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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

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

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Santali presents structures with subject clitics in “P minus 2” (P-2) position, before the final verb and enclitic on the preverbal element, a position called “Backernagel” by Kidwai (2005). P-2 is commonly considered to lack clear cross-linguistic support; moreover, while generative accounts can accommodate utterance-second position (P2) as adjunction to a left-peripheral projection, they have no ready way of accommodating P -2. The history and synchrony of Munda “P-2” have elicited several accounts. Anderson (2007) considers three possibilities: Reanalysis of Proto-Munda subject proclitics as enclitic; extension of postverbal object clitics to preverbal subject function; attachment of original resumptive pronouns to the preverbal element. I present evidence for a different hypothesis: The Santali Backernagel clitics originate as P 2 or classical Wackernagel elements. A more fine-grained definition of Wackernagel in terms of different prosodic domains (such as utterance/theme vs. rheme) permits the hypothesis that the apparent P -2 is still a W ackernagel position, but within the rheme rather than the entire utterance, and that within the rheme, the prosodically strongest, preverbal-focus element is the most attractive clitic host. I support my account with evidence from Santali and other Kherwarian languages (which offer traces of an original P 2 position) and parallel developments in Iranian (where the different stages in the development can be traced in greater detail). Backernagel, thus, is a subtype of Wackernagel, and there is no need to assume a typologically problematic P -2 position for Munda (or for various Iranian varieties).

Backernagel is Wackernagel Lite. On the “P-Minus 2” Clitics of Santali