We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
References
REFERENCES
Anderson, S. R. (1976). On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 3–23.Google Scholar
Back, M. (1980). Ergativität und genera verbiim mittelpersischen Präteritum. Vortrag vordem 20. Deutschen Orientalistentag. Ms., Universität Freiburg i.B.Google Scholar
Jeffers, R. J. & Lehiste, Ilse (1979). Principles and met hods for historical linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mimer, G. B. (1973). ‘It is aspect (not voice) which is marked in Samoan’. Oceanic Linguistics12, 621–639.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (ed.) (1979a). Ergativity. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1979b). ‘Ergativity, syntactic typology and univeral grammar: some past and present viewpoints’. In Plank (1979a). 3–36.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. (1979). ‘On the origins of ergativity’. In Plank (1979a). 385–404.Google Scholar