Abraham, Werner (2004). ‘Intensivität und Diminutivität der Redu[pli]k[a]tionsmorphologie in Pidgin- und Kreolsprachen: janusgesichtige Ikonizität’, in Krisch et al. (2004), 2.493–504.Google Scholar

Abraham, Werner (2005). ‘Intensity and diminution triggered by reduplicating morphology: Janus-faced iconicity’, in Hurch (2005), 547–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abraham, Werner, and Leisiö, Larisa (eds.) (2006). Passivization and Typology: Form and Function. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Ackermann, Katsiaryna (2009). ‘Zum slavischen asigmatischen Aorist’, in Nedoma and Stifter (2009), 1–10.Google Scholar

Ackermann, Katsiaryna (2011). ‘Kontinuität und Innovation in der Genese des slavischen Verbums: Das System des urslavischen Aorists’, in Krisch, and Lindner, (2011), 18–28.Google Scholar

Ackermann, Katsiaryna (2014). Die Vorgeschichte des slavischen Aoristsystems mit der kommentierten Belegsammlung der Aoristformen und Formen des präteritalen passiven Partizipiums im Altkirchenslavischen. Leiden and Boston.Google Scholar

Adams, Douglas Q. (1988). Tocharian Historical Phonology and Morphology. New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar

Adams, Douglas Q. (1994). ‘The Tocharian Class III Preterite and related Indo-European formations’, in Rasmussen, and Nielsen, (1994), 1–28.Google Scholar

Adams, Douglas Q. (ed.) (1997). Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp, i. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Adamson, Sylvia M., Law, Vivien A., Vincent, Nigel, and Wright, Susan (eds.) (1990). Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adiego, Ignasi-Xavier (2015). ‘Lycian nasalized preterites revisited’. IF 120: 1–30.Google Scholar

Adrados, Francisco R. (1971). ‘On Indo-European sigmatic verbal stems’. Archivum Linguisticum n.s. 2: 95–116.Google Scholar

Adrados, Francisco R. (1974). Evolución y estructura del verbo indoeuropeo (2nd edn., 2 vols.). Madrid.Google Scholar

Adrados, Francisco R. (1981a). ‘Perfect, middle voice and Indoeuropean verbal endings’. Emerita 49: 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adrados, Francisco R. (1981b). ‘Indo-European -s-stems and the origins of polythematic verbal inflection’. IF 86: 96–122.Google Scholar

Adrados, Francisco R. (1985). ‘Der Ursprung der grammatischen Kategorien des Indoeuropäischen’, in Schlerath, and Rittner, (1985), 1–46.Google Scholar

Adrados, Francisco R., Bernabé, Alberto, and Mendoza, Julia (1996). Manual de lingüística indoeuropea, ii. Morfología nominal y verbal. Madrid.Google Scholar

Ahlqvist, Anders (ed.) (1982). Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Aitzetmüller, Rudolf (1962). ‘Slav. iměti und das idg. Perfekt’. Sprache 8: 250–62.Google Scholar

Aitzetmüller, Rudolf (1968). ‘Das angebliche s-Futurum des Slavischen’, in Mayrhofer, et al. (1968), 11–16.Google Scholar

Aitzetmüller, Rudolf (1991). Altbulgarische Grammatik als Einführung in die slavische Sprachwissenschaft (2nd edn.). Freiburg i. Br.Google Scholar

Albright, Adam (2008). ‘Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change’, in Good, (2008), 144–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alfieri, Luca (2008). ‘Alcune note sui denominali indoeuropei e il suffisso *-ye/o-’. IF 113: 29–58.Google Scholar

Allan, Rutger J. (2003). The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Alp, Sedat, and Süel, Aygül (eds.) (1998). Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology. Ankara.Google Scholar

Ambrosini, Riccardo (1962). ‘Concordanze nella struttura formale delle categorie verbali indo-europee’. SSL 2: 33–97.Google Scholar

Ambrosini, Riccardo, Bologna, Maria Patrizia, Motta, Filippo, and Orlandi, Chatia (eds.) (1997). Scríbthair a ainm n-ogaim. Scritti in memoria di Enrico Campanile, i. Pisa.Google Scholar

Ammann, Hermann (1949). ‘Zum Gebrauch des Duals bei Homer’. Sprache 1: 195–203.Google Scholar

Anciferova, G. M. (1988). ‘O nekotoryx formax atematičeskogo kornevogo prezensa (v svjazi s tak nazyvaemym “proterodinamičeskim” prezensom)’. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31: 267–308.Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning (ed.) (1995). Historical Linguistics 1993. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning (ed.) (2003). Language Contacts in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning (2009). ‘On the origin of the Slavic aspects: questions of chronology’, in Bubeník, et al. (2009), 123–40.Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning, and Koerner, Konrad (eds.) (1990). Historical Linguistics 1987. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Paul Kent (1985). ‘Die grammatische Kategorie Passiv im Altindischen: Ihre Funktion’, in Schlerath, and Rittner, (1985), 47–57.Google Scholar

Andersen, Paul Kent (1993). ‘Zur Diathese’. HS 106: 177–231.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. (1976). ‘On the notion of subject in ergative languages’, in Li, (1976), 1–23.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. (1977). ‘On mechanisms by which languages become ergative’, in Li, (1977), 317–63.Google Scholar

Anreiter, Peter, Haslinger, Marialuise, and Pohl, Heinz Dieter (eds.) (2004). Artes et Scientiae: Festschrift für Ralf-Peter Ritter zum 65. Geburtstag. Vienna.Google Scholar

Anttila, Raimo (1969). Proto-Indo-European Schwebeablaut. Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Anttila, Raimo (1972). ‘The pitfalls of ananke’. Sprache 18: 34–43.Google Scholar

Arbeitman, Yoël L. (ed.) (1988). A Linguistic Happening in Memory of Ben Schwartz. Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar

Arbeitman, Yoël L., and Bomhard, Allan R. (eds.) (1981). Bono homini donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns, i. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Arndt, Walter W., et al. (eds.) (1967). Studies in Historical Linguistics in Honor of George Sherman Lane. Chapel Hill.Google Scholar

Arnold, Edward Vernon (1897). ‘Sketch of the historical grammar of the Rig and Atharva Vedas’. JAOS 18: 203–353.Google Scholar

Arntz, Helmut (1933). Sprachliche Beziehungen zwischen Arisch und Balto-Slawisch. Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Arntz, Helmut (ed.) (1936). Germanen und Indogermanen: Volkstum, Sprache, Heimat, Kultur. Festschrift für Hermann Hirt, ii. Ergebnisse der Sprachwissenschaft, Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Arumaa, Peeter (1985). Urslavische Grammatik: Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen, iii. Formenlehre. Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Aura Jorro, Francisco (1985–93). Diccionario micénico (2 vols.). Madrid.Google Scholar

Austefjord, Anders (1979). ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des germanischen starken Präteritums’. IF 84: 208–15.Google Scholar

Austefjord, Anders (1988). ‘On the oldest type of aorists in Indo-European’. JIES 16: 23–32.Google Scholar

Avery, John (1872–80). ‘Contributions to the history of verb-inflection in Sanskrit’. JAOS 10: 219–324.Google Scholar

Avery, John (1885). ‘The unaugmented verb-forms of the Rig- and Atharva-Vedas’. JAOS 11: 326–61.Google Scholar

Back, Michael (1991). ‘Das Verhältnis von Aktionsarten und Tempus im Idg.’. HS 104: 279–302.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1967). ‘Le Système des désinences de troisième personne du pluriel du perfectum latin’. BSL 62: 87–105.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1968). ‘Vocalisme et redoublement au parfait radical en latin’. BSL 63: 160–96.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1969). ‘εἰκώς, ἐοικώς et le parfait redoublé en grec’. BSL 64: 57–100.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1972). ‘Parfait et moyen en grec’, in [Chantraine, ] (1972), 1–21.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1974). ‘Persée, πέρθω et l’expression archaïque du temps en indo-européen’. BSL 69: 1–53.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1978). ‘Flexions d’aoristes sigmatiques’, in [Lejeune, ] (1978), 29–44.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1980). ‘Présents moyens hittites à vocalisme -e-, et formations de présents indo-européens’, in Bingen, , Coupez, , and Mawet, (1980), 21–40.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1987). ‘Hittite duratives and the problem of I.E. present-formations with infix and suffix’. JIES 15: 121–56.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1991). ‘Problématique du génitif thématique sigmatique’. BSL 86: 89–157.Google Scholar

Bader, Françoise (1994). ‘Autour de gr. αἴω, οἶμαι: étymologie, prosodie, système verbal’. BSL 89: 193–228.Google Scholar

Bakker, Egbert J. (1994). ‘Voice, aspect and aktionsart: middle and passive in Ancient Greek’, in Fox, and Hopper, (1994), 23–47.Google Scholar

Bakker, Egbert J. (ed.) (1997a). Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts. Leiden, New York, Cologne.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakker, Egbert J. (1997b). ‘Verbal aspect and mimetic description in Thucydides’, in Bakker, (1997a), 7–54.Google Scholar

Bakker, Egbert J. (1999). ‘Pointing to the past: verbal augment and temporal deixis in Homer’, in Kazazis, and Rengakos, (1999), 50–65.Google Scholar

Bakker, Egbert J. (2001). ‘Similes, augment, and the language of immediacy’, in Watson, (2001), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakker, Egbert J. (2005). Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Baldi, Philip (1976). ‘Remarks on the Latin r-form verbs’. ZVS 90: 222–57.Google Scholar

Baldi, Philip (1991). ‘Lachmann’s Law in light of the glottalic theory of PIE consonantism’, in Coleman, (1991), 3–21.Google Scholar

Baldi, Philip, and Dini, Pietro U. (eds.) (2004). Studies in Baltic and Indo-European Linguistics: In Honor of William R. Schmalstieg. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Balles, Irene (2007). ‘A Greek laryngeal metathesis that needn’t be either … ’, in Nussbaum, (2007), 15–24.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1980). ‘Das Präteritalparadigma einiger “reduplizierender” Verben im Urgermanischen’, in Mayrhofer, et al. (1980), 1–21.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1981). ‘Das -nt-Partizip bei athematischen Verbalstämmen im Griechischen’. ZVS 95: 286–92.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1982a). ‘ἐγένετο und ἔγεντο’. Glotta 60: 27–31.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1982b). ‘Das litauische Paradigma der idg. Wurzel *dō- “geben”’. IF 87: 239–50.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1982c). ‘On the ablaut of athematic verbs in Indo-European’. JIES 10: 43–51.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1982/3). ‘Zur Entstehung der vedischen Imperative auf -(s)i’. ZVS 96: 1–5.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1983). ‘Reflexe der indogermanischen Wurzel *g^wyō-/g^wī- im Griechischen’. IF 88: 227–34.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1984). Studien zur Laryngaltheorie. Göttingen.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1985). ‘Thematische und athematische Wurzelaoriste im Indogermanischen’, in Schlerath, and Rittner, (1985), 71–8.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (ed.) (1988a). Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems. Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1988b). ‘Der indogermanische Aorist und das germanische Präteritum’, in Jazayery, and Winter, (1988), 55–62.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (1993 [1994]). ‘Das Kennzeichen für die 2. Person Singular im Litauischen’. MSS 54: 9–14.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, Alfred (2004). ‘Lithuanian esmì and esù “I am”: on the spread of the thematic present paradigm in Indo-European languages’, in Baldi, and Dini, (2004), 19–26.Google Scholar

Barber, Peter (2013). Sievers’ Law and the History of Semivowel Syllabicity in Indo-European and Ancient Greek. Oxford.Google Scholar

Barđdal, Jóhanna, and Eythórsson, Thórhallur (2009). ‘The origin of the oblique subject construction: an Indo-European comparison’, in Bubeník et al. (2009), 179–93.Google Scholar

Barschel, Bernd (1986). ‘Der Modusbestand des Hethitischen – eine Altertümlichkeit?’. MSS 47: 5–21.Google Scholar

Bartholomae, Christian (1888). ‘Arica’. ZVS 29: 271–92.Google Scholar

Bartholomae, Christian (1894). ‘Zur Vokaldehnung im Präteritum’. IF 3: 1–62.Google Scholar

Bartolotta, Annamaria (2009). ‘Root lexical features and inflectional marking of tense in Proto-Indo-European’. Journal of Linguistics 45: 505–32.Google Scholar

Bartolotta, Annamaria (ed.) (2014). The Greek Verb: Morphology, Syntax, and Semantics. Louvain-la-Neuve and Walpole, Mass.Google Scholar

Bartolotta, Annamaria (2016). ‘Inherent telicity and Proto-Indo-European verbal paradigms’. Rivista Italiana di Linguistica e Dialettologia 18: 9–50.Google Scholar

Barton, Charles R. (1982). ‘Greek ἐγήρᾱ’. Glotta 60: 31–49.Google Scholar

Barton, Charles R. (1988). ‘PIE *seng^u̯-’, in Arbeitman, (1988), 463–74.Google Scholar

Barton, Charles R. (1989). ‘PIE. mer-, Arm. meranim “die”’. IF 94: 135–57.Google Scholar

Barton, Charles R. (1990/1). ‘On the denominal a-statives of Armenian’. REArm 22: 29–52.Google Scholar

Barton, Charles R. (1993). ‘Greek τέθηπα, etc.’. Glotta 71: 1–9.Google Scholar

Bartoněk, Antonín (2003). Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Basset, Louis (1989). ‘L’Augment et la distinction discours/récit dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée’, in Casevitz, (1989), 9–16.Google Scholar

Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan (1894). ‘Einiges über Palatalisierung (Palatalisation) und Entpalatalisierung (Dispalatalisation)’. IF 4: 45–57.Google Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte (2000). Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte (2009). ‘Residues as an aid in internal reconstruction’, in Rasmussen, and Olander, (2009), 17–31.Google Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte, and Pinault, Georges-Jean (eds.) (2003). Language in Time and Space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday. Berlin and New York.Google Scholar

Bechert, Johannes (1969). ‘Ein Bauprinzip in der Morphologie der indogermanischen Sprachen’. MSS 25: 11–26.Google Scholar

Bechtel, George (1936). Hittite Verbs in -sk-: A Study of Verbal Aspect. Ann Arbor, Mich.Google Scholar

Beck, Wilhelm (1919). De augmenti apud Homerum usu. Giessen.Google Scholar

Beckman, Gary, Beal, Richard, and McMahon, Gregory (eds.) (2003). Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Winona Lake, Ind.Google Scholar

Beckwith, Miles C. (1994). ‘Greek ηὗρον, laryngeal loss and the Greek reduplicated aorist’. Glotta 72: 24–30.Google Scholar

Beckwith, Miles C. (1999). ‘Homeric (ἐκ)λέλαθον’. HS 112: 78–85.Google Scholar

Beckwith, Miles C. (2002). ‘Greek verbs in -ίσκω: a paradigmatic solution’, in Southern (2002), 1–7.Google Scholar

Beckwith, Miles C. (2004). ‘Homeric ἠνώγεον (Η 394), ἐρρῑ́γει (ψ 216) and the imperfect origins of the Greek pluperfect’. HS 117: 76–85.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1969). The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek. The Hague and Paris.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1972). ‘H₂O’. Sprache 18: 117–31.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1973). ‘The proterodynamic “perfect”’. ZVS 87: 86–98.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1979). ‘GAv. uzirəidyāi and rārəša-’. MSS 38: 9–20.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1981a). ‘The disyllabic reduplication of the Sanskrit intensives’. MSS 40: 19–25.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1981b). ‘The subjunctive endings of Indo-Iranian’. IIJ 23: 21–7.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1985). The Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Innsbruck.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1988). ‘Laryngeal developments: a survey’, in Bammesberger, (1988a), 59–105.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1990). ‘Wackernagel’s explanation of the lengthened grade’, in Eichner, and Rix, (1990), 33–53.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (1990[92]). ‘The genitive in *-osio’. Folia Linguistica Historica 11: 21–5.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (2010). Etymological Dictionary of Greek (2 vols.). Leiden and Boston.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert S. P. (2011). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction (2nd edn., rev. de Vaan, Michiel). Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert, Lubotsky, Alexander, and Weitenberg, Jos (eds.) (1992). Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Innsbruck.Google Scholar

Belardi, Walter (1950). ‘La formazione del perfetto nell’indoeuropeo’. Ricerche Linguistiche 1: 93–131.Google Scholar

Bendahman, Jadwiga (1993). Der reduplizierte Aorist in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Egelsbach, Cologne, New York.Google Scholar

Bender, Ernest (ed.) (1962). Indological Studies in Honor of W. Norman Brown. New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar

Benedetti, Marina (2002). ‘Radici, morfemi nominali e verbali: alla ricerca dell’inaccusatività indoeuropea’. AGI 87: 20–45.Google Scholar

Benedetti, Marina (2002/3). ‘L’apparizione dell’Aurora e l’occhio del linguista: a proposito della radice *derk̑-’. SSL 40/41: 31–44.Google Scholar

Benediktsson, Hreinn (1960). ‘The vowel syncope in Oscan-Umbrian’. NTS 19: 157–295.Google Scholar

Bennett, Charles E. (1910–14). Syntax of Early Latin (2 vols.). Boston.Google Scholar

Bennett, Emmett L. Jr. (ed.) (1964). Mycenaean Studies. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Bennett, William H. (1962). ‘The parent suffix in Germanic weak verbs of Class III’. Language 38: 135–41.Google Scholar

Bentein, Klaas (2013). ‘prog imperfective drift in Ancient Greek? Reconsidering eimi “be” with present participle’. TPhS 111: 67–107.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile (1922). ‘Les Futurs et subjonctifs sigmatiques du latin archaïque’. BSL 23: 32–63.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile (1928). Étrennes de linguistique offertes par quelques amis à Émile Benveniste. Paris.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile (1935). Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile (1936). ‘Tokharien et indo-européen’, in Arntz, (1936), 227–40.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile (1946). ‘Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe’. BSL 43: 1–12.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile (1949). ‘Sur quelques développements du parfait indo-européen’. Archivum Linguisticum 1: 16–22.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile (1960). ‘“Être” et “avoir” dans leurs fonctions linguistiques’. BSL 60: 113–34.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile (1962). ‘Les Substantifs en -ant du hittite’. BSL 57: 44–51.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale, i. Paris.Google Scholar

Berg, Nils (1977). ‘Der Ursprung des altgriechischen aktiven Plusquamperfekts und die Entwicklung der alphathematischen Flexion: Ein Beispiel von systemimmanenter Instabilität und ständigem morphologischem Wandel’. NTS 31: 205–63.Google Scholar

Bernini, Giuliano, Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Molinelli, Piera (eds.) (1998). Ars Linguistica: Studi offerti da colleghi ed allievi a Paolo Ramat in occcasione del suo 60° Compleanno. Rome.Google Scholar

Berrettoni, Pierangiolo (1971). ‘Considerazioni sui verbi latini in -scō’. SSL 11: 89–169.Google Scholar

Berrettoni, Pierangiolo (1972a). ‘L’uso del perfetto nel greco omerico’. SSL 12: 25–170.Google Scholar

Berrettoni, Pierangiolo (1972b). ‘Su alcune caratteristiche del piuccheperfetto in Omero’. SSL 12: 171–82.Google Scholar

Berrettoni, Pierangiolo (1976). ‘Per un’analisi del rapporto tra significato lessicale e aspetto in greco antico’. SSL 16: 207–36.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco (1995). ‘Vers une typologie du progressif dans les langues d’Europe’. Modèles Linguistiques 16/2: 37–61.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco (2000). ‘The progressive in Romance, as compared with English’, in Dahl, Ö. (2000), 559–604.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco, and Cambi, Valentina (2006). ‘Hittite temporal adverbials and the aspectual interpretation of the -ške/a- suffix’, in Bombi, et al. (2006), 1.193–233.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco, and Delfitto, Denis (2000). ‘Aspect vs. actionality: why they should be kept apart’, in Dahl, Ö. (2000), 189–225.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Ebert, Karen H., and de Groot, Casper (2000). ‘The progressive in Europe’, in Dahl, Ö. (2000), 517–58.Google Scholar

Betts, John H., Green, John R., and Hooker, John T. (eds.) (1986). Studies in Honour of T. B. L. Webster, i. Bristol.Google Scholar

Bielmeier, Roland, and Stempel, Reinhard (eds.) (1994). Indogermanica et Caucasica: Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin and New York.Google Scholar

Biese, Yrjö M. (1950). Some Notes on the Origin of the Indo-European Nominative Singular (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, ser. B, no. 63). Helsinki.Google Scholar

Bingen, Jean, Coupez, André, and Mawet, Francine (eds.) (1980). Recherches de linguistique: Hommages à Maurice Leroy. Brussels.Google Scholar

Binnick, Robert I. (ed.) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford.Google Scholar

Birkmann, Thomas (1987). Präteritopräsentia: Morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse in den altgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen.Google Scholar

Birwé, Robert (1956). Griechisch-Arische Sprachbeziehungen im Verbalsystem. Walldorf/Hessen.Google Scholar

Blokland, Rogier, and Hasselblatt, Cornelius (eds.) (2002). Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and Literary Contacts. Maastricht.Google Scholar

Blumenthal, H. J. (1974). ‘Some Homeric evidence for the history of the augment’. IF 79: 67–77.Google Scholar

Bock, Bettina (2008). Die einfach thematischen Präsentien in der dritten Konjugation des Lateinischen. Graz.Google Scholar

Boeder, Winfried (1979). ‘Ergative syntax and morphology in language change: the South Caucasian languages’, in Plank, (1979a), 435–80.Google Scholar

[Boisacq, Émile] (1937). Mélanges Émile Boisacq. Brussels.Google Scholar

Bombi, Raffaella, Cifoletti, Guido, Fusco, Fabiana, Innocente, Lucia, and Orioles, Vincenzo (eds.) (2006). Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani (3 vols.). Alessandria.Google Scholar

Bomhard, Allan R. (1988). ‘The prehistoric development of the athematic verbal endings in Proto-Indo-European’, in Arbeitman, (1988), 475–88.Google Scholar

Bonfante, Giuliano (1932). ‘Lat. sum, es, est, etc.’. BSL 33: 111–29.Google Scholar

Bonfante, Giuliano(1934). ‘Note sur la chronologie de la langue hittite’. IF 52: 221–6.Google Scholar

[Bonfante, Giuliano] (1976). Scritti in onore di Giuliano Bonfante, i. Brescia.Google Scholar

Bopp, Franz (1816). Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Frankfurt.Google Scholar

Bopp, Franz (1833). Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litthauischen, Gothischen und Deutschen. Berlin.Google Scholar

Bopp, Franz (1837). Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litthauischen, Altslawischen, Gothischen und Deutschen: Dritte Abtheilung. Berlin.Google Scholar

Borgstrøm, Carl Hj. (1949). ‘Thoughts about Indo-European vowel-gradation’. NTS 15: 137–87.Google Scholar

Borik, Olga (2006). Aspect and Reference Time. Oxford.Google Scholar

Bottin, Luigi (1969). ‘Studio dell’aumento in Omero’. SMEA 10: 69–145.Google Scholar

Bowern, Claire, Evans, Bethwyn, and Miceli, Luisa (eds.) (2008). Morphology and Language History: In Honour of Harold Koch. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Bozzone, Chiara (2012). ‘The PIE subjunctive: function and development’, in Melchert, (2012), 7–18.Google Scholar

Brahmer, Mieczysław (ed.) (1966). Studies in Language and Literature in Honour of Margaret Schlauch. Warsaw.Google Scholar

Brandenstein, Wilhelm (1936). ‘Streifzüge’. Glotta 25: 27–35.Google Scholar

Brandenstein, Wilhelm (1967). ‘Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des aktiven Indikativs’, in Meid, (1967), 17–19.Google Scholar

Brandenstein, Wilhelm, and Mayrhofer, Manfred (1964). Handbuch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar

Bréal, Michel (1900). ‘Les Commencements du verbe’. MSL 11: 268–84.Google Scholar

Brettschneider, Gunter, and Lehmann, Christian (eds.) (1980). Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. Tübingen.Google Scholar

Brogyanyi, Bela, and Lipp, Reiner (eds.) (1992). Historical Philology: Greek, Latin, and Romance. Papers in Honor of Oswald Szemerényi, ii. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Brogyanyi, Bela, and Lipp, Reiner (eds.) (1993). Indo-European and Finno-Ugric: Papers in Honor of Oswald Szemerényi, iii. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Brosman, Paul W. Jr. (2010). ‘The nt-participles and the verbal adjectives in *-to-’. IF 115: 22–34.Google Scholar

Brugman(n), Karl (1878). ‘Zur geschichte der personalendungen. 3. Das suffix der 3. sg. perf. act.’, in Osthoff, and Brugman, (1878), 158–62.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1880a). ‘Beiträge zur conjugationslehre. 1. Der sogenannte unechte conjunctivus’, in Osthoff, and Brugman, (1880), 1–15.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1880b). ‘Beiträge zur conjugationslehre. 2. Zur sigmatischen aoristbildung im griechischen, italischen, keltischen und arischen’, in Osthoff, and Brugman, (1880), 16–90.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1881). ‘Der ursprung des griechischen schwachen perfects’. ZVS 25: 212–24.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1892a). ‘Etymologisches’. IF 1: 171–7.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1892b). ‘κατασβῶσαι bei Herodas’. IF 1: 501–5.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1902/3a). ‘Die ionischen Iterativpräterita auf -σκον’. IF 13: 267–77.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1902/3b). ‘Homerisch συνοκωχότε (Β 218)’. IF 13: 280.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1903/4). ‘Zur griech. und germ. Präsensflexion’. IF 15: 126–8.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1904/5). ‘Zur Bildung der 2. Person Singul. Akt. in den indogermanischen, insbesondere den baltischen Sprachen’. IF 17: 177–86.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1906). Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, ii. Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch, part 1 (2nd edn.). Strassburg.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1911). Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, ii. Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch, part 2 (2nd edn.). Strassburg.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1912/13). ‘Zu den reduplizierten Verbalbildungen des Indoiranischen’. IF 31: 89–104.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1913). ‘Zu den Ablautverhältnissen der sogenannten starken Verba des Germanischen’. IF 32: 179–95.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1913–16). Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, ii. Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch, part 3 (2nd edn.). Strassburg.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1914). ‘Die griechischen Desiderativa auf -σείων nebst κείων’. IF 33: 332–6.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1921a). ‘Zur Frage des Ursprungs der Personalendungen des indogermanischen Verbums’. IF 39: 131–9.Google Scholar

Brugman[n], Karl (1921b). ‘δικεῖν als Aorist zu βάλλειν’. IF 39: 144–9.Google Scholar

Brugmann, Karl, and Thumb, Albert (1913). Griechische Grammatik: Lautlehre, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre, Syntax (4th edn.). Munich.Google Scholar

Brunel, Jean (1939). L’Aspect verbal et l’emploi des préverbes en grec, particulièrement en attique. Paris.Google Scholar

Bruno, Carla (2005). Forme della sintassi media: Due studi sulla lingua del R̥gveda. Perugia.Google Scholar

Bubeník, Vít (1989). ‘On the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages’. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34: 377–98.Google Scholar

Bubeník, Vít (1995). ‘Passives and ergatives in Middle Indo-Aryan’, in Andersen, H. (1995), 49–57.Google Scholar

Bubeník, Vít, Hewson, John, and Rose, Sarah (eds.) (2009). Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Buck, Carl Darling (1928). A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian (2nd edn.). Boston.Google Scholar

Buck, Carl Darling (1955). The Greek Dialects. Chicago.Google Scholar

Buddruss, Georg, and Wezler, Albrecht (eds.) (1980). Festschrift Paul Thieme zur Vollendung des 75. Lebensjahres dargebracht von Schülern und Freunden (= Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 5/6). Reinbek.Google Scholar

Burger, A. (1938). ‘À propos du nom grec de l’aurore’. REIE 1: 447–51.Google Scholar

Burrow, Thomas (1954). ‘The Sanskrit precative’, in [Weller, ] (1954), 35–42.Google Scholar

Burrow, Thomas (1955). The Sanskrit Language. London.Google Scholar

Burrow, Thomas (1957). ‘An archaic verbal termination in early Indo-Aryan’. IIJ 1: 61–76.Google Scholar

Burrow, Thomas (1973). ‘Sanskrit pā- “go, move, pass, traverse”’. IIJ 15: 81–108.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Dahl, Östen (1989). ‘The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world’. Studies in Language 13/1: 51–103.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.) (1995). Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago.Google Scholar

Bynon, Theodora (2005). ‘Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian’. TPhS 103: 1–72.Google Scholar

Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) (2005). Papers on Grammar IX 1: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Rome.Google Scholar

Campanile, Enrico (1965). ‘Sull’origine del preterito in -t- nelle lingue celtiche’. SSL 5: 102–19.Google Scholar

Campanile, Enrico (1992). ‘Minima graeca’. AGI 77: 168–72.Google Scholar

Campanile, Enrico (1999). Saggi di linguistica comparativa e ricostruzione culturale (eds. Bologna, Maria Patrizia, Motta, Filippo, and Orlandi, Chatia). Pisa and Rome.Google Scholar

Cardona, George (1960a). The Indo-European Thematic Aorists. Diss. Yale.Google Scholar

Cardona, George (1960b). ‘Greek kámnō and támnō’. Language 36: 502–7.Google Scholar

Cardona, George (1963). ‘Gr. heîsa and Sanskrit sátsat’. Language 39: 14–16.Google Scholar

Cardona, George (1965). ‘The Vedic imperatives in -si’. Language 41: 1–18.Google Scholar

Cardona, George (1967). Review of Szemerényi (1964). Language 43: 757–73.Google Scholar

Cardona, George (1992). ‘On the development of presents like bibhéti’, in Srivastava, (1992), 1–13.Google Scholar

Cardona, George, and Zide, Norman H. (eds.) (1987). Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Tübingen.Google Scholar

Carlier, Pierre, Lamberterie, Charles de, Egetmeyer, Markus, Guilleux, Nicole, Rougemont, Françoise, and Zurbach, Julien (eds.) (2012). Études mycéniennes 2010: Actes du XIII^e Colloque international sur les textes égéens. Pisa and Rome.Google Scholar

Carruba, Onofrio (1976). ‘Anatolico e indoeuropeo’, in [Bonfante, ] (1976), 121–46.Google Scholar

Carruba, Onofrio (1986). ‘Der idg. Stamm *men-/mon-/mn̥- im Anatolischen’, in Etter, (1986), 117–24.Google Scholar

Carruba, Onofrio (ed.) (1992a). Per una grammatica ittita. Pavia.Google Scholar

Carruba, Onofrio (1992b). ‘Le notazioni dell’agente animato nelle lingue anatoliche (e l’ergativo)’, in Carruba, (1992a), 61–98.Google Scholar

Carruba, Onofrio (1992c). ‘L’origine dei perfetti e degli aoristi greci in -κα’. AGI 77: 153–67.Google Scholar

Carruba, Onofrio (2005). ‘Die Pluralformen der indogermanischen und anatolischen Personalpronomina’, in Meiser, and Hackstein, (2005), 11–25.Google Scholar

Carruba, Onofrio (2009). ‘Indo-European vowel alternations (ablaut/apophony)’, in Marcantonio, (2009), 5.1–5.42.Google Scholar

Carruba, Onofrio, and Meid, Wolfgang (eds.) (2001). Anatolisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck.Google Scholar

Casaretto, Antje (2002). ‘Defektivität und Suppletion im vedischen Verbalsystem: ved. paś : darś, drav : drā und dhāv : sar’. HS 115: 37–56.Google Scholar

Casaretto, Antje (2004). Nominale Wortbildung der gotischen Sprache: Die Derivation der Substantive. Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Casaretto, Antje (2006). ‘Zur Suppletion von idg. *mleu̯h₂- und *u̯ek^u̯- “sprechen” im Indoiranischen’. HS 119: 133–52.Google Scholar

Casevitz, Michel (ed.) (1989). Études homériques. Lyons.Google Scholar

Casevitz, Michel (1995). ‘Sur une formule homérique: ἴκμενος οὖρος’. Eos 83: 27–32.Google Scholar

Cassio, Albio Cesare (ed.) (1999). Katà diálekton: Atti del III Colloquio Internazionale di Dialettologia Greca. Naples.Google Scholar

Cavoto, Fabrice (ed.) (2002). The Linguist’s Linguist: A Collection of Papers in Honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer, ii. Munich.Google Scholar

Chanet, Anne-Marie (1984). ‘À propos du verbe grec: questions de fréquence (attique classique)’. Cratyle 9: 1–15.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1925). ‘Les verbes grecs en *-θω’, in [Vendryes, ] (1925a), 93–108.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1927a). Histoire du parfait grec. Paris.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1927b). ‘Le Rôle des désinences moyennes en grec ancien’. RPh, ser. 3, 1: 153–65.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1928). ‘Le Rôle de l’élargissement ē/ō dans la conjugaison grecque’. BSL 28: 9–39.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1933). La Formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1935). ‘Les Aoristes athématiques à voyelle longue en grec ancien’. MSL 23: 135–40.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1953). Grammaire homérique, ii. Syntaxe. Paris.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1958). Grammaire homérique, i. Phonétique et morphologie (2nd edn.). Paris.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1961). Morphologie historique du grec (2nd edn.). Paris.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (1972). Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie grecques offerts à Pierre Chantraine. Paris.Google Scholar

Chantraine, Pierre (2009). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots (2nd edn., with supplements by Blanc, Alain, Lamberterie, Charles de, and Perpillou, Jean-Louis). Paris.Google Scholar

Christol, Alain (1972). ‘Phonologie des aspirées grecques et parfait à aspirée’. BSL 67: 69–83.Google Scholar

Christol, Alain (1979). ‘Mécanismes analogiques dans les désinences verbales de l’indo-européen’. BSL 74: 281–317.Google Scholar

Christol, Alain (2005). ‘Subjonctif latin (-sē-) et futur indien (-sya-)’, in Calboli, (2005), 25–36.Google Scholar

Chu, Chauncey C. (1998). A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York.Google Scholar

Clackson, James (1994). The Linguistic Relationship between Armenian and Greek. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar

Clackson, James (2007). Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Clackson, James, and Olsen, Birgit Anette (eds.) (2004). Indo-European Word Formation. Copenhagen.Google Scholar

Cobet, Justus, Leimbach, Rüdiger, and Neschke-Hentschke, Ada B. (eds.) (1975). Dialogos: Für Harald Patzer zum 65. Geburtstag von seinen Freunden und Schülern. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar

Cohen, Gerald Leonard (1976). ‘On reconstructing PIE 2du./pl. pronoun’. ZVS 90: 20–1.Google Scholar

Cohen, Gerald Leonard (1979). ‘Origin of -n in Greek 1pl. act. -men’. IF 84: 107–12.Google Scholar

Coleman, Robert (ed.) (1991). New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Collinge, Neville E. (1985). The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Colvin, Stephen (2010). ‘The instantaneous aorist: the syntax of the agora and the syntax of Parnassus’, in Gabaudan, Cortés and Dosuna, Méndez (2010), 113–21.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard (1976a). Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard (1976b). Review of Klimov (1973). Lingua 39: 252–60.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard (1978). ‘Ergativity’, in Lehmann, W. P. (1978), 329–94.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology (2nd edn.). Oxford.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard (1998). ‘The Indo-European linguistic family: genetic and typological perspectives’, in Ramat, Giacalone and Ramat, (1998), 74–97.Google Scholar

Conti, Luz (2002). ‘Kasussyntax bei Homer: Überlegungen zum adverbalen Akkusativ’, in Hettrich, (2002), 1–19.Google Scholar

Cortés Gabaudan, Francisco, and Méndez Dosuna, Julian V. (eds.) (2010). Dic mihi, Musa, virum: Homenaje al profesor Antonio López Eire. Salamanca.Google Scholar

Couvreur, Walter (1938). ‘Les Dérivés verbaux en -ske/o- du hittite et du tocharien’. REIE 1: 89–101.Google Scholar

Couvreur, Walter (1947). Hoofdzaken van de Tochaarse klank- en vormleer. Leuven.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1960). ‘Gothic iddja and Old English ēode’. Language 36: 483–501.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1963a). ‘A search for universals in Indo-European diachronic morphology’, in Greenberg, (1963a), 91–113.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1963b). Review of Puhvel (1960). Language 39: 248–70.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1965). ‘Evidence in Greek’, in Winter, (1965a), 142–80.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1967). ‘Ablaut, accent, and umlaut in the Tocharian subjunctive’, in Arndt, et al. (1967), 171–81.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1968). ‘The first person singular medio-passive of Indo-Iranian’, in Heesterman, et al. (1968), 24–31.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1970). ‘The nominative plural and preterit singular of the active participles in Baltic’, in Magner, and Schmalstieg, (1970), 23–37.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1973). ‘The source of Latin stāre, with notes on comparable forms elsewhere in Indo-European’. JIES 1: 271–303.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1975). ‘More evidence for Indo-Hittite: the tense-aspect systems’, in Heilmann, (1975), 557–70.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1979). ‘Anatolian hi-conjugation and Indo-European perfect: instalment II’, in Neu, and Meid, (1979), 25–39.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1983). ‘On the prehistory of Celtic passive and deponent inflection’. Ériu 34: 73–111.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1985a). ‘The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European’, in Schlerath, and Rittner, (1985), 99–108.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1985b). ‘Loss of morphophonemic alternation in moribund categories, as exemplified in the Gothic verb’, in Pieper, and Stickel, (1985), 145–9.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (1987). ‘The second plural of the Umbrian verb’, in Cardona, and Zide, (1987), 81–90.Google Scholar

Cowgill, Warren (2006). ‘The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European’ (extended version of Cowgill 1985a), in Klein, (2006), 535–67.Google Scholar

Crespo, Emilio, and Ramón, García, Luis, José (eds.) (1997). Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Madrid and Wiesbaden.Google Scholar

Cuny, Albert (1938). ‘La Place du ton et l’apophonie indoeuropéenne é–ò–zéro’. REIE 1: 12–38.Google Scholar

Cuny, Albert (1947). ‘Un Archaïsme morphologique commun au latin et à l’arménien’. REA 49: 38–40.Google Scholar

Curtius, Georg (1852). ‘Vermischte etymologien’. ZVS 1: 25–36.Google Scholar

Curtius, Georg (1877–80). Das Verbum der griechischen Sprache seinem Baue nach dargestellt (2 vols., 2nd edn.). Leipzig.Google Scholar

Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (1998). ‘Tra ricostruzione e tipologia: il caso dell’ergatività indeuropea’, in Bernini, et al. (1998), 181–204.Google Scholar

Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Napoli, Maria (2009). ‘An overview of the impersonals in Proto-Indo-European’, in Lühr, and Ziegler, (2009), 75–81.Google Scholar

Da Milano, Federica, Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco, and Banfi, Emanuele (2011). ‘Marche dell’io negli ambienti sino-giapponese e indo-europeo’. SSL 49: 23–74.Google Scholar

Dahl, Eystein (2005). ‘Polymorphic thematic root presents in Vedic and the origin of the thematic conjugation’, in Haug, and Welo, (2005), 57–72.Google Scholar

Dahl, Eystein (2010). Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar: Exploring Inflectional Semantics in the Rigveda. Leiden.Google Scholar

Dahl, Eystein (2013a). ‘The Indo-European subjunctive and its origin as a present’. JIES 41: 392–430.Google Scholar

Dahl, Eystein (2013b). ‘Typological change in Vedic: the development of the aorist from a perfective past to an immediate past’, in Josephson, and Söhrman, (2013), 261–98.Google Scholar

Dahl, Eystein, and Fedriani, Chiara (2012). ‘The argument structure of experience: experiential constructions in early Vedic, Homeric Greek and early Latin’. TPhS 110: 342–62.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen (ed.) (2000). Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen, and Hedin, Eva (2000). ‘Current relevance and event reference’, in Dahl, Ö. (2000), 385–401.Google Scholar

Darms, Georges (1978). Schwäher und Schwager, Hahn und Huhn: Die Vr̥ddhi-Ableitung im Germanischen. Munich.Google Scholar

Daues, Alexandra (2009). ‘Zum Funktionsbereich des Suffixes *-sk̑e/o- im Junghethitischen und Homerischen’, in Lühr, and Ziegler, (2009), 82–99.Google Scholar

Daues, Alexandra (2012). ‘The Hittite verbs in -š(š)a-: can a function be recognized?’, in Melchert, (2012), 29–41.Google Scholar

Davis, Garry W., and Iverson, Gregory K. (1992). Explanation in Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

De Angelis, Alessandro (1999). ‘“Reduction” o “addition”? Il caso dell’ingiuntivo’. RANL, ser. IX, 10: 463–79.Google Scholar

De Angelis, Alessandro (2000/1 [2004]). ‘Usi e riusi dell’ingiuntivo nei poemi omerici’. Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese 41/42: 65–81.Google Scholar

De Angelis, Alessandro (2014). ‘Ancient Greek verbs ending in -σσω: a case of paradigm reorganization?’, in Bartolotta, (2014), 83–111.Google Scholar

De Decker, Filip (2011). ‘Stang’s Law and the Indo-European word for “cow”’. IF 116: 42–59.Google Scholar

de Martino, Stefano, and Pecchioli Dardi, Franca (eds.) (2002). Anatolia antica: Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati. Florence.Google Scholar

de Melo, Wolfgang D. C. (2007a). The Early Latin Verb System: Archaic Forms in Plautus, Terence, and Beyond. Oxford.Google Scholar

de Melo, Wolfgang D. C. (2007b). ‘The sigmatic future and the genetic affiliation of Venetic: Latin faxō “I shall make” and Venetic vha.g.s.to “he made”’. TPhS 105: 1–21.Google Scholar

de Melo, Wolfgang D. C. (2007c). ‘Latin prohibitions and the origins of the u/w-perfect and the type amāstī’. Glotta 83: 43–68.Google Scholar

de Vaan, Michiel (2004). ‘“Narten” roots from the Avestan point of view’, in Hyllested, et al. (2004), 591–9.Google Scholar

de Vaan, Michiel (2011). ‘PIE i-presents, s-presents, and their reflexes in Latin’. Glotta 87: 23–36.Google Scholar

Debrunner, Albert (1907). ‘Zu den konsonantischen i̯o-Präsentien im Griechischen’. IF 21: 13–98, 201–76.Google Scholar

Debrunner, Albert (1922). ‘Homerica’. IF 40: 107–12.Google Scholar

Debrunner, Albert (1936). ‘Der Aorist ἔφατο’. Glotta 25: 73–9, 276.Google Scholar

Debrunner, Albert (1937). ‘Διδάσκω’, in [Boisacq, ] (1937), 251–66.Google Scholar

Debrunner, Albert (1954a). Altindische Grammatik, ii.2. Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen.Google Scholar

Debrunner, Albert (1954b). ‘Das Augment ἠ-’, in [Zucker, ] (1954), 83–110.Google Scholar

[Debrunner, Albert] (1954c). Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung: Festschrift Albert Debrunner gewidmet von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. Berne.Google Scholar

Debrunner, Albert (1956). ‘Δέγμενος, ἑσπόμενος, ἄρχμενος’, in [Kretschmer, ] (1956), 77–84.Google Scholar

Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid, Hiller, Stefan, and Panagl, Oswald (eds.) (1999). Floreant Studia Mycenaea (2 vols.). Vienna.Google Scholar

Delbrück, Berthold (1874). Das altindische Verbum aus den Hymnen des Rigveda seinem Baue nach dargestellt. Halle.Google Scholar

Delbrück, Berthold (1876). Altindische Tempuslehre (= Syntaktische Forschungen, ii). Halle.Google Scholar

Delbrück, Berthold (1888). Altindische Syntax (= Syntaktische Forschungen, v). Halle.Google Scholar

Delbrück, Berthold (1893). Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, i. Strassburg.Google Scholar

Delbrück, Berthold (1894). ‘Der Typus φέρω – φορέω im Arischen’. IF 4: 132–3.Google Scholar

Delbrück, Berthold (1897). Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, ii. Strassburg.Google Scholar

Deroy, Louis (1993). ‘Sur les verbes fréquentatifs et causatifs en indo-européen’, in Brogyanyi, and Lipp, (1993), 91–101.Google Scholar

Deshpande, Madhav M. (1992). ‘Justification for verb-root suppletion in Sanskrit’. HS 105: 18–49.Google Scholar

Devoto, Giacomo (1929). ‘Desinenze personali greche’, in Teeuwen, (1929), 640–5.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo (1990). Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo, i. La funzione originaria del perfetto studiata nella documentazione delle lingue storiche. Rome.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo (1995). ‘Sul preterito a vocalismo radicale lungo nelle lingue indoeuropee “occidentali”’, in Smoczyński, (1995), 115–29.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo (1996). Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo, ii. La posizione del perfetto all’interno del sistema verbale indoeuropeo. Rome.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo (1997a). ‘Gli studi sul sistema verbale indoeuropeo ricostruito: problemi di metodo e prospettive di ricerca’. IL 20: 11–27.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo (1997b). ‘Aspetto e tempo nel sistema verbale indoeuropeo’, in Ambrosini, et al. (1997), 309–32.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo (1999). ‘Funzione e forma nei morfemi e nelle categorie flessionali del sistema verbale indoeuropeo ricostruito’, in Habisreitinger, et al. (1999), 33–46.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo (2009). ‘Verbal inflection from “Proto-Indo-European” to the Indo-European languages: a matter of coherence?’, in Marcantonio, (2009), 6.1–6.27.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo (2010). ‘Declino di una categoria flessionale: l’intensivo in greco antico’, in Putzu, et al. (2010), 189–203.Google Scholar

Di Giovine, Paolo (2012). ‘The function of *o-ablaut in the PIE verbal system’, in Melchert, (2012), 43–50.Google Scholar

Diakonoff, Igor M., and Neroznak, Vladimir P. (1985). Phrygian. Delmar, N.Y.Google Scholar

Dieu, Éric (2012). ‘Le Verbe grec λιλαίομαι: étude philologique et étymologique’. BSL 107: 145–84.Google Scholar

Dishington, James (1976). ‘Functions of the Germanic ē-verbs: a clue to their formal prehistory’. Language 52: 851–65.Google Scholar

Disterheft, Dorothy, Huld, Martin, and Greppin, John (eds.) (1997). Studies in Honor of Jaan Puhvel. Part One: Ancient Languages and Philology. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. (ed.) (1976). Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. (1979). ‘Ergativity’. Language 55: 59–138.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Doğan-Alparslan, Meltem, Alparslan, Metin, and Peker, Hasan (eds.) (2007). Vita: Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs and Ali Dinçol. Istanbul.Google Scholar

Donohue, Mark, and Wichmann, Søren (eds.) (2008). The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford.Google Scholar

Dottin, Georges (1894). L’Augment des verbes composés dans l’Odyssée et l’Iliade. Rennes.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang (1968). Studien zur verbalen Pluralität: Iterativum, Distributivum, Durativum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, im Lateinischen und Hethitischen. Vienna.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang (1971). ‘Über die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Syntax’. ZVS 85: 5–22.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang (1985). ‘On the predictiveness of Natural Morphology’. Journal of Linguistics 21: 321–37.Google Scholar

Drewitt, J. A. J. (1912). ‘The augment in Homer’. Classical Quarterly 6: 44–59, 104–20.Google Scholar

Drewitt, J. A. J. (1913). ‘A note on the augment’. Classical Philology 8: 349–53.Google Scholar

Drinka, Bridget (1995a). The Sigmatic Aorist in Indo-European: Evidence for the Space-Time-Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Drinka, Bridget (1995b). ‘Areal linguistics in prehistory: evidence from Indo-European aspect’, in Andersen, H. (1995), 143–58.Google Scholar

Drinka, Bridget (1998). ‘The evolution of grammar: evidence from Indo-European perfects’, in Schmid, M. S. et al. (1998), 117–33.Google Scholar

Drinka, Bridget (1999). ‘Alignment in early Proto-Indo-European’, in Justus, and Polomé, (1999), 464–500.Google Scholar

Drinka, Bridget (2003). ‘The development of the perfect in Indo-European: stratigraphic evidence of prehistoric areal influence’, in Andersen, H. (2003), 77–105.Google Scholar

Duhoux, Yves (1987). ‘Les Débuts de l’augment grec: le facteur sociolinguistique’, in Killen, et al. (1987), 163–72.Google Scholar

Duhoux, Yves (1993). ‘L’Apparition de l’aspect verbal en indo-européen: l’apport du mycénien’. L’Information Grammaticale 56: 3–5.Google Scholar

Duhoux, Yves (1995). ‘Études sur l’aspect verbal en grec ancien, 1: présentation d’une méthode’. BSL 90: 241–99.Google Scholar

Duhoux, Yves (2000). Le Verbe grec ancien: Éléments de morphologie et de syntaxe historiques (2nd edn.). Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar

Duhoux, Yves, and Dachy, Françoise (1992). ‘L’Aspect verbal: du mycénien à l’indo-européen’, in Olivier, (1992), 215–37.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (1977). ‘*Woydo’. American Journal of Philology 98: 141–9.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (1982). ‘Autour de ā́ Ṛg-Védique (A lexical study)’. IIJ 24: 89–102.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (1992). ‘Two old problems in Greek: πτόλεμος and τερψίμβροτος’. Glotta 70: 197–225.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (1997). ‘Early, Middle, Late Indo-European: doing it my way’. IL 20: 29–44.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (1998a). ‘Old Latin ESED, pre-Latin *esom’. MSS 58: 57–61.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (1998b). ‘On the “thematisation” of Latin sum, volo, eo, and edo and the system of endings in the IE subjunctive active’, in Jasanoff, et al. (1998), 83–100.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (2002a). ‘*eg̑ṓ and *ág̑ō, *eg̑H-óh₁ and *h₂ég̑-oh₁: perseveration and the primary thematic ending *-ō’, in Hettrich, (2002), 89–103.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (2002b). ‘Vedic janapadás and Ionic ἀνδράποδον: with notes on Vedic drupadám and IE *pédom “place” and “fetter”’, in Southern (2002), 19–31.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (2004a). ‘The deictic origin of the Greek κα-aorist and κα-perfect’, in Clackson, and Olsen, (2004), 37–57.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (2004b). ‘Particles and personal pronouns: inclusive *me and exclusive *u̯e’, in Penney, (2004), 18–29.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (2004c). ‘The Indo-European resultative particle *es’, in Hyllested, et al. (2004), 117–30.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (2010). ‘The IE s-aorist as an athematic denominative’, in Kim, et al. (2010), 19–26.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E. (2014). Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme (2 vols.). Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Dunkel, George E., Meyer, Gisela, Scarlata, Salvatore, and Seidl, Christian (eds.) (1994). Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar

Dupraz, Emmanuel (2009). ‘Das nord-oskische Partizip burus als Spur eines o-stufigen Perfektstammes im Italischen’, in Lühr, and Ziegler, (2009), 105–18.Google Scholar

Durante, Marcello (1950). ‘Le spiranti dentali indoeuropee’. Ricerche Linguistiche 1: 234–49.Google Scholar

Durante, Marcello (1971). Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca, i. Continuità della tradizione poetica dall’età micenea ai primi documenti. Rome.Google Scholar

Durante, Marcello (1976). Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca, ii. Risultanze della comparazione indoeuropea. Rome.Google Scholar

Ebel, Hermann (1853). ‘Reduplicirte aoriste im griechischen’. ZVS 2: 46–8.Google Scholar

Eichner, Heiner (1970). ‘Hethitisch u̯ešš-/u̯aššii̯a- “(Gewänder) tragen; anziehen; bekleiden”’. MSS 27: 5–44.Google Scholar

Eichner, Heiner (1973). ‘Die Etymologie von heth. mehur’. MSS 31: 53–107.Google Scholar

Eichner, Heiner (1975). ‘Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems’, in Rix, (1975), 71–103.Google Scholar

Eichner, Heiner (1980). ‘Phonetik und Lautgesetze des Hethitischen – ein Weg zu ihrer Entschlüsselung’, in Mayrhofer, et al. (1980), 120–65.Google Scholar

Eichner, Heiner (1994). ‘Zur Frage der Gültigkeit Boppscher sprachgeschichtlicher Deutungen aus der Sicht der modernen Indogermanistik’, in Sternemann, (1994), 72–90.Google Scholar

Eichner, Heiner, and Luschützky, Hans Christian (eds.) (1999). Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler. Prague.Google Scholar

Eichner, Heiner, and Rix, Helmut (eds.) (1990). Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar

Elizarenkova, Tatjana Jakovlevna (1967). ‘Ėrgativnaja konstrukcija v novoindijskix jazykax’, in Žirmunskij, (1967), 116–25.Google Scholar

Ellsworth, Michael (2011). ‘The first palatalization of Greek’, in Jamison, et al. (2011), 13–31.Google Scholar

Emeneau, Murray B. (1958). Review of Manfred Mayrhofer, Kurzgefasstes Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen, Fascicles 9–10, Heidelberg 1957. Language 34: 408–17.Google Scholar

Endzelīns, Janis (1971). Comparative Phonology and Morphology of the Baltic Languages. The Hague and Paris.Google Scholar

Ensink, Jacob, and Gaeffke, Peter (eds.) (1972). India Maior: Congratulatory Volume Presented to Jan Gonda. Leiden.Google Scholar

Erhart, Adolf (1970). Studien zur indoeuropäischen Morphologie. Brno.Google Scholar

Erhart, Adolf (1984). ‘Zur baltischen Verbalflexion’. IF 89: 215–50.Google Scholar

Erhart, Adolf (1989). Das indoeuropäische Verbalsystem. Brno.Google Scholar

Erhart, Adolf (1993). Die indogermanische Nominalflexion und ihre Genese. Innsbruck.Google Scholar

Ernout, Alfred, and Thomas, François (1951). Syntaxe latine. Paris.Google Scholar

Eska, Joseph F. (2007/8). ‘Remarks on the 3. plural preterite in -us in Continental Celtic’. Sprache 47: 108–19.Google Scholar

Etter, Annemarie (ed.) (1986). o-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Berlin and New York.Google Scholar

Euler, Wolfram (1990). ‘Präteritaltempora zur Bezeichnung der Vorvergangenheit in den älteren indogermanischen Sprachen’, in Eichner, and Rix, (1990), 131–49.Google Scholar

Euler, Wolfram (1992). Modale Aoristbildungen und ihre Relikte in den alteuropäischen Sprachen. Innsbruck.Google Scholar

Euler, Wolfram (1993). ‘Oskisch-Umbrisch, Venetisch und Lateinisch – grammatische Kategorien zur inneritalischen Sprachverwandtschaft’, in Rix, (1993a), 96–105.Google Scholar

Euler, Wolfram (1995). ‘Der Injunktiv, die archaischste Verbalkategorie im Indogermanischen’, in Smoczyński, (1995), 137–42.Google Scholar

Euler, Wolfram (1997). ‘Hethitisch und Tocharisch – Schlüsselsprachen für die indogermanische Grundsprache?’. TIES 7: 5–16.Google Scholar

Euler, Wolfram (2005). ‘Gab es im Indogermanischen “regelmässige” Verben?’, in Meiser, and Hackstein, (2005), 75–90.Google Scholar

Eyþórsson, Þórhallur (1997). ‘Accent in Tocharian B causatives’. TIES 7: 239–54.Google Scholar

Ferrari, Giacomo (1969). Review of Hoffmann (1967). SSL 9: 228–34.Google Scholar

Fick, August (1884). ‘Etymologien’. Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 8: 330–1.Google Scholar

Finck, Franz Nikolaus (1907). ‘Der angeblich passivische Charakter des transitiven Verbs’. ZVS 41: 209–82.Google Scholar

Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) (1980). Historical Morphology. The Hague, Paris, New York.Google Scholar

Fleischman, Suzanne (1995). ‘Imperfective and irrealis’, in Bybee, and Fleischman, (1995), 519–51.Google Scholar

Flier, Michael S., and Timberlake, Alan (eds.) (1985). The Scope of Slavic Aspect. Columbus, Oh.Google Scholar

Flobert, Pierre (1975). Les Verbes déponents latins des origines à Charlemagne. Paris.Google Scholar

Forbes, Kathleen (1958). ‘The formation of the so-called Aeolic optative’. Glotta 37: 165–79.Google Scholar

Forssman, Bernhard (1964). ‘δρακείς’. MSS 16: 17–19.Google Scholar

Forssman, Bernhard (1967). ‘τέμνω und τάμνω’. Glotta 44: 5–14.Google Scholar

Forssman, Bernhard (1968). ‘Zwei interessante griechische Verbalformen’. MSS 23: 7–20.Google Scholar

Forssman, Bernhard (1978). ‘Homerisch δειδέχαται und Verwandtes’. Sprache 24: 3–24.Google Scholar

Forssman, Bernhard (1980). ‘Ein unbekanntes Lautgesetz in der homerischen Sprache?’, in Mayrhofer, et al. (1980), 180–98.Google Scholar

Forssman, Bernhard (1985). ‘Der Imperativ im urindogermanischen Verbalsystem’, in Schlerath, and Rittner, (1985), 181–97.Google Scholar

Forssman, Bernhard (1994). ‘Zu hethitisch šipand- und išpand-’, in Rasmussen, and Nielsen, (1994), 93–106.Google Scholar

Forssman, Bernhard (1997). ‘Homerisch πέρθαι. Mit einem Anhang: πέρθετο M 15’, in Lubotsky, (1997), 37–45.Google Scholar

Forssman, Bernhard, and Plath, Robert (eds.) (2000). Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar

Forsyth, James (1970). A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara, and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.) (1994). Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, Ernst (1949). ‘Umdeutungen von Flexionsformen und eventuelle Entstehung neuer Paradigmen in den indogermanischen Sprachen’. IF 59: 121–65.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, Ernst (1950). Die baltischen Sprachen: Ihre Beziehungen zu einander und zu den indogermanischen Schwesteridiomen als Einführung in die baltische Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Fraenkel, Ernst (1962–5). Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (2 vols.). Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Frame, Douglas (1978). The Myth of Return in Early Greek Epic. New Haven, Conn., and London.Google Scholar

Francis, Eric D. (1970). Greek Disyllabic Roots: The Aorist Formations. Diss. Yale.Google Scholar

Francis, Eric D. (1973). ‘Epicharmus fr. 177 Kaibel’. Classical Review n.s. 23: 1–3.Google Scholar

Francis, Eric D. (1974). ‘Greek ἔβλην’. Glotta 52: 11–30.Google Scholar

Franke, August (1861). Über die Bildung der Futura im Griechischen. Lingen.Google Scholar

Fränkel, Hermann (1924). ‘Homerische Wörter’, in [Wackernagel, ] (1924), 274–82.Google Scholar

Friedrich, Johannes (1960). Hethitisches Elementarbuch, i. Kurzgefasste Grammatik (2nd edn.). Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Frisk, Hjalmar (1942). ‘Zur griechischen Wortkunde’. Eranos 40: 81–9.Google Scholar

Frisk, Hjalmar (1960–72). Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (3 vols.). Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Fritz, Matthias (1996). ‘Das urindogermanische Wort für “Nase” und das grundsprachliche Lautgesetz *R̥HV > *RV’. HS 109: 1–20.Google Scholar

Fritz, Matthias (2011). Der Dual im Indogermanischen: Genealogischer und typologischer Vergleich einer grammatischen Kategorie im Wandel. Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Fruyt, Michèle, Mazoyer, Michel, and Pardee, Dennis (eds.) (2011). Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe. Chicago.Google Scholar

Fumaroli, Marc, Jouanna, Jacques, Trédé, Monique, and Zink, Michel (eds.) (2014). Hommage à Jacqueline de Romilly: L’Empreinte de son oeuvre. Paris.Google Scholar

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. (1995). ‘The root structure and apophony in Kartvelian (South Caucasian) and Indo-European’, in Smoczyński, (1995), 81–91.Google Scholar

Gamkrelidze, Tamaz Valerianovič, and Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič (1984). Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy: Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul’tury (2 vols.). Tbilisi.Google Scholar

Gamkrelidze, Tamaz Valerianovič, and Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič (1995). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture (2 vols., trans. Nichols, Johanna, with a preface by Jakobson, Roman). Berlin and New York.Google Scholar

García Castillero, Carlos (1998). ‘Irlandés antiguo ·berar, umbro ferar y las desinencias medias indoeuropeas de tercera persona’. Veleia 15: 193–227.Google Scholar

García Castillero, Carlos (1999). ‘Eine Bemerkung zur Flexion des baltischen Futurums’. IF 104: 214–19.Google Scholar

García Castillero, Carlos (2002). ‘Zum indoiranischen Typ śáye śére’. HS 115: 151–85.Google Scholar

García Castillero, Carlos (2015). ‘On the history and prehistory of the Old Irish passive ending -ar’. IF 120: 115–51.Google Scholar

García García, Luisa (2005). Germanische Kausativbildung: Die deverbalen jan-Verben im Gotischen. Göttingen.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1982). ‘La glosa de Hesiquio ζείναμεν· σβέννυμεν: una aporía fonética y morfológica’. Emerita 50: 99–119.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1985). ‘Die Sekundärendung der 1. Sg. Medii im Indogermanischen’, in Schlerath, and Rittner, (1985), 202–17.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1986). ‘Griego ῑ᾿άομαι’, in Etter, (1986), 497–514.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1988–90). ‘Homerico κέκασμαι : védico śāśad-, protoario *sćand-, IE *(s)k̑end- “aparecer, hacerse visible”’. Sprache 34: 27–58.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1990). ‘Mykenisch e-qi-ti-wo-e /^(h)ek^wht^hiwo^he(s)/ “umgekommen, tot”, homerisch ἔφθιται, ἔφθιεν, (°)ἔφθιτο und das Perfekt von idg. *d^hg^whei- im Griechischen’. MSS 51: 7–20.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1993a). ‘Lat. cēnsēre, got. hazjan und das idg. Präsens *k̑éns-e-ti (und *k̑n̥s-éi̯e-ti?) “verkündigt, schätzt”, Stativ *k̑n̥s-eh₁- “verkündigt, geschätzt sein/werden”’, in Meiser, (1993a), 106–30.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1993b). ‘Griego ζᾱτέω (: hom.-jon. δίζημαι), véd. yā 2 “pedir”, IE *i̯eh₂- “pedir, desear, buscar ansiosamente”’, in Isebaert, (1993), 71–84.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1993 [1994]). ‘Zur historischen Betrachtung der indogermanischen Aktionsarten und Aspektprobleme: Idg. *neu̯(H)- “eine momentane Bewegung machen, (sich) einen Augenblick wenden, drehen”’. MSS 54: 33–63.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1994). ‘Indogermanische Wurzelpräsentia und innere Rekonstruktion’, in Dunkel, et al. (1994), 53–75.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1995). ‘Zum Akkusativ der Richtung im Vedischen und im Indogermanischen’, in Hettrich, et al. (1995), 33–52.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1998). ‘Indogermanisch *g^u̯hen- “(wiederholt) schlagen”, “töten”’, in Jasanoff, et al. (1998), 139–54.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1999a). ‘Griechisch ζητήρ· Ζεὺς ἐν Κύπρῳ, vedisch yātár- “Rächer” und die Vertretung von *i̯- im Griechischen’, in Eichner, and Luschützky, (1999), 77–96.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (1999b). ‘Zur Bedeutung indogermanischer Verbalwurzeln: *h₂nek̑- “erreichen, reichen bis”, *h₁nek̑- “erhalten, (weg)nehmen”’, in Habisreitinger, et al. (1999), 47–80.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2000). ‘Indoiranische Wurzelpräsentia und iterativer Verbalcharakter’, in Forssman, and Plath, (2000), 119–31.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2001). ‘Hethitisch ḫi(n)k-^ti “darreichen, darbringen”’, in Carruba, and Meid, (2001), 129–45.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2002). ‘Zu Verbalcharakter, morphologischer Aktionsart und Aspekt in der indogermanischen Rekonstruktion’, in Hettrich, (2002), 105–36.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2002 [2006]). ‘Subjuntivo e imperativo en la reconstrucción indoeuropea: IE 2.Sg. “Ipv.” *-si (y Med. *-soi̯) y griego Ipv. 2.Sg. -σον, -σαι’, MSS 62: 23–36.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2004a). ‘Zum Paradigma von idg. *nes-: Homerisch ἀπενάσσατο, kausat. ἀπονάσσωσιν als Aoriste von (°)νέομαι und die Entstehung des Präs. ναίω’, in Krisch, et al. (2004), 1.33–47.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2004b). ‘On Vedic suppletion: dāś and vidh’, in Penney, (2004), 487–513.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2007a). ‘Aus der Arbeit an einer Grammatik des Thessalischen: Einige wichtige neue Verbalformen’. HS 120: 195–208.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2007b). ‘A new Indo-European -u-present and a suppletive pair in Greek’, in Nussbaum, (2007), 97–114.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2009). ‘Idg. *(s)peh₂- “in (heftige) Bewegung setzen, ziehen”: Ved. pā 3, heth. pipp(a)-^ḫḫi und gr. σπάω, arm. hanem’, in Lühr, and Ziegler, (2009), 134–48.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2010a). ‘On Hittite verbs of the type mimma-^ḫḫi “refuse”: Aktionsart and aspect in Indo-European reconstruction’, in Kim, et al. (2010), 40–54.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2010b). ‘Reconstructing IE lexicon and phraseology: inherited patterns and lexical renewal’, in Jamison, et al. (2010), 69–106.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2012a). ‘En travaillant à une grammaire du mycénien: 1. a-pi-e-qe /amp^hi^henk^we/ “(on) mentionna, (on) énuméra”. 2. Absence d’augment et mode injonctif. 3. di-ri-mi-jo : Drimios, fils de Zeus’, in Carlier, et al. (2012), 435–54.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2012b). ‘Aspect and mood in Indo-European reconstruction’, in Melchert, (2012), 73–85.Google Scholar

García Ramón, José Luis (2014). ‘From Aktionsart to aspect and voice: on the morphosyntax of the Greek aorists with -η- and -θη-’, in Bartolotta, (2014), 149–82.Google Scholar

García Teijeiro, Manuel (1970). Los presentes indoeuropeos con infijo nasal y su evolución. Salamanca.Google Scholar

García Trabazo, José Virgilio (2009). ‘Über die Vertretung der indogermanischen Aktionsarten “Fientiv” und “Essiv” im Hethitischen und Lateinischen’, in Lühr, and Ziegler, (2009), 149–59.Google Scholar

García Trabazo, José Virgilio (2011). ‘Über die Herkunft des Indoiranischen ya-Passivums’, in Krisch, and Lindner, (2011), 172–81.Google Scholar

García Trabazo, José Virgilio (2012). ‘Phonologische und morphologische Bemerkungen zu den hethitischen -i̯e/a-Verben’, in Whitehead, Nielsen et al. (2012), 99–115.Google Scholar

Garnier, Romain (2014). ‘Nouvelles considérations sur l’effet Kortlandt’. Glotta 90: 139–59.Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew (1990). ‘The origin of NP split ergativity’. Language 66: 261–96.Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew (1991). ‘The Lycian nasalized preterite’. MSS 52: 15–26.Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew (1998). ‘Remarks on the Old Hittite split genitive’, in Jasanoff, et al. (1998), 155–63.Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew (2008). ‘Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness’, in Good, (2008), 125–43.Google Scholar

Gärtchen, Paul (1905). Die primären Präsentien mit o-Vokalismus in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Diss. Breslau.Google Scholar

Geiss, Heinz (1957). ‘Bemerkungen zu ἅλλομαι und πάλλομαι bei Homer’. MSS 11: 62–6.Google Scholar

George, Coulter, McCullagh, Matthew, Nielsen, Benedicte, Ruppel, Antonia, and Tribulato, Olga (eds.) (2007). Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective. Cambridge.Google Scholar

Georgiev, Vladimir I. (1971). ‘Die Formen des hethitischen Verbums iya- “machen” und die Herkunft der Verba auf -iya-’. ZVS 85: 38–42.Google Scholar

Georgiev, Vladimir I. (1982). ‘Die Herkunft der Konjugationsformen der hethitischen Verba ne-ih-hi und te-ih-hi’, in Tischler, (1982a), 71–6.Google Scholar

Georgiev, Vladimir I. (1985). ‘Das Medium: Funktion und Herkunft’, in Schlerath, and Rittner, (1985), 218–28.Google Scholar

Giacalone Ramat, Anna (1967). ‘La funzione del suffisso -σκ- nel sistema verbale greco’. AGI 52: 105–23.Google Scholar

Giacalone Ramat, Anna, and Ramat, Paolo (eds.) (1998). The Indo-European Languages. London and New York.Google Scholar

Giannakis, Georgios K. (1991). ‘Homeric μίμνω, ἴσχω, ἵζω and πίπτω: a semantic approach’. Glotta 69: 48–76.Google Scholar

Giannakis, Georgios K. (1992). ‘Reduplication as a morphological marker in the Indo-European languages: reduplicated presents’. Word 43: 159–96.Google Scholar

Giannakis, Georgios K. (1993). ‘The tense-aspect system of the Indo-European verb’. Word 44: 485–95.Google Scholar

Giannakis, Georgios K. (1997). Studies in the Syntax and Semantics of the Reduplicated Presents of Homeric Greek and Indo-European. Innsbruck.Google Scholar

Gil, Luis (1964). ‘Sobre la historia del aoristo atematico griego’. Emerita 32: 163–83.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy (1976). ‘Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement’,Li, (1976), 149–88.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy (ed.) (1979). Syntax and Semantics, 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York, San Francisco, London.Google Scholar

Goedegebuure, Petra (2013). ‘Split-ergativity in Hittite’. ZAssyr 102: 270–303.Google Scholar

Gonda, Jan (1956). The Character of the Indo-European Moods with Special Regard to Greek and Sanskrit. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar

Gonda, Jan (1959). Four Studies in the Language of the Veda. ’s-Gravenhage.Google Scholar

Gonda, Jan (1960). ‘Reflections on the Indo-European medium’. Lingua 9: 30–67, 175–93.Google Scholar

Gonda, Jan (1962). The Aspectual Function of the Ṛgvedic Present and Aorist. ’s-Gravenhage.Google Scholar