This paper contributes to an ongoing debate on the syntactic status of oblique subject-like NPs in the ‘impersonal’ construction (of the type me-thinks) in Old Germanic. The debate is caused by the lack of canonical subject case marking in such NPs. It has been argued that these NPs are syntactic objects, but we provide evidence for their subject status, as in Modern Icelandic and Faroese. Thus, we argue that the syntactic status of the oblique subject-like NPs has not changed at all from object status to subject status, contra standard claims in the literature. Our evidence stems from Old Icelandic, but the analysis has implications for the other old Germanic languages as well. However, a change from non-canonical to canonical subject case marking (‘Nominative Sickness’) has affected all the Germanic languages to a varying degree.

This paper argues that the term ‘passive’ has been systematically misapplied to a class of impersonal constructions that suppress the realization of a syntactic subject. The reclassification of these constructions highlights a typological contrast between two types of verbal diathesis and clarifies the status of putative ‘passives of unaccusatives’ and ‘transitive passives’ in Balto-Finnic and Balto-Slavic. Impersonal verb forms differ from passives in two key respects: they are insensitive to the argument structure of a verb and can be formed from unergatives or unaccusatives, and they may retain direct objects. As with other subjectless forms of personal verbs, there is a strong tendency to interpret the suppressed subject of an impersonal as an indefinite human agent. Hence impersonalization is often felicitous only for verbs that select human subjects.

This article first outlines the theory of the predicative and enunciative operations (TOPE) developed by Antoine Culioli and his associates. It then shows how this theory enables one to analyse such linguistic units as the verbal prefix z- in Ikwere, spoken in Nigeria, and, more precisely, the way they operate in the language. We find that behind the various uses of z- is an invariant meaning element which consists of introducing a ranking between p and p′, i.e., two constituent values of a given unorganized notional domain, such that the domain is finally organized. It is further argued that the TAM (Tense-Aspect-Modality) category, which z- is related to, is constructed by the utterance in which z- occurs.

Pre-aspirated stops, known to be quite rare in the world's languages, are shown herein to be significantly rarer still. Their aspiration component is typically reinforced by an oral gesture that is influenced by the following stop and/or the preceding vowel. Alternatively, the aspiration component weakens to zero and is replaced by vowel length. In this typological study I document the phonetic details of so-called pre-aspirates and offer phonetic explanations for their rarity and their diachronic instability.

One often reads today (see below) that certain properties of natural language (NL) or certain methods of describing NLs are (VIRTUALLY) CONCEPTUALLY NECESSARY. I take the negative view that such usages are an illegitimate, purely rhetorical way of seeking to justify assumptions which cannot be supported on genuine factual or theoretical grounds. Put differently, such claims are a way of suggesting that specific and actually highly controversial assumptions more or less follow from some very general and uncontroversial features of NL. The problem is that the suggestion is not, and, I claim, could not be, backed up with genuine evidence or argument showing that it is true.

This article reviews two important recent contributions to the theory of morphology, which take significantly different approaches to the subject. Both are centrally concerned with questions of morphotactics. Rice argues that morpheme order in Athapaskan is largely the consequence of universal principles of semantic scope (coded as syntactic structure). Stump argues for a conception of inflection based on the paradigm. There is virtually no overlap between the two books, yet each raises questions that are of great significance for the other. In this review I briefly evaluate each book and then sketch the possibility of a synthesis.