Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

101325 results in Language and Linguistics

Page 36 of 5067

  • LAN volume 31 issue 1-Part2 Cover and Front matter

  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 31 / Issue 1-Part2 / March 1955
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    22 April 2026, pp. f1-f7
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Juncture and Syllable Division in Latin

  • Archibald A. Hill
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 30 / Issue 4 / December 1954
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    22 April 2026, pp. 439-447

  • There have been a number of successful attempts, such as Kent's, to explain variations in scansion or in the development of Vulgar Latin forms in terms of variations in syllable division. It is also rather commonly accepted that Latin had some means of marking word boundaries—that is to say, had a juncture phoneme. There has not been (to my knowledge at least) any attempt to put syllable division and juncture together in a systematic fashion, to see what each can tell us about the other and what both can tell us about the phonemic structure of the language. Such a synthesis is the task here attempted. It is the contention of this paper that when the two are put together, three situation types emerge: normal syllable division, normal syllable division accompanied by juncture, and syllable division of a type that requires juncture.

  • Noun Morphology in Romanian

  • Frederick B. Agard
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 29 / Issue 2-Part1 / June 1953
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    22 April 2026, pp. 134-142

  • This paper is a morphophonemic and morphemic study of a class of Romanian words defined by their inflectional behavior as nouns. The point of departure is an array of isolated examples in phonemic form; the result is a classification of nouns by morphological types and a morphemic formula. The corpus from which the examples are drawn consists of Romanian texts interpreted with the aid of native speakers, supplemented with utterances by the speakers themselves.

  • Dempwolff's *R

  • Isidore Dyen
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 29 / Issue 3 / September 1953
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    22 April 2026, pp. 359-366

  • 1. Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *R was reconstructed by Dempwolff to account for the correspondence of Tagalog g with Toba-Batak r and the lack of a corresponding phoneme in Javanese (i.e. loss of a consonant and contraction of the abutting vowels); thus, *beRas, Tg. bigás, Jv. wòs, TBt. boras ‘polished rice’. Certain contradictions to Dempwolff's formula appeared not only in the Javanese cognates, but in those of Ngaju-Dayak and Merina, a dialect of Malagasy. The present article will examine these contradictions, to see whether they suggest hitherto unrecognized PMP distinctions.

  • The Monophthongization of Gothic ái áu

  • William H. Bennett
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 25 / Issue 1 / March 1949
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    22 April 2026, pp. 15-21

  • The long-established hypothesis that Gothic ái áu still represented the diphthongs [ai au] in the time of Wulfila is expressed in the writings of such scholars as Jellinek, Streitberg, Braune, and Kieckers. In recent years, however, an increasing number of linguists, including Hirt, Marstrander, Wright, and Mossé, have reached the conclusion that Wulfila's ái áu were no longer diphthongs but had become monophthongized to long open [ε: ɔ:] respectively. Still others, e.g. Wrede and Prokosch, agree only that such a monophthongization took place. Wrede assigns it to the post-Wulfilian period, and Prokosch qualifies his acceptance of the theory: ‘I believe that Hirt is right, but the question is largely one of chronology. Shortly before Wulfila's time, Gmc. ai au were still diphthongs in Gothic ... . Shortly after Wulfila, they were monophthongs’.

Page 36 of 5067