Conţinutul numărului revistei |
Articolul precedent |
Articolul urmator |
922 5 |
Ultima descărcare din IBN: 2023-02-27 16:50 |
Căutarea după subiecte similare conform CZU |
811.135.1'1'36 (1) |
Limbi romanice balcanice (Limba română) (1456) |
SM ISO690:2012 GABINSCHI, Marc. Formează oare articolul o clasă de cuvinte (o „parte de vorbire”?) In: Philologia, 2015, nr. 1-2(277-278), pp. 60-79. ISSN 1857-4300. |
EXPORT metadate: Google Scholar Crossref CERIF DataCite Dublin Core |
Philologia | ||||||
Numărul 1-2(277-278) / 2015 / ISSN 1857-4300 /ISSNe 2587-3717 | ||||||
|
||||||
CZU: 811.135.1'1'36 | ||||||
Pag. 60-79 | ||||||
|
||||||
Descarcă PDF | ||||||
Rezumat | ||||||
The author’s argumentation, expounded mostly as a series of objections to C. Dimitriu and in support of other Romanian linguists, is aimed at showing the article (unlike prepositions, conjunctions etc.) having the necessary traits of a categorial marker of a word form of which it is eo ipso a part, hence not being a word itself. Sometimes this is evident (as in case of the adjacent Balkan, Scandinavian, Basque and other post-position or of the Hebrew
pre-position), sometimes, however, it is a part of a non-evident split word form, cf. the English split infinitive, a subclass of German verbs etc. (as in West Germanic and West Romance), but
always nothing more than a categorial marker. Finally, C. Dimitriu’s denying the existence of the category of definiteness in Romanian
is also strongly criticized. |
||||||
Cuvinte-cheie word, Category, marker, word form, adjacent, split. |
||||||
|
DataCite XML Export
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <resource xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xmlns='http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-3' xsi:schemaLocation='http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-3 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-3/metadata.xsd'> <creators> <creator> <creatorName>Gabinschi, M.A.</creatorName> <affiliation>Institutul de Filologie al AŞM, Moldova, Republica</affiliation> </creator> </creators> <titles> <title xml:lang='ro'>Formează oare articolul o clasă de cuvinte (o „parte de vorbire”?)</title> </titles> <publisher>Instrumentul Bibliometric National</publisher> <publicationYear>2015</publicationYear> <relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType='ISSN' relationType='IsPartOf'>1857-4300</relatedIdentifier> <subjects> <subject>word</subject> <subject>word form</subject> <subject>Category</subject> <subject>marker</subject> <subject>adjacent</subject> <subject>split.</subject> <subject schemeURI='http://udcdata.info/' subjectScheme='UDC'>811.135.1'1'36</subject> </subjects> <dates> <date dateType='Issued'>2015-04-01</date> </dates> <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral='Text'>Journal article</resourceType> <descriptions> <description xml:lang='en' descriptionType='Abstract'>The author’s argumentation, expounded mostly as a series of objections to C. Dimitriu and in support of other Romanian linguists, is aimed at showing the article (unlike prepositions, conjunctions etc.) having the necessary traits of a categorial marker of a word form of which it is eo ipso a part, hence not being a word itself. Sometimes this is evident (as in case of the adjacent Balkan, Scandinavian, Basque and other post-position or of the Hebrew pre-position), sometimes, however, it is a part of a non-evident split word form, cf. the English split infinitive, a subclass of German verbs etc. (as in West Germanic and West Romance), but always nothing more than a categorial marker. Finally, C. Dimitriu’s denying the existence of the category of definiteness in Romanian is also strongly criticized.</description> </descriptions> <formats> <format>application/pdf</format> </formats> </resource>