Spektrum Iran

Abstract In the tradition of historical-comparative language or linguistics research,
either the common word pairs of any language pair, which are counted as
descendants of a hypothetical original language are examined, for example
Indo-European (hereditary word pairs) due to a genetic relationship, or a
kind of secondary relationship due to indirect/direct proven geographical
contact (foreign or loanword pairs). Of course, this is quite apart from the
coincidental coherences, which are usually only sought in the formal area,
which is the case, for example, with the false friends or certain
onomatopoeia and interjections. Furthermore, there ist one seldom
researched incident, which can be placed between the common hereditary
and loanwords of a language pair in etymological research. When it comes
to a single intralingual hybrid word, which consists of inherited and
borrowed or different (other language) elements at the same time, one
speaks of “hybrid formations” (Kluge 2011: XXIf.). But if we take up this
topic from a language-pair-related perspective, we are dealing with
interlingual hybrid word pairs, which on the one hand can be hybrid in
every single language involved in the language comparison process and on
the other hand in comparison to one another, i.e., not even interlingually
pure or show an equally bilateral or multi-sided orientation. In view of the
fact that the interlingual hybrid word pairs as a linguistic topic have so far
been occasionally neglected in the absolute majority of the relevant studies
and almost within all (any) language pairs, the present research has dealt
with this topic using the example of the genealogically related German and
Persian languages that came into contact with each other at times.

Abstract In the tradition of historical-comparative language or linguistics research, either the common word pairs of any language pair, which are counted as descendants of a hypothetical original language are examined, for example Indo-European (hereditary word pairs) due to a genetic relationship, or a kind of secondary relationship due to indirect/direct proven geographical contact (foreign or loanword pairs). Of course, this is quite apart from the coincidental coherences, which are usually only sought in the formal area, which is the case, for example, with the false friends or certain onomatopoeia and interjections. Furthermore, there ist one seldom researched incident, which can be placed between the common hereditary and loanwords of a language pair in etymological research. When it comes to a single intralingual hybrid word, which consists of inherited and borrowed or different (other language) elements at the same time, one speaks of “hybrid formations” (Kluge 2011: XXIf.). But if we take up this topic from a language-pair-related perspective, we are dealing with interlingual hybrid word pairs, which on the one hand can be hybrid in every single language involved in the language comparison process and on the other hand in comparison to one another, i.e., not even interlingually pure or show an equally bilateral or multi-sided orientation. In view of the fact that the interlingual hybrid word pairs as a linguistic topic have so far been occasionally neglected in the absolute majority of the relevant studies and almost within all (any) language pairs, the present research has dealt with this topic using the example of the genealogically related German and Persian languages that came into contact with each other at times.

Abstract A critical view of the classification of languages according to linguistic universals is necessary because when analyzing languages one is repeatedly confronted with the assumption that, for example, languages with the SOV word order have postpositions or that they only allow the formation of prenominal relative clauses. In this article, we suggest that Persian provides a counterexample for such generalizations. Using Persian as an example, we also investigate whether the classification of languages by this method can be confirmed by means of a historical overview. Furthermore, it is examined whether the sentence structures of Old and Middle Persian reveal any obvious differences to the contemporary Persian. In the course of this article, several cases that contradict the assumptions of linguistic universals are introduced, and some of these contradicting findings can be explained by diachronic analysis.