Abdelkader fassi fehri (26 risultati)

Hardcover. Condizione: Fine. in plastic wrap.

Hardcover. Condizione: Brand New. bilingual edition. 358 pages. 9.50x6.50x1.00 inches. In Stock.

Hardcover. Condizione: Gut. xx, 358 S. Gebrauchtes Buch aus ehem. Privatbesitz. GUTER Zustand, wenige Gebrauchsspuren. Used book, few traces of use. C08816 9789027255655 Sprache: Englisch Gewicht in Gramm: 1150.

Condizione: New.

Condizione: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Condizione: New.

Condizione: New.

Condizione: New. In English.

Hardback. Condizione: New. Linguistic gender is a complex and amazing category that has puzzled and still puzzles theoretical linguists, typologists, philosophers, cognitive scientists, didacticians, as well as scholars of anthropology, culture, and even mystical (divine) sufism. In Standard and colloquial Arabic varieties, feminine morphology (unlike "common sense") is not dedicated to mark beings of the female sex (or "natural gender"). When you name the female of a "lion" (?asad) or a "donkey" (?imaar), you use different words (labu?at or ?ataan), as if the male and female of the same species are linguistically conceived as completely unrelated entities. When you "feminize" words like "bee" (na?l) or "pigeon" (?amaam), the outcome is not a noun for the animal with a different sex, but a singular of the collective "bees," "one bee" (na?l-at), or an individual pigeon (?amaam-at). In the opposite direction, when a singular noun "carpenter" (najjar) is feminized, the (unexpected) result is a special plural, or rather a group, "carpenters as a professional group" (najjar-at). Since some of these words (contrastively) possess "normal" masculine plurals, or masculine singulars, I propose to distinguish atomicities (which are broadly "masculine") from unities (which are "feminine"). The diversity of feminine senses is also manifested when you feminize an inherently masculine noun like "father" (?ab), "uncle" (?amm), etc. The outcome (in the appropriate performative context) is that you are endearing your father or uncle, rather than "womanizing" him. More "unorthodox" senses are evaluative, pejorative, diminutive, augmentative, etc. It is striking that gender not only plays a central role in shaping individuation, or perspectizing plurality, but it is also used to distinguish what we count, or what we quantifier over. In Arabic, when you count numbers in sequence (three, four, five, six, etc.), you use the feminine, but when you count objects, you have to "negotiate" for gender, due to the "gender polarity" constraint. Your quantifier senses, which are also subtly built in the grammar, equally negotiate for gender. Wide cross-linguistic comparison extends the inventories of features, mechanisms, and typological notions used, to languages like Hebrew, Berber, Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Amazonian, etc. On the whole, gender is far from being parasitic in the grammar of Arabic or any language (including "classifier" languages). It is central as it has never been.…

Condizione: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Hardcover. Condizione: Brand New. 233 pages. 9.25x6.25x1.00 inches. In Stock.

Condizione: New.

Condizione: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Condizione: New. Investigates the internal structure of words and clauses in Standard Arabic (SA), in the light of developments of Government and Binding Theory (GB). This study argues for a specific theory of typological variation. Series: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Num Pages: 316 pages, biography. BIC Classification: 2CSR; CFK. Category: (P) Professional & Vocational; (UP) Postgraduate, Research & Scholarly. Dimension: 234 x 156 x 19. Weight in Grams: 647. . 1993. Hardback. . . . .…

Hardback. Condizione: New. Linguistic gender is a complex and amazing category that has puzzled and still puzzles theoretical linguists, typologists, philosophers, cognitive scientists, didacticians, as well as scholars of anthropology, culture, and even mystical (divine) sufism. In Standard and colloquial Arabic varieties, feminine morphology (unlike "common sense") is not dedicated to mark beings of the female sex (or "natural gender"). When you name the female of a "lion" (?asad) or a "donkey" (?imaar), you use different words (labu?at or ?ataan), as if the male and female of the same species are linguistically conceived as completely unrelated entities. When you "feminize" words like "bee" (na?l) or "pigeon" (?amaam), the outcome is not a noun for the animal with a different sex, but a singular of the collective "bees," "one bee" (na?l-at), or an individual pigeon (?amaam-at). In the opposite direction, when a singular noun "carpenter" (najjar) is feminized, the (unexpected) result is a special plural, or rather a group, "carpenters as a professional group" (najjar-at). Since some of these words (contrastively) possess "normal" masculine plurals, or masculine singulars, I propose to distinguish atomicities (which are broadly "masculine") from unities (which are "feminine"). The diversity of feminine senses is also manifested when you feminize an inherently masculine noun like "father" (?ab), "uncle" (?amm), etc. The outcome (in the appropriate performative context) is that you are endearing your father or uncle, rather than "womanizing" him. More "unorthodox" senses are evaluative, pejorative, diminutive, augmentative, etc. It is striking that gender not only plays a central role in shaping individuation, or perspectizing plurality, but it is also used to distinguish what we count, or what we quantifier over. In Arabic, when you count numbers in sequence (three, four, five, six, etc.), you use the feminine, but when you count objects, you have to "negotiate" for gender, due to the "gender polarity" constraint. Your quantifier senses, which are also subtly built in the grammar, equally negotiate for gender. Wide cross-linguistic comparison extends the inventories of features, mechanisms, and typological notions used, to languages like Hebrew, Berber, Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Amazonian, etc. On the whole, gender is far from being parasitic in the grammar of Arabic or any language (including "classifier" languages). It is central as it has never been.…

Condizione: New. pp. 336.

Condizione: New. Investigates the internal structure of words and clauses in Standard Arabic (SA), in the light of developments of Government and Binding Theory (GB). This study argues for a specific theory of typological variation. Series: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Num Pages: 316 pages, biography. BIC Classification: 2CSR; CFK. Category: (P) Professional & Vocational; (UP) Postgraduate, Research & Scholarly. Dimension: 234 x 156 x 19. Weight in Grams: 647. . 1993. Hardback. . . . . Books ship from the US and Ireland.…

Couverture souple. Condizione: Bon. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader Linguistique arabe: forme et interprétation. Rabat, Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines, 1982. In-8, broché, XIII-343 pages.

HRD. Condizione: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000.

HRD. Condizione: New. New Book. Delivered from our UK warehouse in 4 to 14 business days. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000.

Hardcover. Condizione: new. Hardcover. Linguistic gender is a complex and amazing category that has puzzled and still puzzles theoretical linguists, typologists, philosophers, cognitive scientists, didacticians, as well as scholars of anthropology, culture, and even mystical (divine) sufism. In Standard and colloquial Arabic varieties, feminine morphology (unlike common sense) is not dedicated to mark beings of the female sex (or natural gender). When you name the female of a lion (?asad) or a donkey (?imaar), you use different words (labu?at or ?ataan), as if the male and female of the same species are linguistically conceived as completely unrelated entities. When you feminize words like bee (na?l) or pigeon (?amaam), the outcome is not a noun for the animal with a different sex, but a singular of the collective bees, one bee (na?l-at), or an individual pigeon (?amaam-at). In the opposite direction, when a singular noun carpenter (najjar) is feminized, the (unexpected) result is a special plural, or rather a group, carpenters as a professional group (najjar-at). Since some of these words (contrastively) possess normal masculine plurals, or masculine singulars, I propose to distinguish atomicities (which are broadly masculine) from unities (which are feminine). The diversity of feminine senses is also manifested when you feminize an inherently masculine noun like father (?ab), uncle (?amm), etc. The outcome (in the appropriate performative context) is that you are endearing your father or uncle, rather than womanizing him. More unorthodox senses are evaluative, pejorative, diminutive, augmentative, etc. It is striking that gender not only plays a central role in shaping individuation, or perspectizing plurality, but it is also used to distinguish what we count, or what we quantifier over. In Arabic, when you count numbers in sequence (three, four, five, six, etc.), you use the feminine, but when you count objects, you have to negotiate for gender, due to the gender polarity constraint. Your quantifier senses, which are also subtly built in the grammar, equally negotiate for gender. Wide cross-linguistic comparison extends the inventories of features, mechanisms, and typological notions used, to languages like Hebrew, Berber, Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Amazonian, etc. On the whole, gender is far from being parasitic in the grammar of Arabic or any language (including classifier languages). It is central as it has never been. Two core concepts are developed in this monograph. First is feminine, or the marked Gender, a property of concepts that are distinguished along dimensions of individuation and unitization, not necessarily sex. The second is unity, a property of singularities, pluralities, and quantities. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability.…

Hardcover. Condizione: new. Hardcover. Linguistic gender is a complex and amazing category that has puzzled and still puzzles theoretical linguists, typologists, philosophers, cognitive scientists, didacticians, as well as scholars of anthropology, culture, and even mystical (divine) sufism. In Standard and colloquial Arabic varieties, feminine morphology (unlike common sense) is not dedicated to mark beings of the female sex (or natural gender). When you name the female of a lion (?asad) or a donkey (?imaar), you use different words (labu?at or ?ataan), as if the male and female of the same species are linguistically conceived as completely unrelated entities. When you feminize words like bee (na?l) or pigeon (?amaam), the outcome is not a noun for the animal with a different sex, but a singular of the collective bees, one bee (na?l-at), or an individual pigeon (?amaam-at). In the opposite direction, when a singular noun carpenter (najjar) is feminized, the (unexpected) result is a special plural, or rather a group, carpenters as a professional group (najjar-at). Since some of these words (contrastively) possess normal masculine plurals, or masculine singulars, I propose to distinguish atomicities (which are broadly masculine) from unities (which are feminine). The diversity of feminine senses is also manifested when you feminize an inherently masculine noun like father (?ab), uncle (?amm), etc. The outcome (in the appropriate performative context) is that you are endearing your father or uncle, rather than womanizing him. More unorthodox senses are evaluative, pejorative, diminutive, augmentative, etc. It is striking that gender not only plays a central role in shaping individuation, or perspectizing plurality, but it is also used to distinguish what we count, or what we quantifier over. In Arabic, when you count numbers in sequence (three, four, five, six, etc.), you use the feminine, but when you count objects, you have to negotiate for gender, due to the gender polarity constraint. Your quantifier senses, which are also subtly built in the grammar, equally negotiate for gender. Wide cross-linguistic comparison extends the inventories of features, mechanisms, and typological notions used, to languages like Hebrew, Berber, Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Amazonian, etc. On the whole, gender is far from being parasitic in the grammar of Arabic or any language (including classifier languages). It is central as it has never been. Two core concepts are developed in this monograph. First is feminine, or the marked Gender, a property of concepts that are distinguished along dimensions of individuation and unitization, not necessarily sex. The second is unity, a property of singularities, pluralities, and quantities. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from our UK warehouse or from our Australian or US warehouses, depending on stock availability.…

Gebunden. Condizione: New. Dieser Artikel ist ein Print on Demand Artikel und wird nach Ihrer Bestellung fuer Sie gedruckt. Two core concepts are developed in this monograph. First is feminine, or the marked Gender, a property of concepts that are distinguished along dimensions of individuation and unitization, not necessarily sex. The second is unity, a property of singularitie.…

Buch. Condizione: Neu. nach der Bestellung gedruckt Neuware - Printed after ordering - Linguistic gender is a complex and amazing category that has puzzled and still puzzles theoretical linguists, typologists, philosophers, cognitive scientists, didacticians, as well as scholars of anthropology, culture, and even mystical (divine) sufism. In Standard and colloquial Arabic varieties, feminine morphology (unlike 'common sense') is not dedicated to mark beings of the female sex (or 'natural gender'). When you name the female of a 'lion' (¿asad) or a 'donkey' (¿imaar), you use different words (labu¿at or ¿ataan), as if the male and female of the same species are linguistically conceived as completely unrelated entities. When you 'feminize' words like 'bee' (näl) or 'pigeon' (¿amaam), the outcome is not a noun for the animal with a different sex, but a singular of the collective 'bees,' 'one bee' (näl-at), or an individual pigeon (¿amaam-at). In the opposite direction, when a singular noun 'carpenter' (najjar) is feminized, the (unexpected) result is a special plural, or rather a group, 'carpenters as a professional group' (najjar-at). Since some of these words (contrastively) possess 'normal' masculine plurals, or masculine singulars, I propose to distinguish atomicities (which are broadly 'masculine') from unities (which are 'feminine'). The diversity of feminine senses is also manifested when you feminize an inherently masculine noun like 'father' (¿ab), 'uncle' (¿amm), etc. The outcome (in the appropriate performative context) is that you are endearing your father or uncle, rather than 'womanizing' him. More 'unorthodox' senses are evaluative, pejorative, diminutive, augmentative, etc. It is striking that gender not only plays a central role in shaping individuation, or perspectizing plurality, but it is also used to distinguish what we count, or what we quantifier over. In Arabic, when you count numbers in sequence (three, four, five, six, etc.), you use the feminine, but when you count objects, you have to 'negotiate' for gender, due to the 'gender polarity' constraint. Your quantifier senses, which are also subtly built in the grammar, equally negotiate for gender. Wide cross-linguistic comparison extends the inventories of features, mechanisms, and typological notions used, to languages like Hebrew, Berber, Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Amazonian, etc. On the whole, gender is far from being parasitic in the grammar of Arabic or any language (including 'classifier' languages). It is central as it has never been. …

Condizione: New. Print on Demand pp. 336 52:B&W 6.14 x 9.21in or 234 x 156mm (Royal 8vo) Case Laminate on White w/Gloss Lam.

Condizione: New. PRINT ON DEMAND pp. 336.