Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAldai Garai, Gontzal
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-28T10:05:20Z
dc.date.available2020-12-28T10:05:20Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citationAnuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo 43(1-2) : 19-36 (2009)
dc.identifier.issn0582-6152
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/49484
dc.description.abstractIn this paper I compare the use of the Old Basque (archaic) Periphrastic Aorist (har nezan 'I took') and of the Past Perfect-Perfective or Modern Perfective (hartu nuen 'I took') in the 16thcentury writers Leizarraga (from Labourd) and Lazarraga (from Alava). While the Periphrastic Aorist in Leizarraga is already well known among scholars (having given rise to various disputes), the use of the same verb form in the newly found manuscript by Lazarraga is extremely interesting in order to compare it with Leizarraga's use. My main conclusions from this comparison are the following: a) Lei zarra ga shows a more systematic usage of the Periphrastic Aorist to express a typical perfective (main-clause narrative); this may be due to a conscious attempt to achieve a written formal register. b) Conversely, Lazarraga is more conservative regarding the use of the Periphrastic Aorist in subordinate temporal clauses conveying 'narrative anteriority', e.g.When Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him.
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherServicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatearen Argitalpen Zerbitzua
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleAoristo perifrástico, perfectivo y pluscuamperfecto: Leizarraga vs. Lazarraga
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.rights.holder© 2009, Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco Euskal Herriko Unibertsitateko Argitalpen Zerbitzua


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record