* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 18.645

Wed Feb 28 2007

Qs: Manner vs. Path Languages

Editor for this issue: Kevin Burrows <kevinlinguistlist.org>


We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Jennifer Culbertson, Manner vs. Path Languages


Message 1: Manner vs. Path Languages
Date: 25-Feb-2007
From: Jennifer Culbertson <culbertsoncogsci.jhu.edu>
Subject: Manner vs. Path Languages


Dear Colleagues,

I am looking for information regarding the classification of languages as
path or manner languages. Specifically I'm interesting in Latin, Sanskrit,
Ancient Greek, Gothic, Old Norse, Old High German, Old Church Slavonic,
Avestan, Old Prussian, Akkadian. Information on other dead languages is
welcome.

Thanks for your help,
Jenny Culbertson
Johns Hopkins University

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics
                            Historical Linguistics
                            Typology

Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.