Reevaluating the etymology of Latin reflexives

References

Beekes, Robert. 1982. On laryngeals and pronouns. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 96. 200–232.Search in Google Scholar

Beekes, Robert & Michiel de Vaan. 2011. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.172Search in Google Scholar

Berenguer, José Antonio. 1998. La heteróclisis IE *so/*to y el pronombre hetita -as, -an. Emerita 66(2). 257–290. https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.1998.v66.i2.258.Search in Google Scholar

Bertocchi, Alessandra. 1989. The role of antecedents of Latin anaphors. In Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Subordination and other topics in Latin: Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, 441–461. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.17.28berSearch in Google Scholar

Bjørn, Rasmus. 2019. Pronouns and particles: Indo-Uralic heritage and convergence. In Alwin Kloekhorst & Tijmen Pronk (eds.), The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European, 30–49. Leiden & Boston: Brill.10.1163/9789004409354_004Search in Google Scholar

Bliss, Heather. 2013. The Blackfoot configurationality conspiracy: Parallels and differences in clausal and nominal structures. Vancouver: University of British Columbia PhD dissertation. https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0165708 (accessed 16 November 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Bliss, Heather. 2017. Dependencies in syntax and discourse: Obviation in Blackfoot and beyond. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 27(1). 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom098.Search in Google Scholar

Carruba, Onofrio. 1985. Die anatolischen Partikeln der Satzeinleitung. In Bernfried Schlerath & Veronica Ritter (eds.), Grammatische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 79–98. Berlin: Reichert.Search in Google Scholar

Cennamo, Michela. 1991. Se, sibi, suus nelle Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres ed i successivi sviluppi romanzi. Medioevo romanzo 16. 3–20.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 2005. Alignment of case marking. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard, Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 398–405. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.42Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2011. Where do grammatical morphemes come from? On the development of grammatical markers from lexical expressions, demonstratives, and question words. University of Jena unpublished manuscript. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.606.6846&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 16 November 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert. 2003. Demonstratives: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language 27(1). 61–112. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.1.04dix.Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199571079.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.). 2000. Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627750Search in Google Scholar

Dunkel, George. 2014. Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominal-stämme. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Search in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew. 1994. The discourse function of the Kutenai inverse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 65–99. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.28.06drySearch in Google Scholar

Everaert, Martin. 2013. The criteria for reflexivization. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 190–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Faltz, Leonard. 1985. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York & London, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Fortson, Benjamin. 2010. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction, 2nd edn. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Fruyt, Michèle. 1987. Interprétation sémantico-référentielle du réfléchi latin. Glotta 35(3–4). 204–221.Search in Google Scholar

Fruyt, Michèle. 2015. Le discours indirect en diachronie : l’évolution du réfléchi indirect en latin. Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout De Lingua Latina 10(2). 1–31.Search in Google Scholar

Gildea, Spike & Fernando Zúñiga. 2016. Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns. Linguistics 54(3). 483–529. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0007.Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, vol. 3. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.3Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and inversion, 3–44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.28.03givSearch in Google Scholar

Griffith, Aaron. 2018. Diachrony and the referential hierarchy in Old Irish. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 191–216. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.121.05griSearch in Google Scholar

Hahn, Adelaide. 1963. The supposed reflexive pronoun in Latin. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 94. 86–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/283638.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2021. Comparing reflexive constructions in the world’s languages. In Katarzyna Janic, Nicoletta Puddu & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Reflexive constructions in the world’s languages, 10–51. Berlin: Language Science Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haude, Katharina & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2016. Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics 54(3). 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0008.Search in Google Scholar

Haude, Katharina & Fernando Zúñiga. 2016. Inverse and symmetrical voice: On languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54(3). 443–481. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0009.Search in Google Scholar

Imai, Shingo. 2003. Spatial deixis. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Jacques, Guillaume. 2010. The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong. Language and Linguistics 11(1). 127–157.Search in Google Scholar

Jacques, Guillaume & Anton Antonov. 2014. Direct/Inverse Systems. Language and Linguistics Compass 8. 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12079.Search in Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Jay. 2009. *-bhi, *-bhis, *-ōis: Following the trail of the PIE instrumental plural. In Jens Emelgård Rasmussen & Thomas Olander (eds.), Internal reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, results, and problems (section papers from the XVI International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, 11–15 August 2003), 137–149. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice, vol. 23. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.23Search in Google Scholar

Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski. 2011. Introduction to case, animacy and semantic roles. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 1–26. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.99.01kitSearch in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 2002. Intensifiers and reflexives. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, 747–760. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2008. Reciprocity and reflexivity: Description, typology and theory. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 1–31. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199147.1Search in Google Scholar

Kortlandt, Frederik. 2010. Studies in Germanic, Indo-european and Indo-uralic. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.10.1163/9789042031364Search in Google Scholar

Krasnoukhova, Olga. 2012. The noun phrase in the languages of South America. Utrecht: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Kulikov, Leonid. 2013. Middles and reflexives. In Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to syntax, 261–280. London: Continuum.10.5040/9781472542090.ch-015Search in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Winfred. 1994. Person marking in Indo-European. Historische Sprachforschung/Historical Linguistics 107(1. H). 1–11.Search in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Winfred. 1995. Residues of Pre-Indo-European active structure and their implications for the relationships among the dialects. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Search in Google Scholar

Lier, Eva van, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Joana Jansen. 2016. Referential and lexical factors in alignment variation of trivalent verbs. Linguistics 54(3). 563–616. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0010.Search in Google Scholar

Luján, Eugenio & Ángel López Chala. 2020. Reconstructing semantic roles: Proto-Indo-European*-bhi. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio, Luján (eds.), Reconstructing syntax, 336–370. Leiden & Boston: Brill.10.1163/9789004392007_010Search in Google Scholar

Lundquist, Jesse & Anthony Yates. 2018. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European. In Jared Klein, Brian Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, vol. 3, 2079–2195. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110542431-043Search in Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. Folia Linguistica 45(2). 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2011.016.Search in Google Scholar

Mari, Tommaso. 2016. Third person possessives from early Latin to late Latin. In James Adams & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Early and late Latin: Continuity or change? 47–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316450826.004Search in Google Scholar

Martínez, Lucía, Verónica Orqueda, Francisca Toro & Berta González. 2021. Desarrollo diacrónico de las funciones de se and sibi del latín arcaico al latín clásico. Boletín de Filología 56(2). 483–517.10.4067/S0718-93032021000200483Search in Google Scholar

Martos, Juan. 2008. Ennio: Fragmentos. Madrid: Gredos.Search in Google Scholar

Meier-Brügger, Michael. 1992. Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Mendoza, Julia. 1984. La reflexividad en indoeuropeo. In Alberto Bernabé (ed.), Athlon: Satura grammatica in honorem Francisci R. Adrados, 325–338. Madrid: Gredos.Search in Google Scholar

Mendoza, Julia. 1998. III pronombres, adverbios y partículas. In Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, Alberto Bernabé & Julia Mendoza (eds.), Manual de lingüística indoeuropea, vol. 3, 1–124. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Search in Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2018. Deconstructing teleology: The place of synchronic usage patterns among processes of diachronic development. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 111–128. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.121.03mitSearch in Google Scholar

Morgan, Lawrence. 1991. A Description of the Kutenai Language. Berkeley, California: University of California PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Muehlbauer, Jeffrey. 2012. The relation of switch-reference, animacy, and obviation in Plains Cree. International Journal of American Linguistics 78(2). 203–238. https://doi.org/10.1086/664480.Search in Google Scholar

Norden, Eduard. 1966 [1915]. Ennius und Virgilius. Leipzig: Teubner.Search in Google Scholar

Orqueda, Verónica & Demian Inostroza. 2021. From Proto-Indo-European to Old Latin ipse and iste: Two sides of the same coin? Emerita. Revista de lingüística y filología clásica 89(2). 251–278. https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2021.10.2035.Search in Google Scholar

Pavey, Emma. 2010. The structure of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Peeters, David, Emiel Krahmer & Alfons Maes. 2021. A conceptual framework for the study of demonstrative reference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 28. 408–433. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01822-8.Search in Google Scholar

Petit, Daniel. 2001. Linguistique comparative et variation typologique : le cas du réfléchi dans les langues indo-européennes. Indogermanische Forschungen 106. 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/if-2001-0103.Search in Google Scholar

Pieroni, Silvia. 2010. Deixis and anaphora. In Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), New perspectives on historical syntax, vol. 3, 389–501. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215465.389Search in Google Scholar

Pinkster, Harm. 2015. The Oxford Latin syntax, vol. 1: The simple clause. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283613.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Pooth, Roland. 2021. Transitivity direction in Proto-Indo-European: Direct, inverse, and undirected verb forms. Unpublished manuscript. https://www.academia.edu/37429692 (accessed 16 November 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Pooth, Roland & Verónica Orqueda. 2021. Alignment change and the emergence of the thematic conjugation from Proto-Indo-European to Indo-European: A wedding of hypotheses. Transactions of the Philological Society 119(2). 107–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968x.12209.Search in Google Scholar

Ponte, Vanessa. 2007. Régimen jurídico de las vías públicas en derecho romano. Madrid: Dykinson, S.L.Search in Google Scholar

Puddu, Nicoletta. 2005. Riflessivi e intensificatori: Greco, latino e le altre lingue indoeuropee. Pisa: ETS.Search in Google Scholar

Puddu, Nicoletta. 2007. Typology and historical linguistics: Some remarks on reflexives in ancient IE languages. In Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), New challenges in typology: Broadening the horizons and redefining the foundations, 249–270. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198904.4.249Search in Google Scholar

Radford, Robert. 1905. Plautine synizesis: A study of the phenomena of brevis coalescens. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 36. 158–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/282668.Search in Google Scholar

Sandoval, Consuelo. 2019. Codificación de rasgos semánticos en sistemas de demostrativos. Interacción entre semántica y morfología. Santiago: Universidad de Chile MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Klaus. 1978. Stammbildung und Flexion der Indogermanischen Personalpronomina. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar

Shields, Kenneth. 1998. On the Indo-European reflexive. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 26(1). 121–129.Search in Google Scholar

Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195083453.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Skutsch, Otto. 1978. Notes on Ennius, IV. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 25. 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-5370.1978.tb00381.x.Search in Google Scholar

Szemerényi, Oswald. 1978. Einführung in die Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft [Introducción a la lingüística comparativa]. Madrid: Gredos.Search in Google Scholar

Vaan, Michiel de. 2019. Proto-Indo-European *sm and *si ‘one’. In Alwin Kloekhorst & Tijmen Pronk (eds.), The precursors of Proto-Indo-European, 203–218. Leiden & Boston: Brill.10.1163/9789004409354_015Search in Google Scholar

Viti, Carlotta. 2009. Anaphorische und reflexive Strukturen im Altgriechischen und im Lateinischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 114. 143–172. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110209006.143.Search in Google Scholar

Weiss, Michael. 2020. Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin, 2nd edn. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment (Typological Studies in Language 70). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.70Search in Google Scholar