New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew
| ,The Coordination of Biblical Hebrew Finite Verb Forms and Infinitives in Comparative Semitic and Typological Perspective1
Résumé
The coordination of finite verb forms and infinitives in Biblical Hebrew, especially Late Biblical Hebrew, and in other Semitic languages continues to be an intriguing issue. This paper examines said topic from the perspective of the concepts of (pseudo- ) coordination and (pseudo-) subordination, as proposed by Yuasa and Sadock (2002), drawing on comparison of a wide range of Semitic (Phoenician, Sabaic, Gəʿəz, Amharic, Epigraphic North Arabic, Classical Arabic, Modern Arabic dialects) and typologically comparable non-Semitic data (Yiddish, Norwegian, Turkish, Swahili). Relevant constructions treated in this paper are syndetic constructions with posture or motion verbs, syndetic serial-verb constructions, asyndetic serial-verb constructions, syndetic converb (-like) constructions, asyndetic converb construction, as well as syndetic constructions consisting of finite VPs and infinitives.
Texte intégral
1.0. Introduction
- 1 The author wishes to thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable input regarding a number of details (...)
1The issue of coordination of finite verb forms and infinitives in Biblical Hebrew, especially in Late Biblical Hebrew, as well as the use of the infinitive absolute as an inner object (comparable to the Arabic mafʿūl muṭlaq) or as an imperative, have received proper attention in Hebrew philology and linguistics. Important references (after treatment in the classic grammars) include Rubinstein (1952); Huesman (1956); Hammershaimb (1963); Waltke and O’Connor (1990, 595ff); Fassberg (2007); Callaham (2010); Morrison (2013); van der Merwe and Andrason (2014); as well as Wang and Noonan (2017).
2In this paper, the issue is examined from the perspective of the concepts of (pseudo-) coordination and (pseudo-) subordination, as proposed by Yuasa and Sadock (2002; see below), drawing on comparison of a wide range of Semitic and non-Semitic data. Deliberately, no attempt is made to trace back the types of (pseudo-) coordination and (pseudo-) subordination dealt with in this paper to any particular branch of Semitic. Rather, the various attestations of coordination and subordination will be placed and analysed within Yuasa and Sadock’s aforementioned typology.
3A Biblical Hebrew example illustrating the issue is provided in (1):
(1) |
Pseudo-subordination in Biblical Hebrew (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
4In the case of (1) and the following Phoenician (2), Safaitic (3), and Sabaic (4) examples, we argue for the following scenario. While the infinitive absolute usually denotes a subordinated activity, the semantics of the two or more activities in these cases appear to be more coordinated than subordinated. Hence the categorisation as ‘pseudo-subordination’.
(2) |
Pseudo-subordination in Phoenician (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
‘And I shattered the villains and uprooted all the evil.’ (cf. |
|
(3) |
Pseudo-subordination in Safaitic (Old North Arabic) (finite verb form joined with an infinitive; cf. Al-Jallad 2015, 182) |
(4) |
Pseudo-subordination in Sabaic (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
5Interestingly, a comparable construction is attested in Norwegian (Lødrup 2002, 2014; Wiklund 2007; Johannessen and Edzard 2015) (5):
(5) |
Pseudo-coordination in Norwegian (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
6In this case, the infinitive ‘to wait’, which we would expect in a syntactically subordinated position (not on the same level), is coordinated by the conjunction og ‘and’; hence the categorisation ‘pseudo-coordination’.
7In contrast, the Swahili example (6) again represents a case of pseudo-subordination, as semantic coordination obtains:
(6) |
Pseudo-subordination in Swahili (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
8In the following, we investigate the model of (pseudo-) coordination and (pseudo-) subordination proposed by Yuasa and Sadock (2002), which contains the four different categories exposed in (7), with a modular categorisation into syntax and semantics. We first present Yuasa and Sadock’s model, based on a number of Yiddish examples, and then apply it to Semitic data.
2.0. The Yiddish and Semitic Data in Terms of Yuasa and Sadock (2002)
2.1. A Basic Typology
9With respect to Semitic data, ‘pseudo-coordination’ and, to a lesser degree, ‘pseudo-subordination’ (which terms are defined below) have received implicit attention in the realm of converb (gerund) and serial verb constructions. Cf., e.g., Woidich (2002); Versteegh (2009) for Arabic; Meyer (2012) for Amharic; Edzard (2014a; 2014b) for (Ethio-) Semitic; Johannessen and Edzard (2015) for Semitic and north-Germanic; Andrason (2019) for Biblical Hebrew; Andrason and Koo (2020) for Biblical Aramaic (with many further references); cf. also, e.g., Ross (2016, 211). As always in linguistics, the following caveat should right away be formulated: one should not automatically consider the syntactic features of a target language or language of analysis, typically English, as the norm or even the ‘underlying’ structure of the source language, or language under analysis. This holds also and especially for the categories coordination (parataxis) and subordination (hypotaxis).
10Table 1 lists the basic categories presented in Yuasa and Sadock (2002), a classic bi-polar scheme. The fact that Yuasa and Sadock base their typology on nominal syntax in no way affects the validity of their model for verbal syntax. What matters here is simply the Boolean bi-polar scheme (the category ‘subordinate’ could also be encoded as ‘−coordinate’):
11For the sake of illustration, we start by reviewing some of Yuasa and Sadock’s (2002, 111ff) Yiddish examples in the nominal realm. The case of simple coordination is the most basic. In (7a), tate ‘father’ and mame ‘mother’ are on the same level, and one would expect plural agreement with any following verbal predicate (7a):
(7a) |
Simple (‘normal’) nominal coordination in Yiddish |
12Yuasa and Sadock provide no matching example of nominal pseudo-coordination, e.g., an example where the second noun would be dependent on the first one, but one might compare a standard Classical Arabic construction, such as (7b):
(7b) |
Nominal pseudo-coordination (mafʿūl maʿa-hū) in Arabic |
13The traditional grammatical explanation here is that the conjunction wa- ‘and’ is reanalysed as a preposition, but an account of (7b) may well refer to the concept of pseudo-coordination in this case.
14Yuasa and Sadock’s example of simple (or ‘normal’) subordination in Yiddish is the following (7c):
(7c) |
Simple (‘normal’) nominal subordination in Yiddish |
15Here hunt ‘dog’ is both syntactically and semantically subordinate, i.e., a subsequent verbal predicate would refer only to the rebe ‘rabbi’, not to the dog, and would always be in the singular.
16Example (7d) is a priori ambiguous. Formally it looks like simple subordination (7c), but in principle, both subordinate ‘inegalitarian’ and coordinate ‘egalitarian’ readings are possible:
(7d) |
Nominal pseudo-subordination in Yiddish |
17The appropriate reading as a pseudo-subordination is borne out in example (7e), clearly a construction ad sensum, i.e., a construction in which semantics override syntax. The verbal predicate exhibits plural agreement, referring to both tate ‘father’ and mame ‘mother’, even though mame ‘mother’ is syntactically subordinate (in standard German, (7e) would be ungrammatical):
(7e) |
Nominal pseudo-subordination in Yiddish |
2.2. The Semitic Material
18On both the phrasal (nominal) and the sentential (verbal) level, there exist coordinating (paratactic) and subordinating (hypotactic) constructions in Semitic that are not fundamentally different from comparable constructions in Germanic or Romance, so they will not be covered here. In the following, we will concentrate on instances of verbal pseudo-coordination and pseudo-subordination.
19As a further preliminary remark: it is not always possible to place a given construction in the model by Yuasa and Sadock, as borderline cases do exist. The main issue in Semitic is that coordinated structures may appear asyndetically, i.e., without an intervening conjunction, and that subordinated structures may appear with an intervening conjunction, thus blurring the basic picture. The following instances of pseudo-coordination and pseudo-subordination are salient in Semitic and beyond and will be treated here, first cases of pseudo-coordination (§§2.2.1–4), and then cases of pseudo-subordination (§§2.2.5–6). It is not claimed that the following typology is in any way exhaustive.
20Pseudo-coordination
212.2.1. Syndetic constructions with posture or motion verbs
222.2.2. Syndetic serial-verb constructions
232.2.3. Asyndetic serial-verb constructions
242.2.4. Syndetic converb (-like) constructions
25Pseudo-subordination
262.2.5. Asyndetic converb construction
272.2.6. Syndetic constructions consisting of finite VPs and infinitives
282.2.1. syndetic Constructions with Posture or Motion Verbs
29We start out with cases of pseudo-coordination, i.e., cases, where, in spite of coordinating syntax, subordination obtains on the semantic level. Typically, such constructions involve as first constituents verbs that are semantically reduced. As in Scandinavian languages, syndetic constructions with a posture verb are not unusual in both older and more recent Semitic language varieties. In (8), representing Levantine Arabic, the posture verb qaʿdat ‘she sat’ is semantically bleached (reduced) or, if one so pleases, grammaticalised.
(8) |
Pseudo-coordination with a posture verb (cf. Ross 2016, |
30A Biblical-Aramaic example of pseudo-coordination with a posture verb, here qå̄m ‘to arise’, is the following (9):
(9) |
Pseudo-coordination with a posture verb in Biblical Aramaic (cf. Andrason and Koo 2000, 10) |
31Syndetic constructions with motion verbs occur as well; these are typologically close to the following type represented in (10) and (11), to wit, syndetic serial-verb constructions. First is a Gǝʿǝz example of pseudo-coordination with a motion verb, ʾaqdämku ‘I preceded’, which in English is best rendered by an adverb (10).
(10) |
Pseudo-coordination with a motion verb (cf. Rubin 2005, 33) |
32The Norwegian example (5) cited above and repeated below (11), in which ‘remaining standing’ and ‘waiting’ are also syntactically parallel (on the same level), likewise belongs to the category of pseudo-coordination. On the semantic level, however, we observe subordination in this case (‘standing’ and ‘waiting’ are not on the same level).
(11) |
Pseudo-coordination in Norwegian (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
2.2.2. Syndetic Serial-verb Constructions
33Closely related to the previous type are serial-verb constructions sometimes referred to a ‘verbal hendiadys’ (cf., most recently, Andrason 2019), in which the first semantically bleached or grammaticalised verb is again best rendered by an adverb in European languages. The prototypical case here is to do something again, as expressed by the verbs ו ַ י ּ ףס way-yōsεp̄ ‘and he added’ and atūr ‘I returned’ in Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian, respectively, as in the following two examples.
(12) |
Syndetic serial-verb constructions in Biblical Hebrew |
(13) |
Syndetic serial-verb constructions in Akkadian (cf. |
2.2.3 Asyndetic Serial-verb Constructions
34Asyndetic serial-verb constructions also occur in more recent registers of Arabic. Alongside the already encountered verb rigiʿ ‘he returned’ one finds the ingressive verb qāmū ‘they began’, as in the following two examples.
(14) |
Asyndetic serial-verb construction in Middle Arabic (cf. |
(15) |
Asyndetic serial-verb construction in Cairene Arabic (cf. |
2.2.4. Syndetic Converb (-like) Constructions
35In the following two examples, the two converb-like constructions ka-hărīm-ī ‘as my lifting’ (Biblical Hebrew) and pʿl ʾnk ‘my making’ (Phoenician), i.e., infinitives followed by either an enclitic pronominal suffix or an independent pronoun—from a Semitic perspective, this is the underlying structure of converbs— are followed by a finite verb (cf. also Lipiński 2010). Even though the semantics of the resulting construction are of a subordinating character, the syntax is basically coordinating; hence the categorisation as pseudo-coordination.
(16) |
Syndetic converb (-like) construction in Biblical Hebrew (cf. Lipiński 2001, 427) |
(17) |
Syndetic converb (-like) construction in Phoenician (cf. Lipiński 2001, 427) |
2.2.5. Asyndetic Converb Constructions
36We now turn to the opposite scenario, pseudo-subordination, in which one constituent appears in a typically subordinate state (converb/gerund or infinitive), even though the semantics of the resulting construction are more of a coordinating character (as stated previously, borderline cases to simple [normal] subordination nevertheless exist). Amharic makes use of converbs in the expression of semantically coordinated chains of events (for an in-depth analysis, cf. Meyer 2012).
37The fact that the events expressed by converbs in (18), ṭärtäw ‘having called (pl)’ and täsaffəräw ‘having gotten in (pl)’, precede the final event expressed by a finite verb, yədärsallu ‘they arrive’, does not necessarily make the non-final events semantically subordinate.
(18) |
Asyndetic converb construction in Amharic (cf. Appleyard |
38The same holds for (19), even though gäbto ‘coming in’ is reminiscent of a motion verb. However, no semantic bleaching or grammaticalisation takes place in this case.
(19) |
Asyndetic converb construction in Amharic |
39In other cases, e.g., (20), true subordination obtains (here indicating manner).
(20) |
Asyndetic converb construction in Amharic |
40In other languages, e.g., Turkish, true subordination can be observed in similar constructions, as in (21). Here, the first event clearly conditions the occurrence of the second event.
(21) |
Asyndetic converb construction in Turkish (cf. Johanson 1995, 313) |
2.2.6. Syndetic Constructions Consisting of Finite VPs and Infinitives
41We turn now to the origin of our paper, i.e., the phenomenon of syndetic constructions consisting of finite VPs and infinitives. These are also subsumed under the category pseudo-subordination. While an infinitive usually marks a semantically subordinated event, in the following examples the events mostly occur on the same semantic level. A possible explanation, suggested by several of the cited authors, is that once the tense/aspect of the first event is firmly established by a finite verb form, the relevant morphological information can be ‘economised’ in a subsequent verb form, leaving a blank infinitive. Here follow examples, some of which were already introduced at the outset of this paper, in the languages Phoenician, Safaitic (old Northern Arabic), Sabaic, and Biblical Hebrew (cf. also Rubinstein 1952; Huesman 1956; and Morrison 2013).
(22) |
Phoenician (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) (cf. Hackett 2013) |
(23) |
Safaitic (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) (cf. Al-Jallad 2015, 182) |
(24) |
Safaitic (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) (cf. Al-Jallad 2015, 182) |
(25) |
Sabaic (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) (cf. Nebes 1988, 54) |
(26) |
Biblical Hebrew (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) ה ֲ נ ִ ג ְֹ ל ֶ ה נ ִ ג ְ תיל ִ י ב־לא ֵ תי א ָ ב ִָ י ָ ך ִ ב ֽ ה ְ וי ָ ת ּ ם ב ְ מ ִ צ ְַ ר ָ י ִ ם ל ְ ב ּ תי פ ְַ ער ֽ ׃ה בו ָ ח ֵ ר ָ ותא מ ִ כ ָ ־ל ... ׁ ש ִ ב ְ ט ּ י י ִ ש ְָ אר ּ ל |
(27) |
Biblical Hebrew (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
(28) |
Biblical Hebrew (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
42In some of these examples, e.g., in Phoenician (22) and Biblical Hebrew (28), the events occur strictly on the same level. In other examples, the final event (expressed by an infinitive) is indeed the end of a chain of actions, without, however, engendering the subordination of the previous events. Therefore, the labelling pseudo-subordination is perfectly justified.
(29) |
Biblical Hebrew (imperfective finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
(30) |
Biblical Hebrew (jussive finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
43Comparable examples of pseudo-subordination of consecutive verb forms, participles, and infinitives construct with an infinitive absolute exist as well, e.g., in the case of a mixture of infinitives and participles.
(31) |
Biblical Hebrew (participle joined with an infinitive) |
2.3. Typological Considerations
44Interestingly, similar constructions are also found in other language families, e.g., in totally unrelated Swahili, thus pointing to a typologically widespread feature. Again, the events in the following three examples (Nadine Bayer, personal communication; cf. also Schadeberg 2010) all occur on the same level.
(32) |
Swahili (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
(33) |
Swahili (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
(34) |
Swahili (finite verb form joined with an infinitive) |
3.0. Conclusion
45In section 2 of this paper we have provided numerous examples from Semitic languages of seeming mismatches involving coordination. The main issue in Semitic is that coordinated structures may appear asyndetically, i.e., without an intervening conjunction, and that seemingly subordinated structures may appear with an intervening conjunction, thus blurring the basic picture. We have applied Yuasa and Sadock’s (2002) modular syntax and semantics model, which allows a structure to be coordination at one level and subordination at the other, and vice versa. First, cases of pseudo-coordination were presented, and subsequently cases of pseudo-subordination, in the hope that the system is intuitive enough and the application meaningful.
46It is often claimed (e.g., Andrason and Koo 2020, 8, 29), at least as regards the older Semitic languages, especially Akkadian and Northwest Semitic, that there is a linear grammaticalisation path of serialisation in Semitic from the late third millennium BCE up to the early first millennium CE. As a corollary of this paper, this impression is not necessarily confirmed, as already Akkadian features clear cases of grammaticalised serial verbs. Equally, the specific combination of the infinitive absolute and finite verbs is already attested in Phoenician. Within Biblical Hebrew, however, the observation that this construction becomes more salient in Late Biblical Hebrew appears to be true.
Bibliographie
References
Al-Jallad, Ahmad. 2015. An Outline of the Grammar of the Safaitic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill.
Andrason, Alexandar. 2019. ‘Categorial Gradience and Fuzziness—The QWM Gram (Serial Verb Construction) in Biblical Hebrew’. In Ancient Texts and Modern Readers: Studies in Ancient Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation, edited by Gideon R. Kotzé, Christian Locatell, and John Messarra, 100–26. Leiden: Brill.
Andrason, Alexander, and Bonsam Koo. 2020. ‘Verbal serialization in Biblical Aramaic’. Altorientalische Forschungen 47 (1): 3–33.
Appleyard, David. 1995. Colloquial Amharic: A Complete Language Course. London: Routledge.
Callaham, Scott N. 2010. Modality and the Hebrew Infinitive Absolute. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Edzard, Lutz. 2014a. ‘The Finite–infinite Dichotomy in a Comparative Semitic Perspective’. In Explorations in Ethiopian Linguistics: Complex Predicates, Finiteness and Interrogativity, edited by Azeb Amha, Ronny Meyer, and Yvonne Treis, 205–23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
— ——. 2014b. ‘Complex Predicates and Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC): Serial Verbs and Converbs in a Comparative Semitic Perspective’. In Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Clause Linking in Semitic Languages 5–7 August 2012 in Kivik, Sweden, edited by Bo Isaksson and Maria Persson, 207–30. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Erickson, Helen, and Marianne Gustafsson. 1984. Umoja ni Nguvu. Uppsala: Church of Sweden Mission.
Fassberg, Steven E. 2007. ‘The Infinitive Absolute as Finite Verb and Standard Literary Hebrew of the Second Temple Period’. In Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, edited by Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey, 47–60. Leiden: Brill.
Hackett, Jo Ann. 2013. ‘Presentation on Phoenician Inscriptions at the University of Oslo’. 24 May 2013.
Hammershaimb, Erling. 1963. ‘On the So-called infinitivus absolutus in Hebrew’. In Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver, edited by D. Winton Thomas and William D. McHardy, 85–94. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Huehnergard, John. 2005. A Grammar of Akkadian. 2nd edition. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Huesman, John. 1956. ‘Finite Uses of the Infinitive Absolute’. Biblica 37: 271–95.
Johannessen, Janne Bondi, and Lutz Edzard. 2015. ‘Coordinated Clause Structures in Scandinavian and Semitic Involving a Finite Verb Form and an Infinitive’. In Arabic and Semitic Linguistics Contextualized: A Festschrift for Jan Retsö, edited by Lutz Edzard, 486–505. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Johanson, Lars. 1995. ‘On Turkic Converb Clauses’. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms—Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, edited by Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König, 313–47. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lipiński, Edward. 2001. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2nd edition. Leuven: Peeters.
— ——. 2010. ‘Le gérondif en phénicien’. Journal of Semitic Studies 55 (1): 1–10.
Lødrup, Helge. 2002. ‘The Syntactic Structures of Norwegian Pseudocoordinations’. Studia Linguistica 56 (2): 121–43.
— ——. 2014. ‘There Is No reanalysis in Norwegian Pseudocoordinations (Except When There Is)’. In Affaire (s) de grammaire, edited by Hans Petter Helland and Christine Meklenborg Salvesen, 43–65. Oslo: Novus Press.
Meyer, Ronny. 2012. ‘The Converb in Amharic’. In Grammaticalization in Semitic, edited by Domenyk Eades, 165–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morrison, Craig E. 2013. ‘Infinitive: Biblical Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al., II: 266–69. Leiden: Brill.
Nebes, Norbert. 1987. ‘Zur Konstruktion von Subjekt und Objekt abhängiger Infinitive im Sabäischen’. In Ṣayhadica—Recherches sur les inscriptions de l’Arabie préislamique offertes par ses collègues au Professeur A.F.L. Beeston, edited by Christian Robin and Muḥammad Bafāqīh, 75–98. Paris: Geuthner.
— ——. 1988. ‘The Infinitive in Sabaean and Qatabanian Inscriptions’. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 18: 63– 78.
Ross, Daniel. 2016. ‘Between Coordination and Subordination: Typological, Structural and Diachronic Perspectives on Pseudocoordination’. In Coordination and Subordination: Form and Meaning—Selected Papers from CSI Lisbon 2014, edited by Fernanda Pratas, Sandra Pereira, and Clara Pinto, 209–43. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Rubinstein, Arie. 1952. ‘A Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute in Hebrew’. Vetus Testamentum 2: 362–67.
Schadeberg, Thilo. 2010. ‘Conjoint infinitive clauses in Swahili’. In Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale: Mélanges offerts à Denis Creissels, edited by Franck Floricic, 107–18. Lyon: ENS éditions.
van der Merwe, Christo H.J., and Alexander Andrason. 2014. ‘Finite Infinite? ‘Finite’ Uses of the Biblical Hebrew Infinitive Absolute and Their Rationale’. Journal of Semitic Studies 59 (2): 255–96.
Versteegh, Kees. 2009. ‘Serial verbs’. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh et al., IV: 195–99. Leiden: Brill.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O‘Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Wang, Ting, and Benjamin Noonan. 2017. ‘The Infinitive Absolute and Construct’. In Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?: A Grammatical Tribute to Professor Stephen A. Kaufman, edited by Hélène Daillaire, Benjamin Noonan, and Jennifer Noonan, 259–74. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Woidich, Manfred. 2002. ‘Verbalphrasen mit asyndetischem Perfekt im Ägyptisch-Arabischen’. Estudios de Dialectologia Norteafricana y Andalusí 6: 121–192.
Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2007. The Syntax of Tenselessness: Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing Infinitivals. Studies in Generative Grammar 92. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yuasa, Etsuyo, and Jerry M. Sadock. 2002. ‘Pseudo-subordination: A Mismatch between Syntax and Semantics’. Journal of Linguistics 38: 87–111.
Notes
1 The author wishes to thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable input regarding a number of details and bibliographical references.
Table des illustrations
![]() | |
---|---|
Titre | Table 1: Scheme (Yuasa and Sadock 2002, 91) |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/20270/img-1.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 20k |
© Open Book Publishers, 2021
Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0