| Conţinutul numărului revistei |
| Articolul precedent |
| Articolul urmator |
 |
 914 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) (1455) |
 SM ISO690:2012GABINSCHI, 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. |
||||||
|
Dublin Core Export
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/' xmlns:oai_dc='http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/' xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xsi:schemaLocation='http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd'> <dc:creator>Gabinschi, M.A.</dc:creator> <dc:date>2015-04-01</dc:date> <dc:description xml:lang='en'>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.</dc:description> <dc:source>Philologia 277-278 (1-2) 60-79</dc:source> <dc:subject>word</dc:subject> <dc:subject>word form</dc:subject> <dc:subject>Category</dc:subject> <dc:subject>marker</dc:subject> <dc:subject>adjacent</dc:subject> <dc:subject>split.</dc:subject> <dc:title>Formează oare articolul o clasă de cuvinte (o „parte de vorbire”?)</dc:title> <dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type> </oai_dc:dc>
|
|
|
