1897-1059 The semantics of the Vilamovicean verbal system (part 2: Explanation and modeling) Andrason Alexander author Stellenbosch University, RPA; Stellenbosch Central, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa Correspondence to: Alexander Andrason andrason@sun.ac.za 06 02 2014 Volume 131, Issue 1 2014 7 26 Copyright © 2014 2014 <p>The present study – divided into two papers – provides an analysis of the semantics of the Vilamovicean verbal system within a cognitive and grammaticalization framework. On the one hand, the author offers a detailed description of the entire semantic potential of all the verbal constructions available in the language and, on the other, provides an explanation for the senses conveyed by each one of these forms – more specifically, it is demonstrated that the semantic sphere of every gram can be explained and, hence, unified by making use of typologically common evolutionary scenarios, viz. paths. Consequently, the author shows that the entire Vilamovicean verbal system can be modeled as a recursive process of grammaticalization “waves” whereby older and newer forms evolve along a set of identical paths. This paper constitutes the second part of the series. It provides an explanation of the semantic potentials offered by the Vilamovicean verbal formations and designs a cognitive-grammaticalization model of the entire verbal system of this language.</p> 1 Andrason A. 2013. Against floccinaucinihilipilification of the counterfactual sense of the BH suffix conjugation – or an explanation of why the “indicative” qatal expresses conditions, hypotheses and wishes. – Old Testament Essays 26.1: 20–56. 2 Andrason A. [forthcoming]. From resultatives to present tenses – simultaneous path of resultative constructions. – Italian Journal of Linguistics. 3 Bammesberger A. 1986. Der Aufbau des germanischen Verbalsystems. Heidelberg. 4 Beekes R. 1995. Comparative Indo-European linguistics. Amsterdam. 5 Benveniste E. 1948. Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris. 6 Birkmann T. 1987. Präteritopräsentia. Tübingen. 7 Brugmann K. 1904. Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg. 8 Bybee J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge. 9 Bybee J., Perkins R., Pagliuca W. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago. 10 Collitz H. 1912. Das schwache Präteritum und seine Vorgeschichte. Göttingen. 11 Dahl Ö. (ed.). 2000a. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York. 12 Dahl Ö. 2000b. The grammar of future time reference in European languages. – Dahl Ö. (ed.). 2000a: 309–328. 13 Dahl Ö. 2000c. Verbs of becoming as future tense copulas. – Dahl Ö. (ed.). 2000a: 351–361. 14 Diewald G., Habermann M. 2005. Die Entwicklung von werden &amp; Infinitiv als Futurgrammem: Ein Beispiel für das Zusammenwirken von Grammatikalisierung, Sprachkontakt und soziokulturellen Faktoren. – Leuschner T., Mortelmans T., De Groodt S. (eds.). Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen. Berlin: 229–250. 15 Drinka B. 2003. The formation of periphrastic perfects and passives in Europe: An areal approach. – Blake B., Burridge K. (eds.). Historical linguistics 2001. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 105–128. 16 Grimm J. 1819. Deutsche Grammatik. Göttingen. 17 Hahn A. 1953. Subjunctive and optative: Their origin as futures. New York. 18 Heine B. 1995. On the German werden Future. – Abraham W., Givon T., Thompson S. (eds.). Discourse, grammar and typology. Amsterdam: 119–138. 19 Heine B., Kuteva T. 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford. 20 Hewson J., Bubenik V. 1997. The tense and aspect in Indo-European languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 21 Hilpert M. 2008. Germanic future constructions. A Usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 22 Hirt H. 1921. Indogermanische Grammatik. [vol. 4]. Doppelung, Zusamensetsung, Verbum. Heilderberg. 23 Hirt H. 1932. Handbuch des Urgermanischen. [vol. 2]. Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre. Heilderberg. 24 Jasanoff J. 1978. Stative and middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck. 25 Jasanoff J. 1991. The origin of the Italic imperfect subjunctive. Historische Sprachforschung 104: 84–105. 26 Kerns A., Schwartz B. 1971. A sketch of Indo-European finite verb. Leiden. 27 Kluge F. 1879. Beiträge zur Geschichte der germanischen Conjugation. [= Quellen und Forschungen 32]. Straßburg. 28 Krahe H. 1963. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. [vol. 2: Formenlehre]. Berlin. 29 Krahe H. 1994. Lingüística germánica. Madrid. 30 Loewe R. 1894. Das schwache Präteritum des Germanischen. – Indogermanische Forschungen 4: 365–379. 31 Lühr R. 1984. Reste der athematischen Konjugation in den germanischen Sprachen. – Untermann J., Brogyanyi B. (eds.). Das Germanische und die Rekonstruktion der Indogermanischen Ursprache. Amsterdam: 25–90. 32 Maslov J. 1988. Resultative, perfect and aspect. – Nedjalkov V. (ed.). Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 63–85. 33 Meid W. 1971. Das Germanische Praeteritum; indogermanische Grundlagen und Ausbreitung im Germanischen. Innsbruck. 34 Meillet A. 1964. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Alabama. 35 Nedjalkov V. 1988. Resultative, passive, and perfect in German. – Nedjalkov V. (ed.). Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 411–432. 36 Neu E. 1976. Zur Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Verbalsystems. – Morpurgo-Davies A., Meid W. (eds.). Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European linguistics offered to Leonard R. Palmer. Innsbruck: 239–254. 37 Perel’muter I. 1988. The stative, resultative, passive and perfect in Ancient Greek (Homeric Greek). – Nedjalkov V. (ed.). Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 277–288. 38 Pokorny J. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern. 39 Prokosch E. 1939. A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia. 40 Rix H. 1976. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Darmstadt. 41 Rix H. et al. (eds.). 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden. 42 Scherer W. 1868. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin. 43 Sehrt E. 1944. The origin of the Germanic weak preterite. Language 20: 238–240. 44 Shields K. 1992. A history of Indo-European verb morphology. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 45 Sievers E. 1924. Vedisches und Indogermanisches. – Indogermanische Forschungen 42: 193–220. 46 Squartini M., Bertinetto P.M. 2000. The simple and compound past in Romance languages. – Dahl Ö. (ed.). 2000a: 385–402. 47 Streitberg W. 1896. Urgermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg. 48 Streitberg W. 1915. Zum schwachen Präteritum. – Indogermanische Forschungen 35: 197–198. 49 Sverdrup J. 1929. Das germanische Dentalpräteritum. – Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 2: 5–96. 50 Szemerényi O. 1980. Einfuhrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt. 51 Szemerényi O. 1999. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. Oxford. 52 Tichy E. 1998. Indogermanisches Grundwissen. Freiburg. 53 Tops G. 1974. The origin of the Germanic dental preterit. Leiden. 54 Von Friesen O. 1925. Om det svaga preteritum i germanska språk. Uppsala. 55 Von Kienle R. 1969. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Deutschen. Tübingen.