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

On the face of it, the issue of grammatical category interactions seems to be irrelevant for the isolating languages of the Indochina Schprachbund, including Modern Cambodian as one of its typical representatives. A widely spread opinion, shared by the present authors, is that languages like Cambodian lack traditionally recognized grammatical categories since they lack, for example, adverbal or adnominal markers whose omission would render utterances grammatically infelicitous. Moreover, where these languages do express meanings correlative with grammatical meanings found in ―European-standard‖ languages (e.g., via auxiliary words as in mainland languages of the Southeast Asia), these do not build paradigms. For instance, even the availability of specialized future or perfect markers in a given language does not imply that they are opposed, respectively, to the past, to the imperfect, or to unmarked forms with default past or imperfect reading. This said, we shall, however, endeavor to explore here some cases of interaction between the meanings of what most experts in Cambodian believe to be grammatical markers.

Tense-Aspect Markers in Modern Cambodian and their Interaction: Grammatical Category Interactions Revisited