Abstract
Ancient Greek features a wide array of means to encode reciprocity. Even though reference grammars do mention most of these strategies, they have not been brought together and compared in a systematic way so far. In this paper, we provide a thorough corpus-based description of the three most widespread reciprocal markers in Homeric Greek: the pronoun allḗlōn, the middle voice, and the use of preverbs. Our analysis is couched within current descriptive models of reciprocal constructions developed in linguistic typology. As we argue, Homeric Greek offers a remarkably complex picture, whereby these strategies synchronically cover different semantic and syntactic sub-domains of reciprocity, and thus partly stand in complementary distribution. Already in Homer, the pronoun allḗlōn is the most productive marker of reciprocal situations, with the middle voice and preverbs playing a more limited role. By adopting a diachronic perspective, we also show that this distribution can partly be explained as the result of the different historical sources of each construction. Moreover, once properly scrutinized, the facts of Homeric Greek provide interesting cues as to the developments of reciprocal constructions in later stages of Greek.
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference Corpus and Usage Based approach in Ancient Greek (University of Latvia, April 12–14 2018). We wish to express our gratitude to the conference participants and especially to Pierluigi Cuzzolin and José Luis García Ramón for their insightful comments. We also would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers as well as the journal’s editors, whose critical remarks and observations have helped us greatly improve our paper. This paper results from joint work of the two authors. For academic purposes, Guglielmo Inglese is responsible of Sections 1, 2, 3.2, 3.3 and 4 whereas Chiara Zanchi is responsible of Sections 3.1, 3.4, 5, 6.
References
AGLDT 2.0 = Ancient Greek and Latin Dependency Treebank 2.0. Available at: https://perseusdl.github.io/treebank_data/. Search in Google Scholar
Allan, Rutger J. 2003. Middle voice in Ancient Greek. A study of polysemy. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004409064Search in Google Scholar
Alpatov, Vladimir A. & Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. 2007. Reciprocal, sociative and competitive constructions in Japanese. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions, 1021–1094. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.71.36alpSearch in Google Scholar
Asproudi, Evangelia. 2005. Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Modern Greek. The ITB Journal 6(2). https://arrow.dit.ie/itbj/vol6/iss2/2 (accessed 25 January 2019). Article 2.Search in Google Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 2014. NP-strategies in semitic languages in a typological perspective. Diachronica 31(3). 337–378. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.3.02bar.Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2008. Productivity. Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.8Search in Google Scholar
Beekes, Robert. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Bertrand, Nicolas. 2014. On tmesis, word order and noun incorporation in Homeric Greek. In Annamaria Bartolotta (ed.), The Greek verb. Morphology, syntax, and semantics. Proceedings of the 8th international meeting on Greek linguistics (Agrigento, October 1–3, 2009), 11–30. Louvain: Peeters.Search in Google Scholar
Bortone, Pietro. 2010. Greek prepositions: from antiquity to present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556854.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Bozzone, Chiara. 2014. Constructions: A new approach to formularity, discourse, and syntax in Homer. Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Chantraine, Pierre. 1953. Grammaire homérique. Tome 2: Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.Search in Google Scholar
Conti, Luz. 2006. Untersuchung der sogenannten inhärent reziproken Verben im Altgriechischen: Semantische und syntaktische Eigenschaften. Historische Sprachforschung/Historical Linguistics 119. 168–185.Search in Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique. Paris: Hermès.Search in Google Scholar
Crespo, Emilio, Luz Conti & Maquiera Helena. 2003. Sintaxis del griego clásico. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William & Alan D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864Search in Google Scholar
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi. 2015. Reciprocals in Latin. A reappraisal. In Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), Latin linguistics in the early 21st century: Acts of the 16th international colloquium on Latin linguistics (Uppsala, June 6th–11th, 2011), 221–239. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Search in Google Scholar
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, Putzu Ignazio & Paolo Ramat. 2006. The Indo-European adverb in diachronic and typological perspective. Indogermanische Forschungen 111. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110186505.1.Search in Google Scholar
Danesi, Serena. 2009. Uso e significato della preverbazione in vedico: la testimonianza del R̥gveda. Pisa: University of Pisa dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Darlymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam Mchombo & Stanley Peters. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 159–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005330227480.Search in Google Scholar
De Angelis, Alessandro. 2004. Forme di “tmesi” nel greco omerico, la legge di Wackernagel e un caso di rianalisi sintattica. In Giovanna Rocca (ed.), Dialetti dialettalismi, generi letterari e funzioni sociali. Atti del V colloquio internazionale di linguistica greca (Milano, 12–13 settembre 2002), 179–214. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Search in Google Scholar
De Decker, Filip. 2015. A Morphosyntactic analysis of speech introductions and conclusions in Homer. München: Ludwig Maximiliansuniversität dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Dedio, Stefan & Widmer Paul. 2017. S, A, and P argument demotion with preverbal imm-(a-n)- in Old and Middle Irish. Études Celtiques 43. 187–206. https://doi.org/10.3406/ecelt.2017.1100.Search in Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1897. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen II. Straßburg: Trübner.10.1515/9783111626796Search in Google Scholar
DELG =Chantraine, Pierre. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck.Search in Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis. 2008. Irreducible symmetry in reciprocal constructions. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 375–410. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199147.375Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2008. Reciprocal constructions: Towards a structural typology. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 33–103. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199147.33Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Stephen C. Levinson, Alice Gaby & Asifa Majid. 2011. Introduction: Reciprocals and semantic typology. In Nicholas Evans, Stephen C. Levinson, Alice Gaby & Asifa Majid (eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology, 1–28. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.98.01introSearch in Google Scholar
Fanelli, Valentina. 2009. Le costruzioni reciproche nella lingua latina. Roma: Universitaria editrice.Search in Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Traci S. Curl (eds.). 2000. Reciprocals: Forms and functions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.41Search in Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis. 2018. A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry. Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek. Constructions and Frames 10(1). 61–97. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00011.geo.Search in Google Scholar
Grestenberger, Laura. 2016. Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European deponents. Journal of Indo-European Linguistics 4. 98–149. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125892-00401001.Search in Google Scholar
Haas, Florian. 2007. The development of English each other: Grammaticalization, lexicalization, or both? English Language and Linguistics 11(1). 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674306002103.Search in Google Scholar
Hajnal, Ivo. 2004. Die Tmesis bei Homer und auf den mykenischen Linear B Tafeln – ein chronologisches Paradox? In J.H.W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European perspectives: Studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, 146–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1987. Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type [Arbeitspapiere, N. F. 5]. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions, 2087–2115. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2016. Universals of causative and anticausative verb formation and the spontaneity scale. Lingua Posnaniensis 58(2). 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/linpo-2016-0009.Search in Google Scholar
Haug, Dag T.T. 2011. Tmesis in the epic tradition. In Øivind Andersen & Dag T.T. Haug (eds.), Relative chronology in early Greek epic poetry, 96–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921728.007Search in Google Scholar
Haug, Dag T.T. 2012. Syntactic conditions on null arguments in the Indo-European Bible translations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44(2). 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2013.776239.Search in Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Hiroyuki Miyashita. 2008. The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: A grammaticalization perspective. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 169–224. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199147.169Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206Search in Google Scholar
HoDeL 2.0 = https://hodel.unipv.it/hodel-res/. Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 17–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hopSearch in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017.Search in Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 1981. Space and time in Homer: Prepositional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York: Arno Press.Search in Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 2010. Greek. A history of the language and its speakers. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444318913Search in Google Scholar
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2017. A synchronic and diachronic typology of Hittite reciprocal constructions. Studies in Language 41(4). 956–1006. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17019.ing.Search in Google Scholar
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2020. The Hittite middle voice. Synchrony, diachrony, typology. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004432307Search in Google Scholar
Karantzola, Eleni & Nikolaos Lavidas. 2014. On the relation between labilizations and neuter gender: Evidence from the Greek diachrony. Linguistics 52. 1025–1059. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0015.Search in Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.23Search in Google Scholar
Keydana, Götz & Silvia Luraghi. 2012. Definite referential null objects in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44(2). 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2013.776245.Search in Google Scholar
Knjazev, Jurij P. 2007. Lexical reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal situations. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions, 115–146. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.71.07knjSearch in Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 41–74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.40.03konSearch in Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Shigehiro Kokutani. 2006. Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44(2). 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2006.010.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 cross-linguistic explorations, 1–32. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199147.1Search in Google Scholar
Krisch, Thomas. 1999. Zur Reziprozität in altindogermanischen Sprachen. In Heiner Eichner & Hans-Christian Luschützky (eds.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler Gedenkschrift für Jochern Schindler, 275–297. Praha: Enigma corporation.Search in Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2007. Reciprocal constructions in vedic. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions, 709–738. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.71.23kulSearch in Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2012. Vedic preverbs as markers of valency-changing derivations. Studies in Language 34(4). 721–746. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.4.01kul.Search in Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2013. Middle and reflexive. In Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to syntax, 261–280. London, New Delhi, New York & Sydney: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781472542090.ch-015Search in Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2014a. Grammaticalization of reciprocal pronouns in Indo-Arian: Evidence from Sanskrit and Indo-European for a diachronic typology of reciprocal constructions. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 1(2). 117–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2014-0008.Search in Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2014b. The decline of labile syntax in old indo-aryan: A diachronic typological perspective. Linguistics 52(4). 1139–1165. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0018.Search in Google Scholar
LIPP =Dunkel, George E. 2014. Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Band 2: Lexicon. Heidelberg: Winter.Search in Google Scholar
LIV2 =Rix, Helmut. 2001. Lexicon der Indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Search in Google Scholar
Logozzo, Felicia & Paolo Poccetti. 2017. Ancient Greek linguistics. New approaches, insights, perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110551754Search in Google Scholar
Lord, Albert B. 1960. The singer of tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
LSJ = The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon. Available at: https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=1&context=lsj. Search in Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003a. Definite referential null objects in Ancient Greek. Indogermanische Forschungen 108. 169–196. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110243482.167.Search in Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003b. On the meaning of preposition and cases. The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.67Search in Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 212–229. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. Forthcoming. Basic valency orientation, the anticausative alternation, and voice in PIE. In Proceedings of the 15. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wien (Austria), 13–16 September 2016.Search in Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia, Guglielmo Inglese & Daniel Kölligan. Forthcoming. The passive voice in ancient Indo-European languages: inflection, derivation, periphrastic verb forms. Folia Linguistica Historica.10.1515/flin-2021-2033Search in Google Scholar
Mackridge, Peter. 1985. The modern Greek language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Magni, Elisabetta. 2010. L’evoluzione semantico-funzionale dell’elemento -th- nella morfologia verbale del greco. In Ignazio Putzu, Giulio Paulis, Gianfranco Nieddu & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), La morfologia del greco tra tipologia e diacronia, 266–285. Milano: Franco Angeli.Search in Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2008. Reflexive encoding of reciprocity: Cross-linguistic and language-internal variation. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 225–258. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199147.225Search in Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena & Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. 2005. Reciprocal constructions. In Mattew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. https://wals.info/chapter/106 (accessed 25 January 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007a. Overview of the research. Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions, 3–114. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.71.06nedSearch in Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007b. Encoding of the reciprocal meaning. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions, 147–208. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.71.08nedSearch in Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.). 2007. Reciprocal constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Neri, Sergio. 2013. Zum urindogermanischen Wort für ‘Hand’. In Adam I. Cooper, Jeremy Rau & Michael Weiss (eds.), Multi nominis grammaticus. Studies in classical and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 185–205. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Search in Google Scholar
Parry, Adam (ed). 1971. The making of Homeric verse: the collected papers of Milman Parry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Puddu, Nicoletta. 2005. Riflessivi e intensificatori: greco, latino e le altre lingue indoeuropee. Pisa: ETS Edizioni.Search in Google Scholar
Revuelta Puigdollers, Antonio R. 2007. Morfolgía y sintaxis: Los compuestos verbales de συν- en griego antiguo. In M. Esperanza Torrego, José M. Baños, Concepción Cabrillana & Julian Méndez Dosuna (eds.), Praedicativa II: Esquemas de complementación verbal en griego antiguo y latín, 180–209. Zaragoza: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza.Search in Google Scholar
Revuelta Puigdollers, Antonio. 2010. El pronombre ἀλλήλλων: Entre la reciprocidad y la simetría. In José F. Gonzales Castro & Jesús de la Villa (eds.), Perfiles de Grecia y Roma. Actas del XII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, 133–142. Madrid: SEEC.Search in Google Scholar
Revuelta Puigdollers, Antonio R. 2015. The verbal compounds of com- in Latin and the morphology-syntax interface. In Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), Latin linguistics in the early 21st century: Acts of the 16th international colloquium on Latin linguistics (Uppsala, June 6th–11th, 2011), 158–169. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Search in Google Scholar
Revuelta Puigdollers, Antonio R. 2017. Dis-compound and reciprocal inter se in Latin. Pallas 103. 115–127. https://doi.org/10.4000/pallas.4078.Search in Google Scholar
Romagno, Domenica. 2004. Ancora su preverbazione e sistemi verbali. Il caso dei preverbi greci. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 89(2). 165–180.Search in Google Scholar
Romagno, Domenica. 2010. Anticausativi, passivi, riflessivi: Considerazioni sul medio oppositivo. In Ignazio Putzu, Giulio Paulis, Gianfranco Nieddu & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), La morfologia del greco tra tipologia e diacronia, 430–441. Milano: Franco Angeli.Search in Google Scholar
Sausa, Eleonora. 2015. Argument structure constructions in Homeric Greek. A study on bivalent verbs. Pavia: University of Pavia dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Sausa, Eleonora. 2016. Basic valency orientation in Homeric Greek. Folia Linguistica Historica 37. 205–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2016-0007.Search in Google Scholar
Sausa, Eleonora & Chiara Zanchi. 2015. Non-accusative null objects in the homeric dependency treebank. In Fancesco Mambrini, Marco Passarotti & Caroline Sporleder (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on corpus-based research in the humanities (CRH). Warsaw: Institute of Computer Science.Search in Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard & Albert Debrunner. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Band 2: Syntax. München: Beck.Search in Google Scholar
The Chicago Homer. Available at: https://homer.library.northwestern.edu/. Search in Google Scholar
Tummers, Jose, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts. 2005. Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2): 225–261. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225.Search in Google Scholar
Vezzosi, Letizia. 2010. Micro-processes of grammaticalization. The case of Italian l’un l’altro. In Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization. Current views and issues, 343–372. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.119.18vezSearch in Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2008. From space words to transitive markers: The case of ancient Greek en ‘in’. Transactions of the Philological Society 106. 375–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968x.2008.00204.x.Search in Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2011. The use of the dual number in Homeric Greek. In Thomas Krisch & Thomas Lindner (eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, 595–604. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Search in Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1963. Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6. 1–49.Search in Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1964. Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In Proceedings of the ninth international congress of linguists, 1035–1045. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1976. Toward Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems. In Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene (eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, 305–326. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Search in Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Anna A. & Aleksej D. Shmelev. 2007. Sociativity, conjoining, reciprocity, and the Latin prefix com-. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions, 209–230. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.71.09zalSearch in Google Scholar
Zanchi, Chiara, Eleonora Sausa & Silvia Luraghi. 2018. Hodel, a dependency lexicon for Homeric Greek: Issues and perspectives. In Federico Giusfredi & Paola Cotticelli-Kurras (eds.), Formal representation and digital humanities, 230–256. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Zanchi, Chiara. 2019. Multiple preverbs in ancient Indo-European language. A comparative study on Vedic, Homeric Greek, Old Church Slavic, and Old Irish. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
