Luca Alfieri

It is usually assumed that between the 16th and 18th centuries language sciences were divided into three main research lines: studies on language origin, practical grammars and “philosophical” grammars. At the same time, scholars working on the history of word-formation have never discussed the link between the history of word-formation, “philosophical” grammars and the synchrony/diachrony confusion. The present paper thus aims to show that the “philosophical” grammars comprise two types of works which are substantially different as for their settlement on the time axis and their theory of word-formation. The first group includes a-chronic grammars which develop a semantic-metaphysical theory of word-formation or exclude data on word-formation completely, e.g. the Modistae’s grammaticae speculativae and Port Royal’s Grammaire. The second group includes pan-chronic grammars that describe data on word-formation, but interpret these data only sub specie originis linguae, e.g. Scaliger’...

The present paper aims at describing the contemporary socio-linguistic situation of the Persian area in term od diglossia (§ 1-2), thus disproving Ferguson's position (1959). Prosodic features of New Persian are examined: the syllabic structure of the literary standard (Kstabi) has been compared with the syllabic structure of the Tehran dialect, the latter representing the new colloquial standard. What emerged is the presence of isoglosses between the new colloquial standard and the early New Persian documents in Dari, which differentiate both varieties from the literary standard (§ 3-7). The syllable of the colloquial standard does not represent an innovation, in spite of previous interpretations: as a matter of fact, such a syllabic structure was already attested in Dari, although rejected by the literary variety due to the Arabic influence. In our final considerations the advantage of adopting a sociolinguistic approach in the field of historical linguistics is stated (§ 8).

The threefold division noun-verb-adjective is often considered a hallmark of the IE family from the remote PIE phase. However, Alfieri (2016, 2018, forth.) claims that this view is incorrect: while in Latin three major classes of lexemes are found (nouns, verbs and adjectives), in the Sanskrit language of the Rig Veda only two major classes are found (verbal roots and nouns) and the most typical “adjective” (i.e. the Quality Modifier) is a derived stem built on a verbal root meaning a quality. As a consequence, a deep and previously neglected typological change should be reconstructed in the IE family, namely the lexicalization of the adjective class and the change from a parts of speech (PoS) system “without” adjectives and quality concepts verbally encoded, which is still preserved in the RV, to a PoS system with “true” adjectives, which is found in Latin and in almost all other, especially modern and Western, IE languages. In this case, the data in Alfieri (2016, 2018, forth.) ar...

Substantive is a synonym of "noun"; etymologically it means "that is a substance, substantive". Nevertheless not all substantives refer to substances. Two explanations are possible: either who firstly introduced the signifier substantive thought that all nouns were related to substances, or the signifier itself has to be referred to a different philosophical frame. According to Aristoteles the noun does not refer to substances, but it is the substantive part of the sentence. Traces of Neoplatonic influence have been found in the comments on Aristotle in early Middle Age: the noun became the sign of individual substances. Following the Speculative Grammar, the presence of the noun in language ensured the existence of the corresponding substance. Only Abelardus, the first who used substantive referring to the noun, disagreed with the aforementioned view. Thomas of Aquin, through the modi significandi, gave a new etymological motivation to the signifier. The relatio...

PRemessa es ist gleich tödlich für den geist, ein system zu haben und keines zu haben; er wird sich wohl entschließen mussen beides zu verbinden. F. schlegel Qualche volta non ci capiamo… Non troviamo le parole giuste per esprimerci, non comprendiamo il pensiero ...

One of the main differences between Greek-Latin parts of speech theory and the parts of speech theory of so-called traditional linguistics lies in the presence of the adjective as an independent word class, but hitherto the literature on the topic has not discussed this question specifically. The paper therefore analyzes the definitions of the noun, the verb and the epithet-adjective class from Dionysius Thrax to the Port Royal grammar with the aim of demonstrating that the birth of the adjective as an independent word class, as well as the stabilization of the labels  nomen substantivum and  nomen adjectivum with reference to the common noun and the adjective, depend on the reinterpretation of Aristotle’s metaphysics in the light of Neo-platonic ontology in the Middle Ages.

The history of the derivatio, the grammaticae rationales, and the synchrony-diachrony confusion between the XVII and the XVIII century. It is usually assumed that between the 16th and the 18th centuries language sciences included three main research lines: works on language origin; practical grammars and philosophical grammars. This view has been countered by Alfieri (2019), who showed that between the 13th and the 16th centuries philosophical grammars comprised two types of works which were substantially different as for their settlement on the time axis, as well as for their theory of derivatio. In this case the hypothesis in Alfieri (2019) will be taken up, showing that also in the 17th and 18th centuries philosophical grammars included two groups of works: a-chronic grammars that exclude data on word-formation; pan-chronic grammars that describe data on word-formation with special attention, but interpret these data only sub specie originis linguae. KEYWORDS: History of linguist...

In alcuni lavori recenti (Alfieri 2016, 2018, in stampa a, b) e stata identificata una profonda differenza tipologica tra il sistema delle parti del discorso del latino e del sanscrito vedico. In latino ci sono tre classi principali di morfemi primari (nomi, verbi e aggettivi); in vedico ce ne sono solo due (nomi e radici verbali), e la funzione tipica dell’aggettivo (il modificatore che indica una qualita) e svolta da strutture di tipo participiale o da nominalizzazioni, i.e. da temi aggettivali secondariamente derivati a partire da radici verbali che indicano qualita. In questo caso, ci proponiamo di riprendere in mano i dati contenuti in quei lavori per mostrare che la linea di divisione che separa la morfologia derivazionale e il lessico e diversa in latino e in vedico e che questa diversita e il risultato di un mutamento tipologico a livello delle parti del discorso realizzatosi in latino ma non ancora in vedico (i.e. la lessicalizzazione di una classe di aggettivi “primari” a ...

This collection of essays by young specialists in linguistic disciplines addresses the oldest – and yet still topical – issues in the debate on language. It also includes a contribution by the famous Russian semiologist Boris Uspenskij (pupil, friend and collaborator of L. Hjelmslev, R. Jakobson and M. Lotman). Valentina Martina explores the relation between the plane of linguistic meanings and reality through an analysis of the concept of "system". The article by Artemij Keidan addresses the problem of the definition of deixis and its role in the disambiguation of proposition, with special reference to structuralism and contemporary theories on direct reference. The work of Luca Alfieri takes its cue from recent studies on cognition to demonstrate the unsustainability of the Jacobsonian dichotomy of metaphor and metonymy. Rounding off the book is an essay by Boris Uspenskij on the role of personal pronouns in the structure of language, in semiotics and in human communicat...

This paper seeks to analyse the birth of the category “adjective” in the light of the Greek-Latin bilingualism typical of the classical tradition. One of the main differences between the Greek-Latin parts of speech theory and that of later European linguistics (from the Middle Ages onwards) lies in the existence of the adjective as an independent word class. The paper sums up the definitions of the categories of noun, verb and epithet/adjective from Aristotle through the 16th century, with the aim of showing that the birth of the adjective as an independent word class has occurred between the late antiquity and the Middle Ages, as a consequence of the reinterpretation of Aristotle’s metaphysic in the light of Neoplatonic ontology.

The threefold division noun-verb-adjective is often considered a hallmark of the IE family from the remote PIE phase. However, Alfieri (2016, 2018, forth.) claims that this view is incorrect: while in Latin three major classes of lexemes are found (nouns, verbs and adjectives), in the Sanskrit language of the Rig Veda only two major classes are found (verbal roots and nouns) and the most typical "adjective" (i.e. the Quality Modifier) is a derived stem built on a verbal root meaning a quality. As a consequence , a deep and previously neglected typological change should be reconstructed in the IE family, namely the lexicalization of the adjective class and the change from a parts of speech (PoS) system "without" adjectives and quality concepts verbally encoded, which is still preserved in the RV, to a PoS system with "true" adjectives, which is found in Latin and in almost all other, especially modern and Western, IE languages. In this case, the data in Alfieri (2016, 2018, forth.) are confirmed focusing on the Quality Argument and the Quality Predicate, so as to show that the presence of a lexical class of adjectives is a common development that has come about independently in different branches of the IE family.

It is usually assumed that between the 16th and 18th centuries language sciences were divided into three main research lines: studies on language origin, practical grammars and “philosophical” grammars. At the same time, scholars working on the history of word-formation have never discussed the link between the history of word-formation, “philosophical” grammars and the synchrony/diachrony confusion. The present paper thus aims to show that the “philosophical” grammars comprise two types of works which are substantially different as for their settlement on the time axis and their theory of word-formation. The first group includes a-chronic grammars which develop a semantic-metaphysical theory of word-formation or exclude data on word-formation completely, e.g. the Modistae’s grammaticae speculativae and Port Royal’s Grammaire. The second group includes pan-chronic grammars that describe data on word-formation, but interpret these data only sub specie originis linguae, e.g. Scaliger’s and Sanctius’ grammars, as well as Schottel’s and Adelung’s works. If such a division of “philosophical” grammars is accepted a better understanding of the history of word-formation and a more precise description of the architecture of language sciences between the 16th and 18th centuries are obtained.

La lingua de Il primo re e la ricerca applicata nell'ambito delle scienze umane * Luca Alfieri, Università degli studi Guglielmo Marconi SOMMARIO SOMMARIO The paper focuses on the invention of a Proto-Latin language for the film Il primo Re by M. Rovere (2019). The language was created with the explicit aim of producing a barbaric and primitivistic effect on the hearer. The method used to invent it is summed up in the formula: back in time, but still in place. We started from Classical Latin and "antiquated" it exploiting the data from historical Latin and Indo-European linguistics, but we avoided mixing Latin with different languages. The result is a particular type of language ex inventione: the single chunks that compose it are all plausible reconstructions from the scientific point of view, but they are not attested and have never co-existed as such. Language science and the human instinct for creativity (verbigeratio ludica) are therefore the two sources from which the language of the film was created. È bene precisare sin d'ora che ciò di cui voglio parlare non è Scienza, né pretende di esserlo. Si tratta, semmai, di un esperimento di ricerca applicata (o "industriale") nel campo delle scienze umane: più precisamente di un esperimento di "verbigerazione ludica"-per usare una divertente definizione di Bausani-a scopo sostanzialmente commerciale. Poiché, però, le attività che rientrano nella "terza missione" dell'università sono piuttosto rare nell'ambito delle scienze umane e la glottopoiesi rientra perfettamente nel tema del nostro convegno, spero che questo piccolo esempio di "lavoro culturale"-per dirla con Bianciardi-pur senza ambire alla scienza, possa comunque interessare il linguista appassionato di cinema, il cinefilo appassionato di lingue o lo studioso che non ha perso la capacità di guardare il lato ironico del suo lavoro. Ma procediamo con ordine. Un giorno-siamo nell'aprile del 2018-mi cerca un mio vecchio

In some recent publications (ALFIERI 2016, 2018, forth. a, b) a deep typological differ-ence between the parts of speech system in Latin and in the Sanskrit language of the Rig-veda (RV) has been identified. In Latin, three major classes of simple morphemes are found (nouns, verbs and adjectives); in RV Sanskrit, only two major classes are found (nouns and verbal roots), and the most typical function of the “adjective” (i.e. the modifier that refers to a quality) is coded by a participial construction or a nom-inalization, that is to say by a derived nominal stem built on a verbal root meaning a quality. The present paper aims at re-examining the data discussed in those works to show that: a) the line that divides derivational morphology and the lexicon differs in Latin and in RV Sanskrit, since a whole part of speech (i.e. the adjective) is coded at the level of the lexicon in Latin, but at the level of word-formation in RV Sanskrit; b) the difference between Latin and RV Sanskrit depends on a typological change at the level of the parts of speech that was complete in Latin, but not yet in the RV (namely, the lexicalization of the former derived stems of Indo-European origin).

n a series of recent works, Prof. Ilija CaSule claimed that Burushaski is not a linguistic isolate, as usually believed, but rather an Indo-European language of Balkan origin and, more specifically, a creolized form of Phrygian or of a closely related North-Western IE language (Thracian, Illyrian, etc.). This claim has raised some discussion among specialists. The present paper, therefore, aims at reviewing the evidence on which Casule’s view is based from a traditional, comparative perspective and concludes that Burushaski can be classified as a linguistic isolate that at some point in history experienced interference and partial relexification with one or more layers of Indo-European materials, whose origin cannot be ascertained with certainty, rather than as an Indo-European language in traditional sense.

È bene precisare sin d'ora che ciò di cui voglio parlare non è Scienza, né pretende di esserlo. Si tratta, semmai, di un esperimento-speriamo non infelice-di ricerca applicata o "industriale" nell'ambito delle scienze umane. Ma procediamo con ordine.

The term root can represent both a diachronic and a synchronic unit. The antecedent of a set of etymologically related forms is a diachronic root (D-root); the input form for productive word-formation rules is a synchronic root (S-root). While the difference between D-root and S-root is (almost) uncontroversial, the definition of the S-root in itself is quite problematic. In fact, the S-root can be defined as: i) a primary lexical morpheme, without specifying its category or type; ii) a primary lexical morpheme that coincides with a word minus inflection and, more specifically, with a simple verb stem; iii) a primary lexical morpheme that differs from a word minus inflection and, more specifically, from a simple verb stem. A comparison between the adjectival encoding in Latin and in a corpus of 51 Rig-Vedic hymns shows that only option iii) is acceptable. In Latin 3 major classes of lexical morphemes are found (nouns, verbs and adjectives) and the most typical adjective is a simple adjectival stem, while in the RV only two major classes are found (verbal roots and nouns) and the most typical adjective is a derived stem built on a verbal root meaning a quality. Therefore, the simple verb stem is the lexical morpheme on which the most typical verb is built (in addiction to some nouns and adjectives), but the root is the lexical morpheme on which the most typical verb and the most typical adjective are built (in addiction to some nouns).

This paper seeks to analyze the translation of grammatical terminology. One of the main differences between the Greek-Latin parts of speech theory and that of traditional later European linguistics (from Port Royal onwards) lies in the existence of the adjective as an independent word class. The paper examines the definitions of the categories of noun, verb and epithet/adjective from Dionysius Thrax through the 17th century, with the aim of showing that the birth of the adjective as an independent word class, along with the stabilization of the labels nomen substantivum and adjectivum with reference to the common noun and the adjective, hides a problem in meta-semiotic translation. Specifically, the issue concerns the translationreinterpretation of Aristotle’s metaphysics in light of Neo-platonic ontology during the Middle Ages, as well as its influence on the reinterpretation-translation of the Greek-Latin parts of speech theory between Late Antiquity and the Renaissance.

... äß, acc.s. äpsm ma gen.s. apö. 12 Con ciò non si vuole prendere posizione in modo diretto sulla Lex Eichner (difesa con buoni argomenti da Rasmussen 1991 e Melchert 1994: 68 (con bibliografia) ma contrastata da Lindeman 1997 e Di Giovine 2006). ...

PRemessa es ist gleich tödlich für den geist, ein system zu haben und keines zu haben; er wird sich wohl entschließen mussen beides zu verbinden. F. schlegel Qualche volta non ci capiamo… Non troviamo le parole giuste per esprimerci, non comprendiamo il pensiero ...