English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Middle Breton (MB) presents an anomaly of pronominal argument coding in imperative and mihi est HAVE constructions: objects can be accusative proclitics only in 1st/2nd person, while unique enclitics appear in 3rd person. Part II traces the history of object coding: Independent &gt; enclitic coding originates in unavailability of accusative object mesoclitics in V1 imperatives by Vendryes’ Restriction in Brythonic, and nonagreement with nominative objects of mihi est in Breton-Cornish. Restriction of enclitics to 3rd person originates with mihi est in typically nonhuman nominative object possessa in Brythonic or Breton-Cornish. It spreads to imperatives through shared enclitic coding in MB, and is circumvented by the MB innovation of accusative proclitics for mesoclitics that allows 1st/2nd person even in V1, as well as the participle in the new HAVE-perfect later in MB. “Innovative” varieties of Breton transition to regular accusative objects with or without losing dative subjects of mihi est. The developments are constrained to familiar patterns of nominative/anomalous subject + accusative/nominative object case combinations, giving rise to the imperative + HAVE construction grouping of Finnish within the history of Breton.

Mihi est from Brythonic to Breton II: The nominative object