</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=5._English_as_a_Germanic_Language_%26_Structural_Innovations&amp;diff=45686"/>
		<updated>2017-02-26T20:33:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1. Important concepts and terms to explain'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Genetic origin''': languages of the same genetic origin have a common ancestor from which they developed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Proto-language''': common ancestor of languages, parent language (e.g. PIE, PG etc.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Proto-Indo-European''': common ancestor of all IE languages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Language family ('''“tree of languages”): a matter of decent, there is a parent (mother language) from which other languages (sister languages) developed (e.g. English, German, Icelandic (=sisters) developed from PG (=mother).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Mother and sister languages''': above&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Migration period''': dispersal of the original linguistic community (which started early on and took a long time), PIE around 3000BC, Germanic around 250BC expanding in all directions (possibly because of overpopulation or poor agricultural technique and natural resources&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Ingvaeones '''(=North Sea Germanic) – '''Istvaeones '''(=Central, the Rhine basin) – '''''Irminones '''''(associated with High German) = tribal groups of western Germanic people&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Northwest Germanic''': 1st - 3rd century AD – different dialects of PG → dialects, division between East Germanic and Northwest Germanic (NW – fragmented in 3rd-6th century AD)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Runes''': textual evidence – runic inscriptions (from 3rd century AD), short, fragmentary. Letters in a runic alphabet were used by Germanic languages before the adaptation of Latin alphabet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Viking Age''': 800-1050 AD, migrations, sea voyages, raids, overseas expansions, attacks on English coastal towns and they occupied large part of England → the “Danes”, but they were not successful in establishing their language on these newly conquered territories (only in Iceland and the Faroes)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. In what ways do we define English as a Germanic language? Explain.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
English is defined as a Germanic language based on historical grounds of being the product of unbroken transmission from a remote, unattested ancestor called Proto Germanic (PG). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Provide a rough chronology of the rise of English from its Indo-European background through the Germanic stage.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Proto-Indo-European''' (dividing into different branches by 3000BC at the latest, Germanic splitting from related languages around 1000BC) → '''Proto-Germanic''' (around 250BC→ linguistic community expanding in all directions) → '''North-west Germanic''' (NW is fragmented in 3rd-6th cent. AD) → '''West '''→ '''North-Sea Germanic''' (Ingvaeones) → '''Old English'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. Explain the principal geographical movements of the speakers of “Common Germanic” on their way towards becoming speakers of individual Germanic dialects and, later, languages.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Germanic = northwestern IE group (it shares a number of major affinities with the Slavic, Baltic, Celtic and Italic branches). Germanic as a '''unified language''' probably split from related Indo‐European languages sometime between the years ''1500 and 1000 B.C.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Archaeological evidence suggests that about ''750 BC'' a relatively uniform Germanic people was located in ''southern Scandinavia'' and along the ''North Sea'' and ''Baltic coasts'' from what is now ''The Netherlands'' to ''the Vistula River''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
250 BC linguistic community expanding in all directions, they had spread south and '''five general groups''' are distinguishable:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– North Germanic in southern Scandinavia, excluding Jutland;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– North Sea Germanic, along the North Sea and in Jutland;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Rhine Weser Germanic, along the middle Rhine and Weser;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Elbe Germanic, along the middle Elbe;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– and East Germanic, between the middle Oder and the Vistula rivers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
as a result of these expansions, differences of dialect within Proto Germanic became more marked:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– 1st 3rd century A.D.: the first major division into '''East Germanic''' and '''Northwest Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– 3rd 6th century A.D.: fragmentation of '''Northwest Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''5. Be prepared to classify Germanic languages, extant and living, into their genetic subbranches, along with their specific locations and most important historical and cultural dates/events.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''East Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The East Germanic subgroup was formed by the tribes that returned from Scandinavia back to the mainland. Their languages are now all extinct. The chief representatives are Gothic, Burgundian, Vandal, Langobardian or Lombardian, Rugian, Gepidic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Gothic '''= only recorded representative of the East Germanic family and it offers the oldest consistent textual record of Germanic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''North West Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''→ North Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This branch of languages was formed by the Germanic speakers who stayed in Scandinavia after the departure of the Goths. 4th to 9th cent. - “Old Norse”, written evidence – runic inscriptions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Viking Age – 800-1050 – sea voyages, raids, overseas expansions, attacks on English coastal towns and occupied large part of England → the “Danes”, but they were not successful in establishing their language on these newly conquered territories (only in Iceland and the Faroes)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''a) East Norse''' (→ ''Danish'', ''Swedish'')&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''b) West Norse''' (→ ''Norwegian'', ''Faroese ''(developed from West Norwegian dialects brought to the Faroe Islands by settlers) ''Icelandic'')&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''→ West Germanic'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''a) Ingvaeones (´North Sea Germanic´)'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Old Saxon → Middle Low German → Low German&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anglo-Frisian → English, Frisian&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''b) Istvaeones (central, the Rhine basin)''', - Franconian → Dutch (→ Afrikaans), Flemish&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''c) Erminones''' '''(mainly associated with High German)'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Old High German → Middle High German → German&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Old Yiddish → Yiddish&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''6. Describe briefly what principal kinds of evidence do we have to base our ideas of the history of the early Germanic languages upon?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Archaeological evidence'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Textual evidence'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) '''runic inscriptions''' (from 3rd century AD), short, fragmentary. Letters in a runic alphabet were used by Germanic languages before the adaptation of Latin alphabet. Many of these inscriptions are in Northwest Germanic&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) '''writings of classical authors''' (Ceasar) BUT German words and other elements are scattered over Greek and Latin writings so they don't represent a balanced set of data and are difficult to interpret. The authors described the “group” (Old Irish gair = neighbour)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''7. Why is Tacitus particularly important as one of these sources of evidence?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tacitus = Roman historian recognizes the “Germani” as a threat to Rome (and when he wrote it, they were pressing on the borders of the Roman Empire).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Tacitus, the western Germanic peoples were divided into three major tribal groups,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ingvaeones (´North Sea Germanic´),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Istvaeones (central, the Rhine basin),&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and Erminones (mainly associated with High German).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not clear just what these names correspond to ethnic, cultural or linguistic groupings, or a bit of all three&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''8. Which of the linguistic contacts the early Germanic peoples developed do you find most important? Why?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
close linguistic contact in the early days (warfare, trade, diplomacy, etc.) with:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Baltic speaking peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Celtic speaking peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Slavonic speaking peoples&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Finns → borrowings into Finnish (Uralic language family = non indo-european), Finnish changed phonetically little since that time (modern Finnish “rengas” possibly closed to the early germanic word from which it was borrowed) → important for reconstruction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Latin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''9. Why are – of all the attested Germanic languages – Gothic and Frisian particularly important for the study of HEL?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gothic → it offers the oldest consistent textual record of Germanic, it is also the only recorded representative of the East Germanic family&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frisian → Old Frisian was very close to Old English, we can presuppose a prehistoric Anglo-Frisian linguistic relation or common dialect (it is likely that before the migration to England the ancestors of the English must have been close neighbors of the Frisians)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=6._Word-formation_and_the_change_of_language_type_in_the_history_of_English&amp;diff=45685</id>
		<title>6. Word-formation and the change of language type in the history of English</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=6._Word-formation_and_the_change_of_language_type_in_the_history_of_English&amp;diff=45685"/>
		<updated>2017-02-26T20:13:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1.Explain the difference between the associative/homogeneous and the dissociative/heterogeneous principle as a principle of vocabulary organisation.''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Associative '''= based on '''transparency '''of formation, etymology is recognizable in the word, example: compounding in OE (kennings - wegflotan = seafloater = ship) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Dissociative '''= based on '''opacity '''of formation, typical of isolating (analytical) languages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tendency in English is from associative to dissociative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. Exemplify the difference between them using material from (the history of) English'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
???&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Why is the isolating type of language largely characterized by opaque word-structures?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Because there are fewer prefixes and suffixes employed for derivation, also derivation is not as common process for word-formation as it was for example in OE. These suffixes are of syllabic, more agglutinating nature (e.g. high → highness).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– They are also characterized by extensive borrowings from Roman languages (French, Latin), e.g. save from OF salver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
compounding, conversion and polysemy are also quite common (because of the invariant short word form)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. Why are pairs such sing – song or foul-filth mere relics of the past? Why has the role of introflection in English radically diminished over the centuries?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) Because they reflect the sound changes and once productive patterns, introflection is no longer active means of word-formation (more in b).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Difference in stress (when distinguishing word classes) is connected with vowel change, this is an inheritance from OE (on´ginnan,‛to begin’ ´ongann,‛beginning’), but now the vowel change isn't reflected in spelling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) English changes from an '''inflectional '''(synthetic) into an '''isolating '''(analytical) type of language – '''decrease of inflection encompasses decrease of introflection'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=6._Word-formation_and_the_change_of_language_type_in_the_history_of_English&amp;diff=45684</id>
		<title>6. Word-formation and the change of language type in the history of English</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=6._Word-formation_and_the_change_of_language_type_in_the_history_of_English&amp;diff=45684"/>
		<updated>2017-02-26T20:12:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1.Explain the difference between the associative/homogeneous and the dissociative/heterogeneous principle as a principle of vocabulary organisation.''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Associative '''= based on '''transparency '''of formation, etymology is recognizable in the word, example: compounding in OE (kennings - wegflotan = seafloater = ship) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Dissociative '''= based on '''opacity '''of formation, typical of isolating (analytical) languages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tendency in English is from associative to dissociative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. Exemplify the difference between them using material from (the history of) English'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
???&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Why is the isolating type of language largely characterized by opaque word-structures?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Because there are fewer prefixes and suffixes employed for derivation, also derivation is not as common process for word-formation as it was for example in OE. These suffixes are of syllabic, more agglutinating nature (e.g. high → highness).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– They are also characterized by extensive borrowings from Roman languages (French, Latin), e.g. save from OF salver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
compounding, conversion and polysemy are also quite common (because of the invariant short word form)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. Why are pairs such sing – song or foul-filth mere relics of the past? Why has the role of introflection in English radically diminished over the centuries?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) Because they reflect the sound changes and once productive patterns, introflection is no longer active means of word-formation (more in b).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Difference in stress (when distinguishing word classes) is connected with vowel change, this is an inheritance from OE (on´ginnan,‛to begin’ ´ongann,‛beginning’), but now the vowel change isn't ‐ reflected in spelling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) English changes from an '''inflectional '''(synthetic) into an '''isolating '''(analytical) type of language – '''decrease of inflection encompasses decrease of introflection'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=6._Word-formation_and_the_change_of_language_type_in_the_history_of_English&amp;diff=45683</id>
		<title>6. Word-formation and the change of language type in the history of English</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=6._Word-formation_and_the_change_of_language_type_in_the_history_of_English&amp;diff=45683"/>
		<updated>2017-02-26T20:11:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1.Explain the difference between the associative/homogeneous and the dissociative/heterogeneous principle as a principle of vocabulary organisation.''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Associative '''= based on '''transparency '''of formation, etymology is recognizable in the word, example: compounding in OE (kennings - wegflotan = seafloater = ship) '''Dissociative '''= based on '''opacity '''of formation, typical of isolating (analytical) languages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tendency in English is from associative to dissociative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. Exemplify the difference between them using material from (the history of) English'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
???&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Why is the isolating type of language largely characterized by opaque word-structures?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Because there are fewer prefixes and suffixes employed for derivation, also derivation is not as common process for word-formation as it was for example in OE. These suffixes are of syllabic, more agglutinating nature (e.g. high → highness).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– They are also characterized by extensive borrowings from Roman languages (French, Latin), e.g. save from OF salver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
compounding, conversion and polysemy are also quite common (because of the invariant short word form)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. Why are pairs such sing – song or foul-filth mere relics of the past? Why has the role of introflection in English radically diminished over the centuries?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) Because they reflect the sound changes and once productive patterns, introflection is no longer active means of word-formation (more in b).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Difference in stress (when distinguishing word classes) is connected with vowel change, this is an inheritance from OE (on´ginnan,‛to begin’ ´ongann,‛beginning’), but now the vowel change isn't ‐ reflected in spelling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) English changes from an '''inflectional '''(synthetic) into an '''isolating '''(analytical) type of language – '''decrease of inflection encompasses decrease of introflection'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=6._Word-formation_and_the_change_of_language_type_in_the_history_of_English&amp;diff=45682</id>
		<title>6. Word-formation and the change of language type in the history of English</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=6._Word-formation_and_the_change_of_language_type_in_the_history_of_English&amp;diff=45682"/>
		<updated>2017-02-26T20:11:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1.Explain the difference between the associative/homogeneous and the dissociative/heterogeneous principle as a principle of vocabulary organisation.''' '''Associative '''= based on '''transparency '''of formation, etymology is recognizable in the word, example: compounding in OE (kennings - wegflotan = seafloater = ship) '''Dissociative '''= based on '''opacity '''of formation, typical of isolating (analytical) languages&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tendency in English is from associative to dissociative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. Exemplify the difference between them using material from (the history of) English'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
???&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Why is the isolating type of language largely characterized by opaque word-structures?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Because there are fewer prefixes and suffixes employed for derivation, also derivation is not as common process for word-formation as it was for example in OE. These suffixes are of syllabic, more agglutinating nature (e.g. high → highness).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– They are also characterized by extensive borrowings from Roman languages (French, Latin), e.g. save from OF salver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
compounding, conversion and polysemy are also quite common (because of the invariant short word form)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. Why are pairs such sing – song or foul-filth mere relics of the past? Why has the role of introflection in English radically diminished over the centuries?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) Because they reflect the sound changes and once productive patterns, introflection is no longer active means of word-formation (more in b).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Difference in stress (when distinguishing word classes) is connected with vowel change, this is an inheritance from OE (on´ginnan,‛to begin’ ´ongann,‛beginning’), but now the vowel change isn't ‐ reflected in spelling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) English changes from an '''inflectional '''(synthetic) into an '''isolating '''(analytical) type of language – '''decrease of inflection encompasses decrease of introflection'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=4._Linguistic_Typology&amp;diff=45212</id>
		<title>4. Linguistic Typology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=4._Linguistic_Typology&amp;diff=45212"/>
		<updated>2017-02-19T20:53:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1. In your own words, define the concept of language type.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An abstract concept, it is a set of features like '''a) word endings (affixes)''' leading to classification of languages as “''inflecting''” (=affixes express number of different meanings) X “''agglutinating''” (=each affix has distinct meaning) and '''b) word order '''→ “''isolating languages''” (=fixed word order, one morpheme per word (=no affixes))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– the '''existence of endings''' is “favorable” to the existence of a '''“free” word order '''and on the other hand, the '''non-existence of endings''' implies a '''“fixed” word order '''‐ , i.e. word order that has a grammatical function. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Language type is seen as a set of these (a) and (b) properties, but it is important to remember, that it's a theoretical construct which may help us classify and contrast different languages, but no language has ever been fully “inflecting” “agglutinating” or “isolating”, there is always a mixture between these characteristics, BUT most language tend to lean towards one type more to the others which makes the classification possible (e.g. Czech is seen mostly as an inflecting language).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. Why are language types potential?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because a language type is '''never manifested fully''' or ideally in an authentic, natural language (living or extinct)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Real languages can be typologically described as '''combinations of properties '''belonging to '''various '''language types. In every language, '''one of these types '''is found to '''predominate '''and therefore we may classy languages and compare different languages regardless of genetic or areal considerations. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– LT can describe and analyze languages from a number of perspectives: ''morphology ''(= its central and original domain), ''phonology'', ''syntax'','' word-formation''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Why can language typology be used as “operational framework” for the history of English?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Language type analyzes the structure of a language and its change in time → we can see that English developed from being a highly inflected language to one which has more agglutinating and isolating characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. What is the relationship between typological and genealogical/genetic classification of languages?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''1) typological classification''' – analyzes the '''structure '''and its '''change '''over time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2) genealogical (or genetic) classification'''- the family tree, based on the '''common origin''' and historical relations among languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- '''typologically '''related languages resemble one another '''structurally''', but '''genetically '''related languages may exhibit many '''differences''', especially if separated widely in time or location (Modern English X Modern Icelandic are of the same origin but typologically they're very different)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''5. Sum up the principal properties of inflection, introflection, agglutination and isolation, respectively. '''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''INFLECTION '''(Czech, Old English)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terminological variety → synthetic (Trnka, Vachek)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) the '''richness of endings''' are favorable to the free word order; the endings participate in '''grammatical concord'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) '''every lexical '''(autosemantic) '''word '''has a '''single grammatical ending'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c)''' the endings ‘accumulate’ functions''': &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Starší syn byl právě na pol i‐ :&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
• i marks the noun for the grammatical categories of number (sg.), case (locative), gender (neuter) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
d) '''the ending does not necessarily have its own syllable''' (cf. pol-i vs. po-li; æcer-e vs. æce-re)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e)''' the ending is very closely attached to the stem/root''' – so much so that it may trigger formal changes in it (rise of allomorphy; this feature distinguishes inflection from agglutination), e.g. cf. Czech vojsko („army&amp;quot;): vojskách – vojscích (loc. pl.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
f)''' the ending''' exhibits a large amount of '''synonymy '''and '''homonymy''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ example of synonymy: Czech pol‐i, měst‐ě, jezer‐u: three synonymous endings = difference of form (‐i, ‐ě, ‐u) and identity of meaning/function (locative, sg., neuter of &amp;quot;field&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;town&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;lake&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ example of homonymy: Czech pol‐i (&amp;quot;field&amp;quot;, loc. sg. neuter´), hol‐i (&amp;quot;stick&amp;quot;, dat. sg. fem.), vol‐i (&amp;quot;ox&amp;quot;, nom. pl. masc.) – three homonymous endings = identity of form and difference of meaning/function&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
g) on the syntactic level, the clear distinction of word classes is correlated with the''' presence of numerous kinds of dependent clauses'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''INTROFLECTION'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ never serves as a basis of the whole structure of a language; it is always combined with the syntax of another type (in such languages as Czech and Old English, the introflectional type typically functions as a subsystem/extension of the inflectional type)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ typologists sometimes distinguish between the &amp;quot;outer“ flection, i.e. inflection, and &amp;quot;inner&amp;quot; flection, i.e. introflection&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''the morpheme can be interrupted''': certain phonemes within a lexical morpheme have their grammatical meanings: e.g. PDE foot (compare OE wer &amp;quot;man, male&amp;quot; . pl. wer-as (= inflection) vs. fót . pl. fét (= introflection)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. the opposition between '''lexical and grammatical means''' is '''phonemically '''clearly '''expressed'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. '''word classes''' are differentiated by introflection: cf. PDE sing vs. Song&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. introflection is employed in '''derivation '''‐ cf. Arabic hamala, ‘to carry’, himlun ‘load’, hammālun ‘carrier’ ‐ cf. ModE to bear – burden – bier&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- because introflection closely cooperates with inflection, its role in the history of English diminishes with the rise of typological isolation in the system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''ISOLATING TYPE '''(English, French)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terminological variety → analytical (Trnka, Vachek)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''endings/affixes are absent'''; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. there are numerous '''monosyllabic words''', both lexical and grammatical &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. the lack of endings and the existence of numerous function words do not allow for a ‘free’ word order; (→ '''strict word order''') &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. the lack of endings does not allow for a differentiation of word classes, i.e. '''conversion '''is present;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. the capacity of the system to derive words is weakened: the lexis is therefore characterized by''' sets of words associated by meaning, not by form''' (as opposed to the inflectional and agglutinating types). i.e. morphemic derivation of affixes is connected with the abundance of isolated words, not related by morphemic derivation (ox vs. beef) 6. the function words favour the presence of many kinds of '''derived clauses''' (with conjunctions), but, on the other hand, the lack of word class contrast allows for '''condensations '''such as gerund in ModE: &amp;quot;But now that this son of yours turns up,'' after running'' through your money with his women, you kill the fatted calf for him.&amp;quot; the occurrence of such condensation phenomena is therefore higher than in the inflectional type (though lower than in the agglutinating type)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''AGGLUTINATING TYPE '''(Turkish, Finnish)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. the existence of grammatical suffixes (the affixes are equivalent to the endings of the inflectional type and to the function words of the isolating type) BUT &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. each affix is monofunctional, i.e. affixes do not &amp;quot;accumulate&amp;quot; grammatical meanings&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. affixes attached to the word-basis come in abundance (agglutination = &amp;quot;glueing together&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. the affixes usually have syllables of their own &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. the affixes display little synonymy and homonymy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. there usually is little grammatical concord&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. property 6 calls for a fixed word order &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. word classes are not distinguished: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9. if word classes are not distinguished, there is little room for dependent clauses the numerous ‐ affixes are used to derive various kinds of condensation structures, such as infinitives, participles, gerunds etc.:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''6. To which level/subsystem is linguistic typology not applicable, and why?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Language type cannot describe and analyze '''lexis '''because the structure and development of vocabulary is largely due to “external” factors&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=4._Linguistic_Typology&amp;diff=45210</id>
		<title>4. Linguistic Typology</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wikisofia.cz/w/index.php?title=4._Linguistic_Typology&amp;diff=45210"/>
		<updated>2017-02-19T20:52:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''1. In your own words, define the concept of language type.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An abstract concept, it is a set of features like '''a) word endings (affixes)''' leading to classification of languages as “''inflecting''” (=affixes express number of different meanings) X “''agglutinating''” (=each affix has distinct meaning) and '''b) word order '''→ “''isolating languages''” (=fixed word order, one morpheme per word (=no affixes))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– the '''existence of endings''' is “favorable” to the existence of a '''“free” word order '''and on the other hand, the '''non-existence of endings''' implies a '''“fixed” word order '''‐ , i.e. word order that has a grammatical function. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Language type is seen as a set of these (a) and (b) properties, but it is important to remember, that it's a theoretical construct which may help us classify and contrast different languages, but no language has ever been fully “inflecting” “agglutinating” or “isolating”, there is always a mixture between these characteristics, BUT most language tend to lean towards one type more to the others which makes the classification possible (e.g. Czech is seen mostly as an inflecting language).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2. Why are language types potential?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because a language type is '''never manifested fully''' or ideally in an authentic, natural language (living or extinct)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Real languages can be typologically described as '''combinations of properties '''belonging to '''various '''language types. In every language, '''one of these types '''is found to '''predominate '''and therefore we may classy languages and compare different languages regardless of genetic or areal considerations. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– LT can describe and analyze languages from a number of perspectives: ''morphology ''(= its central and original domain), ''phonology'', ''syntax'','' word-formation''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3. Why can language typology be used as “operational framework” for the history of English?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Language type analyzes the structure of a language and its change in time → we can see that English developed from being a highly inflected language to one which has more agglutinating and isolating characteristics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4. What is the relationship between typological and genealogical/genetic classification of languages?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''1) typological classification''' – analyzes the '''structure '''and its '''change '''over time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2) genealogical (or genetic) classification'''- the family tree, based on the '''common origin''' and historical relations among languages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- '''typologically '''related languages resemble one another '''structurally''', but '''genetically '''related languages may exhibit many '''differences''', especially if separated widely in time or location (Modern English X Modern Icelandic are of the same origin but typologically they're very different)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''5. Sum up the principal properties of inflection, introflection, agglutination and isolation, respectively. '''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''INFLECTION '''(Czech, Old English)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terminological variety → synthetic (Trnka, Vachek)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a) the '''richness of endings''' are favorable to the free word order; the endings participate in '''grammatical concord'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
b) '''every lexical '''(autosemantic) '''word '''has a '''single grammatical ending'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
c)''' the endings ‘accumulate’ functions''': &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
– Starší syn byl právě na pol i‐ :&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
• i marks the noun for the grammatical categories of number (sg.), case (locative), gender (neuter) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
d) '''the ending does not necessarily have its own syllable''' (cf. pol-i vs. po-li; æcer-e vs. æce-re)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
e)''' the ending is very closely attached to the stem/root''' – so much so that it may trigger formal changes in it (rise of allomorphy; this feature distinguishes inflection from agglutination), e.g. cf. Czech vojsko („army&amp;quot;): vojskách – vojscích (loc. pl.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
f)''' the ending''' exhibits a large amount of '''synonymy '''and '''homonymy''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ example of synonymy: Czech pol‐i, měst‐ě, jezer‐u: three synonymous endings = difference of form (‐i, ‐ě, ‐u) and identity of meaning/function (locative, sg., neuter of &amp;quot;field&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;town&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;lake&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ example of homonymy: Czech pol‐i (&amp;quot;field&amp;quot;, loc. sg. neuter´), hol‐i (&amp;quot;stick&amp;quot;, dat. sg. fem.), vol‐i (&amp;quot;ox&amp;quot;, nom. pl. masc.) – three homonymous endings = identity of form and difference of meaning/function&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
g) on the syntactic level, the clear distinction of word classes is correlated with the''' presence of numerous kinds of dependent clauses'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''INTROFLECTION'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ never serves as a basis of the whole structure of a language; it is always combined with the syntax of another type (in such languages as Czech and Old English, the introflectional type typically functions as a subsystem/extension of the inflectional type)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‐ typologists sometimes distinguish between the &amp;quot;outer“ flection, i.e. inflection, and &amp;quot;inner&amp;quot; flection, i.e. introflection&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''the morpheme can be interrupted''': certain phonemes within a lexical morpheme have their grammatical meanings: e.g. PDE foot (compare OE wer &amp;quot;man, male&amp;quot; . pl. wer-as (= inflection) vs. fót . pl. fét (= introflection)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. the opposition between '''lexical and grammatical means''' is '''phonemically '''clearly '''expressed'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. '''word classes''' are differentiated by introflection: cf. PDE sing vs. Song&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. introflection is employed in '''derivation '''‐ cf. Arabic hamala, ‘to carry’, himlun ‘load’, hammālun ‘carrier’ ‐ cf. ModE to bear – burden – bier&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- because introflection closely cooperates with inflection, its role in the history of English diminishes with the rise of typological isolation in the system&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''ISOLATING TYPE '''(English, French)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terminological variety → analytical (Trnka, Vachek)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. '''endings/affixes are absent'''; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. there are numerous '''monosyllabic words''', both lexical and grammatical &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. the lack of endings and the existence of numerous function words do not allow for a ‘free’ word order; (→ '''strict word order''') &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. the lack of endings does not allow for a differentiation of word classes, i.e. '''conversion '''is present;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. the capacity of the system to derive words is weakened: the lexis is therefore characterized by''' sets of words associated by meaning, not by form''' (as opposed to the inflectional and agglutinating types). i.e. morphemic derivation of affixes is connected with the abundance of isolated words, not related by morphemic derivation (ox vs. beef) 6. the function words favour the presence of many kinds of '''derived clauses''' (with conjunctions), but, on the other hand, the lack of word class contrast allows for '''condensations '''such as gerund in ModE: &amp;quot;But now that this son of yours turns up,'' after running'' through your money with his women, you kill the fatted calf for him.&amp;quot; the occurrence of such condensation phenomena is therefore higher than in the inflectional type (though lower than in the agglutinating type)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''AGGLUTINATING TYPE '''(Turkish, Finnish)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. the existence of grammatical suffixes (the affixes are equivalent to the endings of the inflectional type and to the function words of the isolating type) BUT &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. each affix is monofunctional, i.e. affixes do not &amp;quot;accumulate&amp;quot; grammatical meanings&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. affixes attached to the word-basis come in abundance (agglutination = &amp;quot;glueing together&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. the affixes usually have syllables of their own &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. the affixes display little synonymy and homonymy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6. there usually is little grammatical concord&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7. property 6 calls for a fixed word order &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8. word classes are not distinguished: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9. if word classes are not distinguished, there is little room for dependent clauses the numerous ‐ affixes are used to derive various kinds of condensation structures, such as infinitives, participles, gerunds etc.:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''6. To which level/subsystem is linguistic typology not applicable, and why?'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Language type cannot describe and analyze '''lexis '''because the structure and development of vocabulary is largely due to “external” factors &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
existence of endings ‐ implies a “fixed” word order ‐ , i.e. word order that has a ‐ grammatical function. Language type is seen as a set of these (a) and (b) properties, but it is important to remember, that it's a theoretical construct which may help us classify and contrast different languages, but no language has ever been fully “inflecting” “agglutinating” or “isolating”, there is always a mixture between these characteristics, BUT most language tend to lean towards one type more to the others which makes the classification possible (e.g. Czech is seen mostly as an inflecting language)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Vladimira.Krajcsovicsova</name></author>
		
	</entry>
</feed>