This article proposes a configurationality parameter based solely on the issue of criteriality for fulfillment of the fundamental function of syntax, which is the establishment of linkage between lexemes and their grammatical relations. The two alternative linking systems discussed here are structural and morphological (S-systems and M-systems). S-systems are found in all language, whereas M-systems are found only in certain languages, and there only in isolated pockets which co-occur with specificity gaps in the respective S-system. In the past, observations about the authenticity and idiomaticness of the language of the Gothic Bible have been based on the examination of very limited phenomena as well as on subjective impressions. A general methodology is suggested here for thorough comparison of the Gothic with the Greek original. Application of this methodology to four sample chapters reveals significant and consistent variation in certain areas, although very little variation is found in the area of word order. The latter fact, along with some other considerations, suggests that Gothic had an M-system somewhat comparable to that of Koine Greek.

Barrack (1991) argues against the reconstruction of PGmc. syllable structure proposed in Murray and Vennemann (1983), namely, . According to Murray and Vennemann, this reconstruction is compatible with characteristics of early Germanic verse as well as Gothic word divisions and provides a basis for a coherent interpretation of major phonological changes in early Germanic; namely Sievers's Law, West Germanic gemination, North Germanic resyllabication, and glide strengthening in Gothic. Focusing on these same points, Barrack attempts to reinterpret them as providing evidence for . In this response, I demonstrate that Barrack fails on all counts. Most importantly, he fails to provide a coherent, well-motivated interpretation of the pertinent phonological changes on the basis of his assumed .

Although the celebrated 1875 conjecture of Sievers hypothesizing an Old Saxon Genesis source for the translation of the Old English Genesis B (or Later Genesis) was confirmed by the 1894 find of Zangemeister, the question of the native language of the translator of the Old Saxon Genesis remains. The Genesis B evidence is reconsidered here from the viewpoint of contemporary empirical data to ascertain whether the translator was bilingual or interlingual, the former putatively associated with a native (Old Englishman in this case), the second with a second language learner (of Old English). The Old English data contrasted with the character of Old Saxon and configurated with extrapolations from differing cognitive strategies argue for an Anglo-Saxon provenance of the Genesis B poet.

Standard movement theory stipulates that any X"-phrase that is moved must move to the specifier position (SPEC) of C". In this paper, however, it is argued on the basis of coordination phenomena, verb-final structure, and diachronic evidence that, in relative clauses and indirect questions, the moved pronoun or w-element functions more as a true complementizer than as a fronted X"-phrase and thus should move to the head position C. Movement to C is thus determined not by the phrase-structure level of the moved category, but by feature compatibility.

This word study traces the use of schulde(n) through the Nibelungenlied focusing on the central episodes in âventiuren 14–19. Considerable synchronic variability exists in the lexical semantics of MHG schulde(n). This variability is explicable in terms of the etymological development of schulde(n), a variability which is systematically exploited throughout the work. As the plot unfolds, the occurrences of this word and its closest derivational relatives shift steadily from semantically bleached uses and the neutral meaning of ‘obligation’ toward the narrow meaning ‘guilt’.

Several years ago we started work on a new etymological dictionary of the English language and published a short announcement of our plans (Liberman and Mitchell 1988). Now the contours of the dictionary have become clear enough for us to begin writing our first entries and to introduce our project to a wider range of scholars.

For much too long the description of syntactic phenomena has been suffering from prior, axiomatically given assumptions within particular syntactic theories. With the review of my book in this journal we now have proof that these assumptions may also seriously distort the view of a book which indeed does not religiously follow within the footsteps of any of these theories. In this brief note I shall try to set the record straight with regard to some of the worst distortions. The rest is left to the reader of my book and of the review, who I trust will be able to judge for him/herself, in particular with regard to the tone and style of the review.