Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T09:33:43.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subjectivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

W. P. Lehmann
W. P. Lehmann*
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historical linguistics has primarily used phonological evidence for genealogical classification. The evidence consists of ‘characteristic facts and details’, in Meillet's terms. Syntactic evidence can now be used. Subjectivity, i.e. the subjective dominance of the principal verb in a sentence, is cited as an illustration of a ‘characteristic fact’ in Proto-Indo-European and its dialects.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 1974 , pp. 622 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, W. S. 1953. Relationship in comparative linguistics. TPS 1953. 52–108.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1925. Why a linguistic society? Lg. 1. 1–5.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1970. Italic and Celtic superlatives and the dialects of Indo-European. Indo-European and Indo-Europeans, ed. by Cardona, George, Hoenigswald, Henry M. & Senn, Alfred, 113–53. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1966. Proto-Indo-European kinship. Ethnology 5. 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, J. H., 73–113. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1935. La catégorie des cas: étude de grammaire générale, I. (Acta Jutlandica, 7.) Aarhus.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lewy, Ernst. 1942. Der Bau der europäischen Sprachen. (Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 48.C.2.) Dublin: Hodges, Figgis.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1925. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1967. The comparative method in historical linguistics. Trans, by Ford, Gordon B. Jr. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Miller, Roy Andrew. 1967. The Japanese language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Schild, Alfred. 1962. Review of Relativity: the general theory, by Synge, J. L. Bull. of the Amer. Math. Soc. 68. 167–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: selected writings, ed. by Carroll, John B. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wordick, Frank J. F. 1970. A generative-extensionist analysis of the Proto-Indo-European kinship system with a phonological and semantic reconstruction of the terms. University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar