title: The “Kühner-Stegmann” of 1914 and the “Oxford Latin Syntax” of 2015 and 2021: Comparing Two Examples of a Latin syntax of Different Times and Different Approaches
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Hoffmann, Roland
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2021-12-03T17:24:23Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2021-12-03T17:24:23Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2021-03
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Hoffmann R. The “Kühner-Stegmann” of 1914 and the “Oxford Latin Syntax” of 2015 and 2021: Comparing Two Examples of a Latin syntax of Different Times and Different Approaches. Philologia Classica 2021, 16 (1), 138–157.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2021.112
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/33763
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: Comparing the grammars of so-called dead languages is particularly fascinating. The article
  compares two syntactic accounts from completely different time periods — a traditional and
  still well-known one from the 19th century and a modern one that has currently been published:
  the syntactic part of the “Ausführliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache” by Raphael
  Kühner from 1878 and 1879, and the “Oxford Latin Syntax” by Harm Pinkster from
  2015 and 2021. First, the general concepts are introduced: Karl Ferdinand Becker’s theory of
  the three syntactic relations (2.1), S. H. A. Herling’s theory of the equivalence of sentence parts
  and subordinate clauses (2.2), as well as the modern functional approaches of the theory of the
  simple clause (3.1) and the complex sentence (3.2). Six differences between the two Latin syntactic
  concepts are discussed. Three common aspects are taken into consideration, namely the
  corpus-based approach, the restriction to a single language, and the purely descriptive method
  as opposed to a normative or more formal approach. Among the results, it is concluded that
  both grammatical systems of the Latin syntax are legitimate and both should be used to address
  questions concerning Latin syntax.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: de
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Philologia Classica;Volume 16; Issue 1
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: argument
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: clause
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: corpus
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: functional approach
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: functional grammar
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: satellite
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: sentence relation (predicative, attributive, objective)
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: syntax (of Latin)
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: typology
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: The “Kühner-Stegmann” of 1914 and the “Oxford Latin Syntax” of 2015 and 2021: Comparing Two Examples of a Latin syntax of Different Times and Different Approaches
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 138-157.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/33763/1/138-157.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 1 MB