Good morning. My name is Regina Hänsel. I'm going to talk to you about my work in the ODFTC. First a little bit about the specification. ODF is a specification for file formats for office documents. The version 1.2 has been published as ISO standard in June 2015. The subcommittee 34 and there in the work of 6 is responsible for it. This subcommittee has a scope document descriptions and processing languages. It deals in Office Open, XML and EPUB as well. Although the standard is under the responsibility of ISO, actual development and maintenance is done by OASIS. OASIS is a non-profit consortium with membership of over 600 organizations and individuals. The participants work in currently 64 technical committees and one of them is a project OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications. A short open document. Now I show you a little bit about the TC itself. The chart shows the current number of participants of the TC. We have work in yellow regular members. They get voting rights by attendance in meetings. The table shows the members which were actually active last year. Despite the small number, you see the diversity of the members and their widespread field of experience. From a point of organization, we have companies here and here, here. Associations and document foundations. We have government departments. That's the last one, I have no more. And we have individuals. From a point of office application, you will notice a calligram. That's here, numeric. We have LibreOffice and we have Microsoft Office in this TC. What has this TC to do with that? Part is maintenance. The specification has about 1,300 pages. Such large documents always has typos or broken references and such errors. Some semantic is reflected to styles, source of additional errors. Furthermore, special care is needed in using normative keywords and keeping schema and post-text matched. The next items address content problems which come into view by comparing programs. For example, all implementations use angle in radian, but degree is specified. This case is easily solved. We will adapt the specification. More difficult are cases where the implementations are different. We might solve it by introducing new elements and attributes or by making one behavior standard for F1.3. What requires changes in other applications. There exist rules for voting. But of course we try to find consensual solutions. Let us have a look at the tools. We use common tools like mailing list, meetings and rack tracker. The public mailing list gives non-members means to report bugs or request features or give other input to the TC. The member mailing list is used for discussions and attachments. Agendas and meeting notes are routinely posted there. Both lists have a public archive. Radia meetings are held by telephone. Currently the TC meets on Monday starting at 17 UTC for one hour. That is 6 o'clock in the evening for members in Germany and 9 o'clock for members in California. Oasis provides JIRA issue tracker. Unfortunately it's global settings like formatting features and attachments. We work around it shortcoming by using mailing list attachments or wiki and uploading documents to the repository. Let's have a look how we work. All starts with an issue. Currently nearly 300 issues with target ODF 1.3 are unresolved. The chairs select a group of issues for the next meeting. Early announcement of the agenda gives the members time to prepare. Only a few issues can be immediately handled finally. Example given obvious typos or off topic requests. In most cases a shortage of customs revealed open problems. Which leads to some homework for the members. After one or sometimes more turns the members agree on the basic solutions. That's here we therefore here the circle. One member gets the issue assigned and scripts a solution which means changing the schema and the text. In a final run the TC votes on this proposal and then the issue is solved. But that is not the end of the work. All the changes have to be incorporated in a draft for the next version of the specification. Currently the TC has a backlog of nearly 100 resolved but not included issues. And there exists no complete working draft. Help is appreciated. Of course the TC also consider new features. Such come in from several sources. So all the FTC itself has a subcommittee to work on collaboration in document editing including change tracking.  As I already mentioned a few elements and attributes were added to solve differences between existing implementations. Sometimes TC gets a feature request via office comment list. If it is indeed a request for file format and seems useful then the TC will track it in an issue. The TC does not automatically work on it but will wait until someone is actually going to implement it. Most features come in from implementers. They first put a new element or attribute in a private namespace and test it. ODF provides an extended mode that can be used for that purpose. Implement or TC member will write down the needed changes for text and schema. It is put in an issue then and the TC works on it. That way new file format elements have at least one realization. But developers tend to badly document the extension and so makes it unnecessary difficult for other applications to implement it. There is no automatism that the proposal will be carried over exactly. But implementers might need to change their application when they are going to support ODF 1.3. I have noticed some problems in regard to file format in LibreOffice. Other projects may not have such problems so please do not rushly generalize them. Validity should not be a problem because the check is simple. We have heard about Validate data. However, it is annoying that developers sometimes neglect that aspect. Differences between applications are serious for the standard. If they are not errors in one application but are caused by a weak specification then that means trouble for the TC. It is important that the TC becomes early aware of such problems. There exists a public mailing list, open document users which had been created for that purpose but it is not used. Nevertheless, the communication channel does not really matter. As long as developers consult with the TC in case the specification is not clear enough. The last group is a bit tricky because they touch the attitude of developers. One aim of my talk is to raise awareness of file format and encourage developers to a fruitful collaboration with the members of the ODF TC. I have been a member in the ODF TC for almost five years now. You might wonder why I work as it is volunteer. I am interested in mark-up languages and I use StarOffice and its successors for 20 years now. But more important, I like that ODF is an open standard. Everyone can participate in the development of the standard. The process is anti-transparent and decisions follow democratic procedures. That was my talk. I have skipped a lot of details because of the time frame. Thank you for listening to me. Do you have questions? If I need to open office, do you want to validate the course? You can use a validator to attest the document. The problem with open office and deep office is that code is in part over 20 years old. There exist features which have been transformed to the property XML format of openoffice.org but are not transferred to ODF. There are a lot of features which need to be transferred to ODF 1.3 before all cases can validate against the schema. If you can see changes at some point, otherwise it doesn't make sense. At the moment there is no timeline. The problem is that we would need some people more to do the work. As I already mentioned, we have 300 unsolved and 100 solved. We need at least an editor who incorporates the already solved one. When the work is good, we can solve four issues in a week. You can count how long it needs until we have worked on all the existing issues. There are still some open in deep office where there is not even an issue. There is no time frame yet. You can accept other questions informally. There is a presentation by FOSTA. You can download it and it has a lot of information in the notes including links and so on.


The Book of Hosea from the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Mark Penfold. The Book of Hosea. Chapters 1-7 A word of Jehovah that hath been unto Hosea, son of Birai, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, son of Joash, king of Israel. The commencement of Jehovah's speaking by Hosea, and Jehovah saith unto Hosea, Go, take to thee a woman of hordens, and children of hordens, for utterly go a whoring doth the land from after Jehovah, and he goeth and taketh Gomer, daughter of Deblayim, and she conceiveth, and beareth to him a son. And Jehovah saith unto him, Call his name Jezreel, for yet a little, and I have charged the blood of Jezreel on the house of Jehu, and have caused to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel, and it hath come to pass in that day that I have broken the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceiveth again, and beareth a daughter, and he saith to him, Call her name Lo-Ru-Hama, for I add no more to pity the house of Israel, for I do utterly take them away. And the house of Judah I pity, and have saved them by Jehovah their God, and do not save them by bow, and by sword, and by battle, by horses, and by horsemen. And she weeneth Lo-Ru-Hama, and conceiveth, and beareth a son. And he saith, Call his name Lo-Am I, for ye are not my people, and I am not for you, and the number of the sons of Israel hath been as the sand of the sea that is not measured nor numbered. And it hath come to pass in the place where it is said to them, Ye are not my people. It is said to them, Sons of the living God, and gathered up have been the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel together, and they have appointed to themselves one head, and have gone up from the land, for great is the day of Jezreel. CHAPTER II Say ye to your brethren, Am I, and to your sisters, Ru-Hama, Plead ye with your mother, Plead, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. And she turneth her hordens from before her, and her adulteries from between her breasts. Lest I strip her naked, and have set her up as in the day of her birth, and have made her as a wilderness, and have set her as a dry land, and have put her to death with thirst.  Therefore lo, I am hedging up thy way with thorns, and I have made for her a wall, and her paths she doth not find. And she hath pursued her lovers, and she doth not overtake them, and hath sought them, and doth not find. And she hath said, I go, and I turn back unto my first husband, for better to me then than now. And she knew not that I had given to her the corn, and the new wine, and the oil, yea, silver I did multiply to her, and the gold they prepared for pa'al. Therefore do I turn back, and I have taken my corn in its season, and my new wine in its appointed time, and I have taken away my wool and my flax, covering her nakedness. And now do I reveal her dishonor before the eyes of her lovers, and none doth deliver her out of my hand. And I have caused to cease all her joy, her festival, her new moon, and her sabbath, and all her appointed times. And made desolate her vine and her fig tree, of which she said, a gift they are to me, that my lovers have given to me, and I have made them for a forest, and consumed them have a beast of the field, and I have charged on her the days of the Baalim, to whom she maketh perfume, and puteth on her ring and her ornament, and goeth after her lovers, and me forget, an affirmation of Jehovah. Therefore lo, I am enticing her, and have caused her to go to the wilderness, and I have spoken unto her heart, and given to her her vineyards from vents, and the valley of Akkor for an opening of hope, and she hath responded there as in the days of her youth, and as in the day of her coming up out of the land of Egypt, and it hath come to pass in that day an affirmation of Jehovah, thou dost call me my husband, and dost not call me any more my lord. And I have turned aside the names of the lords from her mouth, and they are not remembered any more by their name, and I have made to them a covenant in that day with the beast of the field, and with the fowl of the heavens, and the creeping thing of the ground, and bow, and sword, and war I break off from the land, and have caused them to lie down confidently. And I have betrothed thee to me to the age, and betrothed thee to me in righteousness, and in judgment, and kindness, and mercies, and betrothed thee to me in faithfulness, and thou hast known Jehovah, and it hath come to pass in that day, I answer, an affirmation of Jehovah, I answer the heavens, and they answer the earth, and the earth doth answer the corn, and the new wine, and the oil, and they answer Jezreel. And I have sowed her to me in the land, and I have pitied low Ruhama, and I have said to low Am I, my people, thou art, and it saith, my God. CHAPTER 3 And Jehovah saith unto me, again, go, love a woman, loved of a friend, and an adulteress, like the loved of Jehovah, the sons of Israel, and they are turning unto other gods, and are lovers of great cakes. And I buy her to me for fifteen silverlings, and a homer, and a letek of barley. And I say unto her, many days thou dost remain for me, thou dost not go ahoring, nor become anyones, and I also am for thee. For many days remain do the sons of Israel without a king, and there is no prince, and there is no sacrifice, and there is no standing pillar, and there is no ephod and terephim. Afterwards turned back have the sons of Israel, and sought Jehovah their God, and David their king, and have hastened unto Jehovah, and unto his goodness, in the latter end of the days. CHAPTER 4 There a word of Jehovah, sons of Israel, for a strife is to Jehovah with inhabitants of the land, for there is no truth, nor kindness, nor knowledge of God in the land. Swearing, and lying, and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery have increased, and blood against blood have touched. Therefore mourn doth the land, and weak is every dweller in it, with the beast of the field, and with the fowl of the heavens, and the fishes of the sea, they are removed.  Cut off have been my people, for lack of knowledge, because thou knowledge hast rejected, I reject thee from being priest to me, and thou forgetest the law of thy God, I forget thy sons, I also. According to their abundance, so they sinned against me, their honor into shame I change, the sin of my people they do eat, and unto their iniquity lift up their soul. And it hath been like people, like priests, and I have charged on it its ways, and its habitual doings I return to it. And they have eaten, and are not satisfied. They have gone ahoring, and increase not, for they have left off taking heed to Jehovah. Hordom and wine, and new wine take the heart. My people at its staff asketh, and its rod declareeth to it. For a spirit of hordoms hath caused to air, and they go ahoring from under their God. On tops of the mountains they do sacrifice, and on the hills they make perfume, under oak, and poplar, and terribent, for good is its shade.   For they with the harlots are separated, and with the whores they do sacrifice, a people that doth not understand, kicketh. Though a harlot thou art, O Israel, let not Judah become guilty, and come not ye into Gilgal, nor go up to Beth Avon, nor swear ye Jehovah liveth. For as a refractory heifer hath Israel turned aside, now doth Jehovah feed them as a lamb in a large place. And to idols is Ephraim, let him alone. Sour is their drink. They have gone diligently ahoring. Her protectors have loved shame thoroughly, distressed her hath wind with its wings, and they are ashamed of their sacrifices. CHAPTER V Hear this, O priests, and attend, O house of Israel, and, O house of the King, give ear, for the judgment is for you, for a snare ye have been on misba, and a net spread out on Tabor. And to slaughter sinners have gone deep, and I am a fetter to them all. I have known Ephraim, and Israel hath not been hid from me. For now thou hast gone ahoring, Ephraim, defiled is Israel. They give not up their habitual doings to turn back unto their God, for a spirit of hordoms is in their midst, and Jehovah they have not known. And humbled hath been the excellency of Israel to his face, and Israel and Ephraim stumbled by their iniquity, stumbled also hath Judah with them. With their flock and with their herd they go to seek Jehovah, and do not find. He hath withdrawn from them. Against Jehovah they dealt treacherously, for strange sons they have begotten, now consume them doth a month with their portions. O ye a Cornet in Gibia, a trumpet in Rama, shout, O Beth Avon, after thee, O Benjamin. Ephraim is for a desolation in a day of reproof. Among the tribes of Israel I have made known a sure thing. Princes of Judah hath been as those removing a border. On them I do pour out as water my wrath. O pressed is Ephraim, broken in judgment. When he pleased he went after the command. And I am as a moth to Ephraim, and as a rotten thing to the house of Judah. And see doth Ephraim his sickness, and Judah his wound. And Ephraim goeth unto Asshur, and sendeth unto a warlike king.  For I am as a lion to Ephraim, and as a young lion to the house of Judah, I, I tear and go, I bear away, and there is no deliverer. I go, I turn back unto my place, till that they are desolate, and have sought my face. In their distress they do seek me speedily. CHAPTER VI Come, and we turn back unto Jehovah, for he hath torn, and he doth heal us. He doth smite, and he bindeth us up. He doth revive us after two days. In the third day he doth raise us up. And we live before him. And we know, we pursue to know Jehovah, as the dawn prepared is his going forth. And he cometh in as a shower to us, as gathered rain sprinkling earth. What do I do to thee, O Ephraim? What do I do to thee, O Judah? Your goodness is as a cloud of the morning, and as dew rising early going. Therefore I have hewed by prophets, I have slain them by sayings of my mouth, and my judgments to the light goeth forth. For kindness I desired, and not sacrifice, and a knowledge of God above burnt offerings. And they, as Adam transgressed a covenant, there they dealt treacherously against me. Gilead is a city of workers of iniquity, slippery from blood. And as bands do wait for a man, a company of priests do murder, the way to shechem, for wickedness they have done. In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing, there is the hordom of Ephraim, defiled is Israel. Also O Judah, appointed is a harvest to thee, in my turning back to the captivity of my people. Chapter 7 When I give healing to Israel, then revealed is the iniquity of Ephraim, and the wickedness of Samaria, for they have wrought falsehood, and a thief doth come in, stripped off half a troop in the street. And they do not say in their heart, that all their evil I have remembered, now compassed them have their doings, over against my face they have been.  All of them are adulterers, like a burning oven of a baker, he ceaseth from stirring up after kneading the dough, till it's leavening. A day of our king, princes have polluted themselves with the poison of wine, he hath drawn out his hand with scorners, for they have drawn near, as an oven is their heart.  All of them are warm as an oven, and they have devoured their judges, all their kings have fallen, there is none calling unto me among them. Among peoples he mixeth himself, Ephraim hath been a cake unturned, devoured hath strangers his power, and he hath not known. Also old age hath sprinkled itself on him, and he hath not known, and humble hath been the excellency of Israel to his face, and they have not turned back unto Jehovah their God, nor have they sought him for all this. And Ephraim is as a simple dove without heart, Egypt they called on, to assure they have gone. When they go I spread over them my net, as the fowl of the heavens I bring them down, I chastise them as their company hath heard. Woe to them, for they wandered from me, destruction to them, for they transgressed against me, and I, I ransom them, and they have spoken lies against me, and have not cried unto me with their heart, but howl on their beds, for corn and new wine they assemble themselves. They turn aside against me, and I instructed, I strengthened their arms, and concerning me they think evil. They turn back, not to the most high, they have been as a deceitful bow, fall by swore do their princes, from the insolence of their tongue, this is their derision in the land of Egypt. The end of chapters one through seven of the book of Hosea, from the Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. Recording by Mark Penfold. The book of Hosea, from the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Mark Penfold. Hosea. Chapters 8 through 14. Chapter 8. Unto thy mouth, a trumpet, as an ego against the house of Jehovah, because they transgressed my covenant, and against my law they have rebelled. To me they cry, my God, we Israel have known thee! Cast off good hath Israel, an enemy pursueeth him. They have made kings, and not by me. They have made princes, and I have not known. Their silver and their gold they have made to them, idols, so that they are cut off. Cast off hath thy calf, O Samaria, burn hath mine anger against them, till when they are not capable of purity. For even it is of Israel, an artificer made it, and it is not God, for the calf of Samaria is fragments. For wind they sow, and a hurricane they reap. Stock it, hath none, a shoot not yielding grain, if so be it yield. Strangers do swallow it up. Israel hath been swallowed up. Now they have been among nations, as a vessel in which is no delight.  They have hired lovers. Also, though they hire among nations, now I gather them. And they are pained a little, from the burden of a king of princes. Because Ephraim did multiply altars to sin, they have been to him altars to sin. I write for him numerous things of my law, as a strange thing they have been reckoned. The sacrifices of mine offerings, they sacrifice flesh, and they eat. Judah hath not accepted them. Now Doth he remember their iniquity, and inspect their sin. They to Egypt they turn back. And forget Doth Israel his maker, and buildeth temples, and Judah hath multiplied cities of defense, and hath sent a fire into his cities, and it hath consumed their palaces. Chapter 9 Rejoice not, O Israel, be not joyful like the peoples. For Thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, Thou hast loved a gift near all floors of corn. Flora and winepress do not delight them, and new wine Doth fail in her. They do not abide in the land of Jehovah. And turned back hath Ephraim to Egypt, and in Ashur an unclean thing they eat. They pour not out wine to Jehovah, nor are they sweet to him. Their sacrifices are as bread of mourners to them, all eating it are unclean, for their bread is for themselves. It doth not come into the house of Jehovah. What do ye at the day appointed, and at the day of Jehovah's festival? For lo, they have gone because of destruction, Egypt gathereth them, Moth buryeth them, the desirable things of their silver nettles possess them, a thorn is in their tents. Come in, have the days of inspection, come in, have the days of recompense, Israel doth know, a fool is the prophet, mad is the man of the spirit, because of the abundance of thine iniquity, and great is the hatred. Ephraim is looking away from my God, the prophet, a snare of a fowler is over all his ways, hatred is in the house of his God. They have gone deep, have done corruptly, as in the days of Gibeah, he doth remember their iniquity, he doth inspect their sins. As grapes in a wilderness I found Israel, as the first fruit in a fig tree, at its beginning, I have seen your fathers, they, they have gone into Ba'au Peor, and are separated to a shameful thing, and are become abominable like their love. Ephraim is as a fowl, fly away doth their honor, without birth, and without womb, and without conception, for though they nourish their sons, I have made them childless, without man surely also woe to them when I turn aside from them. Ephraim, when I have looked to the rock, is planted in comeliness, and Ephraim is to bring out unto a slayer his sons. Give to them Jehovah, what dost thou give? Give to them miscarrying womb and dry breasts. All their evil is in Gilgal, surely there I have hated them, because of the evil of their doings. Out of my house I do drive them, I add not to love them, all their heads are apostates. Ephraim hath been smitten, their root hath dried up, fruit they yield not, yea, though they bring forth, I have put to death the desire of their womb. But then, doth my God, because they have not hearkened to him, and they are wanderers among nations. CHAPTER X An empty vine is Israel, fruit he maketh like to himself, according to the abundance of his fruit he hath multiplied for the altars, according to the goodness of his land they have made goodly standing pillars.  For now they say, we have no king, because we have not feared Jehovah, and the king, what doth he for us? They have spoken words to swear falsehood in making a covenant, and flourished as a poisonous herb hath judgment on the furrows of a field. For the calves of Beth Avon fear due inhabitants of Samaria, surely mourned on account of it hath its people. And its priests on account of it leap about, because of its honor, for it hath removed from it. Also it to assure is carried, a present to a warlike king, shamed doth Ephraim receive, and ashamed is Israel of its own counsel. Cut off is Samaria, its king is as a chip on the face of the waters. And destroyed have been high places of Avon, the sin of Israel.  From the days of Gibeah thou hast sinned, O Israel, there they have stood, not overtake them in Gibeah doth battle, because of sons of perverseness. When I desire, then I do bind them, and gathered against them hath peoples, when they bind themselves to their two iniquities. And Ephraim is a trained heifer, loving to thresh, and I, I have passed over on the goodness of its neck. I cause one to ride Ephraim, plow doth Judah, harrow for him doth Jacob. So for yourselves in righteousness, reap according to loving kindness, till for yourselves tillage of knowledge, to seek Jehovah, till he come and shoe righteousness to you. Ye have plowed wickedness, perversity ye have reaped, ye have eaten the fruit of lying, for thou hast trusted in thy way in the abundance of thy might. And rise doth atumult among thy people, and all thy fortresses are spoiled, as the spoiling of Shalman, of Beth Arbel, in a day of battle, mother against sons, dashed in pieces.  CHAPTER 11 Because Israel is a youth, and I love him, out of Egypt I have called for my son. They have called to them rightly, they have gone from before them, to lords they do sacrifice, and to graven images they make perfume. And I have caused Ephraim to go on foot, taking them by their arms, and they have not known that I strengthened them. With cords of man I do draw them, with thick cords of love, and I am to them as a razor up of a yoke on their jaws, and I incline unto him, I feed him. He turneth not back unto the land of Egypt, and assure he is his king, for they have refused to return. Grievous hath been the sword in his cities, and it hath ended his bars, and consumed from their own councils. And my people are hanging in suspense about my returning, and unto the most high they do call, together they exalt not. How do I give thee up, O Ephraim? Do I deliver thee up, O Israel? How do I make thee as Adma? Do I set thee as Zeboyim? Turned in me as my heart, kindled together, hath been my repentings. I do not the fierceness of my anger. I turn not back to destroy Ephraim, for God I am, and not a man. In thy midst the holy one, and I enter not in enmity. After Jehovah they go, as a lion he roareth. When he doth roar, then tremble do the sons from the west. They tremble as a sparrow out of Egypt, and as a dove out of the land of Asur, and I have caused them to dwell in their own houses, an affirmation of Jehovah. Just me with feigning hath Ephraim, and with deceit the house of Israel, and Judah again is ruling with God, and with the holy ones is faithful. CHAPTER XII Ephraim is enjoying wind, and is pursuing an east wind. All the day lying and spoiling he multiplyeth, and a covenant with Asur they make, and oil to Egypt is carried, and a controversy hath Jehovah with Judah, to lay a charge on Jacob according to his ways, according to his doings he returneth to him. In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and by his strength he was a prince with God. Yea, he is a prince unto the messenger, and he overcometh by weeping, and he maketh supplication to him. At Bethel he doth find him, and there he doth speak with us. Even Jehovah, God of the hosts, Jehovah, is his memorial. And thou, through thy God, dost turn, kindness and judgment keep thou, and wait on thy God continually. Canaan, in his hand, our balances of deceit, to oppress he hath loved. And Ephraim saith, Surely I hath become rich, I hath found wealth for myself. All my labors they find not against me iniquity that his sin. And I, Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt, again do I turn thee back into tents, as in the days of the appointed time. And I have spoken unto the prophets, and I have multiplied vision, and by the hand of the prophets I use similes. Surely Gilead is iniquity, only vanity they have been. In Gilead, bullocks they have sacrificed. Also their altars are as heaps, on the furrows of a field. And Jacob doth flee to the country of Aram, and Israel doth serve for a wife, yea, for a wife he hath kept watch, and by a prophet hath Jehovah brought up Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet it hath been watched. Ephraim hath provoked most bitterly, and his blood on himself he leaveth, and his reproach turned back to him doth his lord. CHAPTER XIII When Ephraim speaketh tremblingly, he hath been lifted up in Israel, when he become guilty in Baal, he dyeth. And now do they add to sin, and make to them a molten image of their silver, by their own understanding, idols, a work of artisans, all of it. Of them they say, who are sacrifices among men, the calves let them kiss. Therefore they are as a cloud of the morning, and as dew rising early, going away, as chaff tossed about out of a floor, and as smoke out of a window.  I, I have known thee in a wilderness, in a land of droughts. According to their feedings they are satiated, they have been satiated, and their heart is lifted up. Therefore they have forgotten me, and I am to them as a lion, as a leopard, by the way I look out. I do meet them as a bereaved bear, and I rend the enclosure of their heart, and I consume them there as a lioness, a beast of the field doth rend them. Thou hast destroyed thyself, O Israel, but in me is thy help, where is thy king now, and he doth save thee in all thy cities? And thy judges of whom thou didst say, Give to me a king and heads? I give to thee a king in mine anger, and I take away in my wrath. Bound up is the iniquity of Ephraim, hidden is his sin. Pangs of a travailing woman come to him, he is a son, not wise, for he remaineth not the time for the breaking forth of sons. From the hand of Sheol I do ransom them, from death I redeem them. Where is thy plague, O death? Where thy destruction, O Sheol? Repentance is hid from mine eyes. Though he among brethren produceeth fruit, come in doth an east wind, a wind of Jehovah, from a wilderness it is coming up, and it dryeth up his fountain, and become dried off his spring. It, its spoileth a treasure, every desirable vessel. Come desolate doth Samaria, because she hath rebelled against her God. By sword they do fall, their sucklings are dashed in pieces, and its pregnant ones are ripped up. CHAPTER XIV Turn back, O Israel, unto Jehovah thy God, for thou hast stumbled by thine iniquity. Take with you words, and turn to Jehovah, say ye unto him, Take away all iniquity, and give good, and we do render the fruit of our lips. As sure doth not save us, on a horse we ride not, nor do we say any more, our God, to the work of our hands, for in thee find mercy, doth the fatherless. I heal their backsliding, I love them freely, for turned back hath mine anger from him. I am as due to Israel, he flourisheth as a lily, and he strikeeth forth his roots as Lebanon. Go on, do his sucklings, and his beauty is as an olive, and he hath fragrance as Lebanon. Return do the dwellers under his shadow. They revive as corn, and flourish as a vine, his memorial is as wine of Lebanon. O Ephraim, what to me any more with idols? I, I afflicted, and I cause him to sing, I am as a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found. Do his wise, and doth understand these, prudent, and knoweth them. For upright are the ways of Jehovah, and the righteous go on in them, and the transgressors stumble therein. The end of chapters 8 through 14 of Hosea. And the end of the book of Hosea, from the young's literal translation of the Bible. Everything by Mark Penfold.


OK, welwch yn ymwneud, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'r Marys Cymulleru. Marys yw'n gweithio'n gweithio'r postdoc ar y Ffianna Unedig, a Marys yw'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n Gweithio'n Gweithio, mae'r specialitys yw Maltese Linguistics, ac mae'n gweithio'n Essex, mae'r Mres, ac mae'r Universtif Sari, mae'r PHD, ac mae'n... Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! Ychydig! eich gwelwch yn rhan i ymweld i'r Llywodraeth i'r amser yn ymweld i'r llwyddiad arweithio'i'r adeilad arweithio'r Llywodraeth, iherwydd, gweld am ystod o'r meddwl i'r lleol, ac yn ystod oherwydd yn gweithio'r adeilad arweithio'r Llywodraeth. Yn hyn, ynghylch yn cyflPsuach i'r adeilad arweithio'r adeilad arweithio'r adeiladau arweithio, ydy bod y bydd y pethau'r adeilad i'w Llywodraeth, ac y rhanol i'r adeilad i'r adeilad i'r Llywodraeth. yng nghymru a'r hyn yn ei gwneud.  Ite bros caught at this rate, however the same two prepositions within the same text that is within the same period can also be used as possessive markers or at least through them you can construct a possessive structure So, as you can see from 3a and 3b, essentially, the theme so possessive structure input paPERs as well as the theme argument and we observe that we've got an alternate use eich eich rhai gwahanol yn��iaid yw'r cysylltu sydd o'r rhai o gyhoeddwyr gyda'r ddysgu y gallwn sig ar gyfer gwahanol. Ower, ydych chi'n ohono'r cyfliadau cyfliad, fel ydych chi'n gwahanol iawn ar gyfer gwahanol iawn a i ffiydyll gwahanol. felly dyfodol yr ysgrifio llyfr Gruff, galloddoddoddoddoddoddoddoddoddoddoddoddoddoddodd. Dydyn ni'n yn dangos, felly y bod ni'n byddiganu wedi eu llyfr sy'n cyfreciedd traddill ym提eddoch, gyda'r cwylwyr cyfwyr deolfenol ganweithio. Nid yw bod'n dweud y fath oedd dweud llawer yn y context yn ei fath. Yn y cash iawn, dywed i'n ystyried i ystyried i'r tyntas y ddiogelion yma, y tenwch y marchaf, oedd y thymau, a ddim yi'r fath yw hynny. Rwy'n credu llyfeddau hynny'r oesaf cyfrindiau cyfrindiau, oesaf y 1997 oedd. Mae gynhyrchu bod y syniad o ymddangos inna i'r llyfau are instances of what he would refer to as a locative and goal schemas which allow us to get to a possessive interpretation with them. So this is the schema, so the locative one is Y is at X's place such that that locative construction as it were yields possessive interpretations such that X has or owns Y. Similarly the goal schema is just a change in the schema having a 2X as opposed to X's place which yields a possessive reading. Right, however Hynas account is not simply diachronic rather he through such an organization of the locatives into becoming locative schema becoming a possessive construction he also makes a clear statement with respect to the syntax of such constructions. So he believes that possessive structures which are derived out of locative and goal schemas apart from other sort of schemas are intransitive in nature such that the possessive is encoded as the subject with the possessive then being treated as a locative or goal complement. Right, so in Hynas typology of possessive structures the only transitive possessive structure is the one of the English type which is derived out of what he refers to as an action schema where diachronically it was itself already a transitive structure such that X takes Y for example that yields X has owns Y. So this is something to keep in mind that there is this interesting according to Hynas possessives derived out of locative or goal schemas are intransitive while the English type are transitive which are not of the locative and goal schemas. Okay so for Arabic additional proof that we are actually dealing with a theme that is in a subject position is not merely the agreement on the auxiliary but also the nominative marking on the theme as opposed to the genitive marking of the possessive which is embedded under the proposition. So six would be a topic-like possessive structure of classical Arabic so you see that Zaid takes a topic position whereas Karnat is your auxiliary which is yielding this tense feature. Inda is our predicate which is a proposition and then you've got the result of pronoun binding with the topic and then you've got this subject which is the theme. Okay and then you find agreement between the theme and the auxiliary and that is an intransitive structure indeed. So then when we consider locatives and possessive emotes we find that yes we're also using the same sort of preposition right and so seven is a locative construction ectip and paulu as opposed to eight which is a possessive structure paulu and ectip right. So what I really want to say is that this preposition, this and preposition has actually developed as a verb in possessive constructions and moties. Okay so while diocronically the possessive construction involves prepositions I believe okay diocronically just as it was the case in classical Arabic say. Synchronically however I will argue for a possessive construction that involves transdiverdible predicates as opposed to a possessive structure. So that would be one of the contributions in the ongoing discussion on possessive structures and moties. Additionally I want to say that the two different prepositions which are used in classical Arabic in free variation are actually allomorphically related in moties. So that would be another point that would be mentioned. Right so this is what I believe to have been the path as it were, the path of gradual change okay. So let me explain it in a bit of detail. Right so this part is what you have in classical Arabic okay. So you've got a preposition which is either followed by a pronoun or as the possessor is expressed as a noun phrase no problem and then you've got the theme as an MP right. So that was kind of the precursor of the possessive construction which actually has the same structure as a locative construction okay. Then that preceded a change which involved topicalisation such that the possessor now takes on a topic function and that topic requires binding via resultive pronoun and that is the resultive pronoun you get attached on the preposition. And the theme remains in situ in its usual position. However this is what I'll be arguing for for moties is that this middle phase has yielded this current synchronic phase whereby what we've got is a topic that has been reinterpreted as the subject. So the possessor now is the subject and then you've got the predicate which was once a preposition has now become a verb. And what was previously resultive pronoun is now actually agreement. And then you've got the noun phrase the theme noun phrase okay.  And then what you end up with is either agreement or a pronominal form that takes on a subject status depending on whether you've got the MP possessor overt or not. So that is what I believe to have been the trajectory of change and the last one is the final synchronic state. So nine would be representative of the exact equivalent to the classical Arabic structure where the possessor is interpreted as a topic which is bound to the argument of and the preposition that is. And the theme is the subject so that is exactly the same structure which we had for Arabic okay which is for classical Arabic which is the synchronic state of affairs for classical Arabic. What I want to say is that this is not the synchronic state of affairs moties but rather this is such that the possessive construction is transitive in nature where Paulu is actually our subject agreement and that's a verb now. And tip takes on an object function okay. So this is what this is the end state okay. But now I'm going to give you the evidence why I believe or I'm assuming that this is truly the end state okay. So I'm going to give evidence both for the verbal nature of and in this context as opposed to the prepositional nature which was its kind of precursor. As well as more evidence that the possessor is really a subject of moties and the theme is really an object of moties as opposed to the other or their other mapping which we've got in classical Arabic. Okay so this will be the set of evidence I'll be considering essentially where the other negation realisation differences. The behaviour of QP subjects agreement and accusative marking of the team okay. Right so in general. If you've got locative so blue will be my locatives okay and green will be my possessives and hence one will be a P and one will be a verb okay. So in 11 you've got an order such that the team is preceding a prepositional phrase okay. So and is functioning and in blue which is locative therefore is functioning in the same way just as any other proposition and the theme is preceding okay. Yet when you consider the possessive construction which I believe to be a verb we observe that themes typically follow verbs when it comes to verbs. So you've got tip which is a theme which is following a usual verb form and in this context in the possession we observe that the theme is actually following the possessor. Another word order effect is that if we were to shuffle around the constituents in a locative structure we will need the insertion of the existential profile which is M moties okay. So 13A represents a shuffled around like it's not the canonical order so we can displace things around. So the displacement of made from its usual canonical position requires the presence of M the existential M. Removing it will yield to ungrammaticality. On the other hand it will still believe that made up is the theme which should be equivalent to made up the theme in the locative structure. Then nothing would account for the fact that we do not need to have the M insertion in this context in the possessive. Of course M is possible in the realm of and right. However the only reading you can ever get with M is a locative one. So 15A is simply a normal locative structure, non-shuffled that is in its canonical word order. So etyplach marant etyfel. However shuffling around the constituents or presenting more emphasis say M etyplach marant etyfel would only yield the locative use, the locative interpretation of and okay. So that's one difference. Then negation realisation. I think this is one of the most robust tests. So a finite negation in Maltese involves this use of two parts as it were. Ammar and the shuffling attached as opposed to negation of a preposition for example, a preposition and predicate. In which case you'd need to get like a pronominal form which includes the Marcia so we'll just refer to that as pronominal negation. But I hope you can see that there is a difference between the predicate is there and then you've got Marcia attached to it. The predicate is full and then you get a pronominal negation which is negating the whole constituent. So then if we insert and we observe that and as a verb so that is and in its possessive use actually yields the Marcia attachment just as verbs. Whereas the negation of the locative use of and requires us to use a pronominal form. Okay. So moosh or me shandom. Right. So another test. So for Maltese it has been observed that while quantifier phases can actually be subjects. So like in 18 this is an NP Paolu and cwltifel is every boy is a QP quantifier phase that can be a subject. Fine. Yet QPs as topics that are bound to result a pronoun. So they form they are part of a clitic left dislocation structure are not possible as topics. So while Paolu as an NP is okay to be bound by the pronoun on Ra on the verb a QP is not possible. Okay. So I can't have a cwltifel right to my right to Maria. However in the case of our possessive structure it's possible to get cwltifel and lepdotifel which are both QPs. So if we were to say that the OO on and is still the result of pronoun attached onto a preposition then these can't be topics themselves. That means therefore that these must be subjects and the OO on and must be analyzed as an agreement market as opposed to an entrepreneur attached onto a P. So I think these are all pushing towards the verbal use of and. Right. Another fact that's agreement with the auxiliary kin. So what we observe is that the use of and in this possessive use allow us to get either default agreement on the past tense auxiliary or as agreement with the possessive. Okay. As opposed to what we get in classical Arabic which is agreement with the theme. Right. So that's count one is G which is coindexed with the E and D which is also one is G. So this is different however from the obligatory agreement which you get on the same auxiliary in a possessive in a locative structure. Okay. So agreement in this context must be with the real subject which is the theme in the locative construction. Okay. El codba. And then you have to have kinu because codba is plural and hence you get 3PL agreement. So all this is another difference between the two. A further difference is the agreement facts on raising which I on raising predicates which I believe is another robust proof that we're dealing with a possessor that has become a subject of Maltese. So if we take the a specializer regia to repeat to do again we've we observe that it's a it's an obligatory subject subject raising predicate. So row. So this is it so happens that Maltese does not have no finite forms really. So don't bother about the fact that we don't have the two equivalent in English. Okay. It's finite raising is possible in Maltese. So in the embedded clause you've got a third person inflected third person plural inflected ver form. And then you get the same agreement by raising on the on the a specializer. So getting a default reading is yields to one grammaticality. Okay. So that implies that this is a subject subject raising predicate. Right. So then if you insert and the possessive and in the embedded clause you find that you actually need to have agreement chain. Does it work right? So the third person feminine agreement on and which is representative of the possessor actually becomes the agreement. On regia, which is which itself requires subject subject raising. Okay. So you get three sgf agreement there. Same follows for spittrow, which is another specializer. And then the same facts follow for the scene predicate. Okay. Which is the canonical raising predicate as well. Right. It's true however that in the matrix we could have had a third person singular masculine form in this context. But I argue that that would be the equivalent of the it expletive in the equivalent of it expletive in English. Like it seems that as opposed to she seems to have gone. Okay. Right. So now so the evidence which we had so far was both for the subject status of the possessor as well as the verb like status of the predicate as opposed to its original prepositional status. Now what I'm going to argue for is the grammatical function of the theme. Remember that the theme is the subject in classical Arabic. Whereas what I'm arguing for in Maltese and extends for the dialects really is that the theme is really an object. Right. So Maltese happens to be blessed with differential object marking, which I am really relying on to establish family that we're actually dealing with an object team. So depending on how high up on the intimacy hierarchy you are, Maltese displays little marking or non-lil marking on the object as opposed to the second object. Second objects are always marked. Okay. So this is why it's a differential object marking as opposed to object to or secondary object marking. Right. So this is a transitive verb C. So what we see is that when you've got girl, which is human yet indefinite, little marking is impossible. Okay. You've got to say right. However, when you get definiteness on that same argument, little marking becomes optional. However, when you go even higher on the intimacy hierarchy such that you get you get a proper noun, which is the maximum you can go terms of referentiality and intimacy. Then you have to have the little marking. Okay. So this is what you get with a canonical verb predicate. And lo and behold, this is exactly the same pattern you get with and. Okay. So depending on whether you possessive and that is. So depending on what the team looks like, as it were, you get the appropriate little marking or not. So I take this to really imply to me that the theme in Maltese is really an object. Moreover, another fact is that if we consider the use of and in blue now, hence in its locative use, which also takes an object, right? Because prepositions take objects as their argument. We observe that prepositional uses do not little mark their object. So this is, so little marking is solely something related to verbal predicates. So it's just verbal predicates that mark their object with little. Okay. So in this context and in the locative use is functioning just as any other preposition in the language. Okay. Such that it is not little marking its object argument. Good. Okay. So to conclude this little summary here. Basically I think that what we've got here is a change via morphological conversion. So there is really nothing which is yielding the change as it were from a minor category. That's a proposition to a major class category, which is a verb, which is a bit non prototypical. Such a change. And I believe that syntactically the change must have taken place via a reanalysis of the structures topic into a subject. And Cymru has an argument for this in saying that yes indeed there is a correlation between the fact that the possessor is high in anonymity usually. And that would relate it easily to a topic. And similarly there is another correlation between topic hood and subject hood. So it's easy for such a change to have taken place via a topolised structure. And then consequently if we initially went through a topolisation stage and then we ended up with a transdiff structure. Then yes there must have been an important reanalysis of the resultive pronoun into an agreement marker. And then eventually the optional dropping of the possessory noun phrase itself. Yes. So all this, the grammaticalisation of the pronoun especially has resulted in the formation of this class of predicates which are referred to as pseudo verbs in the literature of Maltese and Arabic. So essentially these are referred to as pseudo verbs because while they take verbal uses and auxiliary interpretations sometimes as well. And features which are typically associated with auxiliaries or verbs. Nonetheless the stem form is not verbal really, just as und. So we know that und came out of that preposition. So that makes them kind of a class of their own. Additionally the subject ends up being expressed non canonically as well. So instead of the usual nominist of inflection you end up with a genitive or accusative inflection of form. So if we consider this paradigm, if we're saying now that und our possessive use is actually a verb just like any other. The difference however is that it's a completely different paradigm. So this would be the usual paradigm of a canonical verb form in Maltese which would be split on the basis of perfective and perfective. And that's nominative inflection. Whereas on the other hand we're saying that und is functioning as a verb in possessive constructions at least. Hence the E, Ech etc. is really realizing the subject. And for that matter therefore this is a non canonically realized subject. And this happens to be genitive inflection. It could have been accusative inflection. So far I've just discussed und to be honest. But law has to come in at some point because I had mentioned that classical Arabic has two prepositions. And this is a journey which looks at both und and law. What I have to mention prior to this is that all that I've said for und follows exactly for law. Such that historically it was a preposition but synchronically it must be functioning as a verb. The further complexity which law involves is that it is never found at least as a verb form. It's never found hanging on its own as it were. It's never found like und. Rather it's always part of a larger word form. So look at this le here within the word form kellw. And look at this le there which is part of the word form ikollw. So I want you to keep in mind this split. Undu on one hand and kellw ikollw and the rest of the inflections on the other. Right. So this is what I believe to be the trajectory of change that took place in Maltese. So this part is fairly uncontroversial. So we started off with some sort of preposition which is law. And in classical Arabic it had both a possessive use and the locative use. And from that we know, because we have it synchronically in the language, that the preposition in law is still a preposition in law in some instances in Maltese. Additionally it also developed as a case marker. And that case marker was initially a dative and then it shifted on to becoming an accusative. Yet this part now is what I wish to share with you. So the red part of the diagram here is something which we do not have evidence for synchronically. We don't have no evidence to claim data that is to claim that law was ever a verb form that expressed a possessive relationship in Maltese. However what I'll be trying to do in the range of the story is to actually get to that inference via what goes on elsewhere in the language. Then and comes in at some point in the history. It was once a preposition. Then it itself changed into becoming a verb. And somehow, and this is what I want to show you, somehow it fused in the paradigm of law. They were both being used as possessive predicates as they are synchronically in the language. And then from then on they also shifted off to develop further that is into becoming modal auxiliaries as well. Right, so let's go through that journey. Okay, so law is a preposition. That's no problem in the sense that the two there is in front of a locative. In C there is true that God is kind of a human being but the interpretation of this is literally from lip to God is like God as a destination. So I'm glossing it as a preposition in this context. So that's the use of law as a preposition with allative case possibly as well. Then law as a case marker. I think it's fairly established as well that something like I didn't send the letter to you. That should have been the letter to you, not the letter. So letter is the direct object which is co-refer to through this accusative pronominal form which is 3SGF because letter is singular feminine and that is marking the second person which is the indirect object. That's what I meant to say, indirect object. So to you. Okay, I sent the letter to you. Then it has also developed as I had already shown as an accusative marker. So Paul which is here, structurally it is the topic yet it is bound to the object of C of the verb to C and hence because it's an object it has to take accusative marking and that's the le which you see on Paulu there. Right. So then if I'm somehow saying that synchronically 36 is ungrammatical. Okay, something like Paulu Lahu or Lou Ktip is impossible in Maltese. Then this seems to be in conflict, right, with what I'm trying to say that once upon a time La was indeed a possessive predicate in Maltese. However, what I wish to share with you is that I think there is two pieces at least of evidence which we can use to infer that once upon a time in old Maltese that was in fact possible. Okay, right. So let's consider what's been said on Maltese in the literature. So every discussion on Maltese possessives always illustrate the ungrammaticality of 38. So 38 is really ungrammatical. So it's impossible to get and the possessive and in the context of an auxiliary to be. Okay. So the claim therefore, the inference, the common inference, is that kell and the call, which I told you to keep in mind, that paradigm which we saw earlier, the claim is that in non-present tense context and cantocer, cantapier, in which case the language needs to resort to the kell form and the call form, which the literature treats as being in a paradigmatic relationship. So what I want to say, however, is that rather than being in a paradigmatic relationship, kell, la and and are in an allomorphic relationship. So what I wish to push here is that la and and are actually on the same level, even synchronically. So this is how I get to and I'm going to tell you the evidence for that now. So this would be the structure. I am assuming for something like Paul had a book. Remember that had is a context where it's a non-present tense context and hence and should not be able to okay. Given the ungrammaticality of kin and. Right. So I'm using at the back of my analysis there's lexical functional grammar, which is very surfacing, a base theory. But essentially what this is showing simply is that this is a normal subject. Okay. That's the possessor. And then keep the team is an internal argument to the to the verb to the predicate, which is have. What I'm saying further is that kellw is really the fusion of the auxiliary, which is the auxiliary kin, the auxiliary to be, which is yielding simply tense features and the diachronic preposition la, which has now become a verb form. And together. They end up with the lexical form kellw. And actually this is what's referred to as lexical sharing. This is exactly the analysis you get for. I'll go in. I'll go like I will go in English. Okay. Where you've got the fusion, literally the fusion of the subject along with the auxiliary. So that's how LFG lexical functional grammar would treat. The fact that you've got literally one lexical item, but with two completely different functions. Okay. That would be the fusion of the end node and the V node, whereas what we've got in the I node, whereas what we've got in Maltese is the fusion of the I node and the V node. So how do I get to that? I think the major evidence which I am using in order to claim that that is the case, that that is really the analysis, is because it's due to something that has not been discussed in the literature prior to my dissertation as to it. So while it has been said that and never occurs in, in non-present tense context. Well, this data actually shows you that yes indeed, you can have and in context of non-present tense. Because kin is what's providing you with a past tense. And yeah, this is also kin, which is past tense. Okay. So this date exists. Okay. So it's not the case that and cannot be used in the context of kin, which is the past tense. Right. So this is, this is literally the analysis of the morphology, the morphology and the syntax in one slide, to be honest. So what seems to be going on, I think is that the possessive predicate. Okay. So yeah. Sorry. The crucial for me is the presence of something which is coming in between kin and and. Okay. That is crucial for me because if I remove them, if I remove this already and that's still, I end up with an ungrammatical sentence. Okay. Just as we had earlier, we had an ungrammatical sentence earlier. Right. So what I'm saying is that the possessive predicate and what does actually exhibit is simply an adjacency restriction whereby the adjacency of the possessive predicate with the auxiliary, kin in both its perfective and imperfective forms, actually comes to trigger the presence of a suppletive alamorphic form. Okay. And that's how you get the fusion of kin and la. Since you can't have kin and and together and changes its form as it were to la and you end up with kin la and via morphophonological result of enclitizatio, because la is really prone to erosion in Maltese, you end up with this enclitizatio of the predicate on to the auxiliary and morphosyntactically then you end up with lexical sharing. So that's how I arrived to the alamorphic relationship being simply triggered by this adjacency restriction apparently. Right. So at this point where are we? Okay. It's true that there is no actual data to be honest that I can claim that la was synchronic, was there chronically really a possessive predicate in Maltese. Yet I believe that we can still get to the fact that from this we can still infer that la was present in old Maltese. So how? So at this point we observe that the original preposition and must have developed as a verb. Okay. And at some stage, as a verb form, it has fused into the paradigm of la. So that implies that la could have existed as the only verbal possessive predicate in Maltese, with and possibly being used also as a possessive predicate, but possibly with preposition and status, who knows, if it was even present as a possessive predicate. So when and comes in as a verb, it seems to wipe off the older use of la. Yet it comes to demonstrate this sub-jacency constraint, which is by the way not demonstrated by the prepositional counterpart, because we can have ilk typ kin and paulu. Okay. So kin and in the locative construction is a possible combination, as opposed to kin and in the possessive construction, which is ungrammetical. Okay. So there is a difference there. So apparently this adjacency constraint at least at the verbal use of and seems to block the use of and. And then the pred form la comes to be used. Then what happens is that ankleicisation of la at some point took place. So I'm assuming that possibly kin la was available. And then you end up with erosion of the la. And then ankleicisation takes place such that you end up with the form kell. Okay. And what's really, really important for my statement that it was already a verb form is that if you observe the incorporation, let me just give you an example to see the gloss especially. Sorry. Yeah. So if you consider the way I'm glossing kell and equal, you might have observed that this is actually third person. This is imperfective, singular masculine. And this is B, perfective, third person, singular masculine. So with that, this is the only possible verb form, okay, with respect to the auxiliary. So with that, I assume that since you had already undergone, since you were already observing this change, it implies that the grammatical function, thematic roles had already been switched, had already developed from what we had in classical Arabic. Because remember, in classical Arabic, the auxiliary actually has to agree with the theme. And the theme need not always be a third person singular masculine, could have been feminine, right? Yet the re-ordering, the re-mapping which you observe then once the possessive structure changes from an intransitive one into a transitive one, and then the switch in the grammatical function and theta role mapping such that the theme is no longer the subject but is now the object, ends up with the auxiliary being defaulting to the third person singular masculine, okay? So the fact that the incorporation of the predicate law onto the auxiliary is onto a third person singular masculine auxiliary, I take to imply as being indicative of the mapping which had already taken place. So my belief that this allomorphic relationship seems to have become at some point so robust that it really shifted off together, developed further, like in a block. So it's not that and went on its own and law went on its own, rather as a block in an allomorphic relationship, they shifted into also becoming modal auxiliaries. And this shift, however, is not present in the rest of the Arabic vernaculars. However, I should just mention that in Latakian-Syrian, the construction Ili Alp, which is literally I have a heart, okay, which is a pure possessive construction, has now come to be able to subcategorise for a clause, okay? And together with a following clause it comes to yield a half two interpretation, so a modal use, okay? So this is the closest example I could find from the other vernaculars where a possessive structure is kind of developing or yielding modal value. So what I want to say is that the allomorphically related possessive predicates and and law have also developed as modal auxiliaries and moties. And this is actually mentioned, the modal use is mentioned in the literature. What they don't do, however, is the connection between the possessive predicate and the modal predicate, which is, by the way, as I will show you, a common trajectory of grammaticalisation across languages, okay? So these are different uses of the and and the call and the call as modal auxiliaries. So what's beautiful about 43 is that it uses and in this context, the first and is the real modal use, and equal, the second that follows, is actually the possessive use. So this is a free relative, actually, free relative clause. So minias elitre ittaiba, whoever chooses the good way, and we call it prosperity. So have, the modal have, has to have, as it were, has to have. So that is the modal have, this is the possessive have, okay? And that's the theme of the possessive. So that really goes to show the robustness of the grammaticalisation of and and the rest of the paradigm as modal auxiliaries, because they can then take a possessive predicate. Right. What's crucial, however, to mention is that the claim is that the fusion which took place, apart from the fact that they refer to them as being in a paradigmatic relationship, which I'm saying that they are actually in an allomorphic relationship and not a paradigmatic one. The additional fact that all the previous literature says is that these irregular forms are actually derived out of the combination of the auxiliary with the preposition. Whereas what I have been trying to show you all along is that this is actually the verb form that we're dealing with and no longer the old auxiliary. So this is not the case that we're dealing with an auxiliary. Rather, we're dealing with a morph form, it's true, Calendicol, but that morph form does not involve that preposition but actually a verb form. And I believe that to have demonstrated that the possessive predicate and and Maltese is actually a V and not a preposition and to have just posited an allomorphic relationship, then it should follow that La should also be of the same category. You can't have an allomorphic relationship between a verb form and a preposition. They should at least share a category. Right. So in my dissertation, however, I provide an alternative analysis, the possibility of treating the le part as a date of marker. However, now I scrap it because that can't be either. So the possibilities are that it's a preposition or a date of, since as I showed you it has developed as a date of marker in the language or as a V. So now I'm positing a V analysis, but in my dissertation I had posited a date of analysis. Whereas that can't be why because if we consider a proper date of use, so the recipient, so the le here, so as for the children, she sent the book to them yesterday. So this is the to them, is it right? This is introducing the to them. Doubling that pronoun requires the presence of a date of marked NP or as a date of marked pronominal form, but not a nominative. Okay. So I can't have, sorry, that should be date. This is, sorry, this is a typo there. Actually this is a typo as well. Okay. So what I meant to show is that the doubling of this pronoun, which is attached on to the verb, must be via a date of marked NP or pronom. Okay. So litfal a lidom. However, the doubling of the le followed by its argument, in the case of cal and equal, must actually be not via the date, but via the nominative. Okay. So I think that goes to show that it can't be the case that that is a date of marker. Because if it were the case then we would expect doubling to be via the date of marker as well. But that's not the case. However, this is the last point essentially. There is another piece of proof to help me further deduce that we are really dealing with a law that was already a verb form as opposed to a proposition. Okay. So back to our, so this we got to now. Okay. We've shown this part as it went. Now we're still stuck with this, but I'm going to show you that because we've got this, we're going to infer that this was the case. And I'm going to make extensive use of grammaticalisation theory in this context. So what the red part is representative now of, now is what we're going to try to infer from the very presence of this additional grammaticalisation in the language. So in order for something to have become an auxiliary that meant that at least there was something verbal preceding it. So we're still stuck with 48, which is a grammatical. And it's like we're trying to say that that was really possible in old multis. And I'm going to, I think it's possible to infer that that was really the case via these three well-known clines present cross-linguistically with the help of grammaticalising theory. So essentially grammatical morphemes are always canonically at least, always derived out of lexical morphemes. And in order to get to an auxiliary and even further aclytic, we have to have a full verb somewhere. Okay. And then it ends up as an ethics of some sort. Additionally, it has been shown cross-linguistically that features important morphosyntactic and morphosematic features such as perfect, resultative, tense and mood have been shown to cross-linguistically frequently been derived from possession schemas. Actually, if you take English, English is a canonical instance. Okay. So you have the verb have, which is used for both possession as well as for a model as well as for a perfect use. Okay. So in order for all that to have been derived, there must have been a common V at least verb. So this was something which had never been mentioned before, which is really nice I think that actually the possessive predicate la has indeed a motif developed as a universal perfect marker. And what's beautiful is that I find this at the station, the first one, from Cantalena. Cantalena is the oldest ever written multi-script. We don't have something earlier, unfortunately. But what's beautiful is that 1470, for sure, this structure was already grammaticalized. So basically this structure, as you can see, this is the ill form, okay, which is the la. Okay. But as I said, it's prone to erosion. What's happening here is that to me, literally this would be, this would literally be to me, illi, zmin. So to me time. So that construction is equivalent to the possessive structures we've just saw for classical Arabic, to me, a bread, for example. And in this context, this is to me time, and then you've got another embedded clause. And together that construction actually yields the universal perfect and multi. So this is how we are able to say, I've been building, for example, or we haven't been talking for a long time, for example. So in order to assume that this la is now synchronically a grammatical morphym of some sort, at least it's providing us with a perfect aspect. So it is grammatical in this respect. Then at some point the original proposition must have underwent a change into it becoming a verb form, I believe. What's beautiful is that at the same time Holman discovered that indeed in Syrian you get exactly the same construction. So this is something which classical Arabic does not have, but all the dialects have. So this is something so beautiful such that the same la, which is also found in the rest of the dialects as a possessive predicate, but unfortunately I'm saying in Maltese this was present in old Maltese but we only have fragments of it as it were. The same process took place. So there are good reasons to believe that the grammaticalisation of the possessive predicate into a perfect marker must have taken place quite early in the language and that would require that this was once a verb form for it to have become an auxiliary, a pure lexical verb form that is. So a possessive predicate which is verbal in nature. So the reason to believe that this was an early grammaticalisation is from the fact that eventually there is no alternation with and. So well you could argue there are possible, I mean multiple ways how to question this. Why is this not the case? Well possibly and was not a possessive predicate at all and was purely a locative one or else if it were also a possessive predicate it did not yet have verbal status. It was still a proposition. Secondly, if they were actually both available in the language as possessive predicates, I mean as verbs that is, in principle nothing would have restricted the law to develop as a perfect marker as opposed to and from developing as a perfect marker. Why? Because Tunisian actually which does not have the use of law as a possessive predicate has developed and which is the only possessive predicate which they have available as their universal perfect realising auxiliary. That is beautiful. I mean it could have been either way in principle if it were true that we had both and and law functioning as possessive predicates and moties. Secondly, it must have been an earlier construction. Why? Because the past tense realisation does not involve an inclinicisation. So here we observe that ilu, il, the same law is in the context of the auxiliary b but this time there is no fusion such that this could have become kellu or kellu, nothing prohibitive. Yet this is not the case. So possibly at that stage in the language's history law still had like a full phonological status as opposed to now where it is highly, highly eroded. Unfortunately that's not just it. There is an additional twist. So that's how I think we end up with a verb form, OK, so far. Yet there is an additional grammaticalisation. Yeah, if you want to call it grammaticalisation. So I've just said that in my analysis at least that kellu and ikol are ffusions of an inode an inflectional node as well as a verb phonode. Right, and they yield that one. Yet what's happening now synchronically which is something I haven't encountered in the Arabic dialects though is that it seems that kell and ikol are now becoming bleached of their, once upon a time, tense and mood value. How come? So what's happening is that you can actually repeat the auxiliary now. So you can have something like kont, so that's our typical auxiliary, kon ja kellek and then you have another kellek. So I had initially mentioned that kellek is really the fusion of i plus v. What I'm saying now is that it can't be the case any longer in these constructions because there can be only one inode, right? So, and this is the real tense barrier whereas this one is simply functioning as a perfective predicate. In fact it yields past perfect just as any other perfective predicate. Same here, so say kun, so this would be your auxiliary, irrealis or habitual depending on how it's used. And then you get kellum as well. Kin equally, right? So the evidence I use in thinking that what was once, or what's still lexical sharing at one part of the grammar can't be the case in this context, is because essentially the interpretation of the auxiliary plus kell and ikol and their inflections is really the equivalent of any other lexical predicate you could have had in the language. So the combination of, for example, kin, perfective kin, along with a perfective lexical verb form yields the past perfective motifs. And that's exactly what you get in konja kellek. So kellek, if I had any other verb, any other perfective verb, the interpretation is past perfect, okay? So that's the combination. Crucially, there is a major constraint in the language such that with respect to auxiliary ordering that the imperfective form of ikun must always follow the perfective form of kin, okay? If we still want to believe, which we're not doing, if we still want to believe that there is still some sort of I, so that is inflection interpretations in kell and ikol in such context, then it would be impossible to account for B because in B we observe ikun, but which is preceding kell. And if kell is really synchronically the fusion of I plus V, then it's as though we're saying we've got kin under ikun. So that's the perfective form of the auxiliary under the imperfective, and that wouldn't be possible, okay, to say that. So we have to assume that in this context this is no longer involving lexical sharing between an I node and a V node, but rather it ends up being a verb form in itself. Right, so to conclude, old multis must have had a process of construction, I believe, in which the predicate law was used across the board, yes, and from a preposition it had developed into a verb already. Synchronically, there are contexts where yes, a verb and auxiliary forms, la and and, are actually in an allomorphic relationship. And another, I think, beautiful illustration is that the grammaticalization of the possessive structure in multis has taken place twice, but at different times, at different points in history. So the initial grammaticalization was when la was the only possessive predicate out of which you get the universal perfect in multis. And secondly, at a later stage, that is, this had already come about, the allomorphic relationship, out of which possessive, so the possessive structure which involved this relationship, you end up getting the modal interpretations. So that was it, really. Although I can show you, is there a time what? Questions, questions, whichever. No, basically I was going to show that Hebrew is doing the same thing. Literary Hebrew is exactly like classical, yet colloquial Hebrew is doing something different, which is exactly pushing towards a transitive structure. So, as you can see, I think it's clear that you get the same la marking in Hebrew. This is literary Hebrew, and agreement is usually with the theme, with watch in that context. Yes, what's happening is that, first of all, if you get, while the possessive takes nominative case, apparently that is nominative, the theme is nominative in literary Hebrew, so the possessive, the theme that is. In colloquial Hebrew, this is taking et marking, so et marking is the accusative equivalent. So that is a change which we also saw for multis, where the theme got the little marking. Secondly, in literary Hebrew, agreement on the auxiliary that is controlled by the possessive, whereas now in colloquial Hebrew, the agreement is no longer being controlled by, agreement on the auxiliary is no longer being controlled by that. Secondly, while the possessive could undergo subject to subject raising, so it would be the watch which agreed with the matrix predicate, in colloquial Hebrew, this is no longer the case. Additionally, in terms of word order, the possessive, the possessor is shifting its position to come before the auxiliary. So that's exactly it in the case of colloquial Hebrew. So, according to Cymru, many Arabic vernaculars have undergone exactly the same changes for what we see in multis, and when it comes to the agreement on the auxiliary, because that is really telling, his claim is that the only, virtually the only option is to get terpers in singular marking on the auxiliary, as opposed to the team agreement which you observe in classical Arabic. However, the wrong conclusion that's deduced at least in Cymru in 1991 is the claim that, because of such a default 3SGM marking on the auxiliary, such constructions do not have a subject. This is his quote. This suggests that in multis and by extension, the Leventine dialects, in them, neither argument is subject. Indeed, the sentence has no subject is in person, so this is the claim in Cymru, and I've shown good evidence that actually these possessive structures actually do have a subject, and the subject is the possessor. Right, so if you then consider the dialects themselves, possessive constructions in Palestinian, well, you get 3SGM marking, even though in principle you could have had agreement with the team, yet, so something like 64 is really marginal. So agreement with the team, which is feminine, girl, is very marginal, but rather it is 3SGM that you default to a person's singular masculine that you get. What's beautiful also is that they can get the negation, which is the one with which you usually express verb forms as opposed to prepositions. However, then in Tunisian and Moroccan dialects, the situation is a bit more complex in that, literally, they can have default agreement, agreement with the team, as well as agreement with the possessor. So in whichever way you look at it, crucial is that for sure there has been a shift in the mapping between the grammatical functions and the thematic roles when considering the development from classical Arabic to the dialects reading. That's it. Good. Does anybody have any questions you'd like to ask? OK, I'll start with one question. I guess most relevant to this, exactly what you're saying here now, is I'm wondering, you know, on your story, why is it possible at all to say, kin anni? Right. I think that... Then let me explain. So, I, why it is, you're trying to say, OK, you need to have a thing in between, either Jack or whatever, kin Jack anni. But the point is, the possessive andi, which is first person singular, and the past auxiliary can agree with that in person. But it doesn't have to. Whereas with a true verb, it would have to agree in person. So how come it's allowed to not? Right. My story is simply that this is a non-canonical realised subject. So this is genitive inflection as opposed to the canonical nominative inflection. And hers goes on in other languages that I can write at all, 2001. They really show that in many places, when you get, when you get non-canonical realisations of, for example, object or subject, you simply default to whatever your language defaults to. And it happens that in Arabic, it is the default to 3SG and form. That would be my answer, to be honest. And I mean, if you look at Syrian and Maltese, agreement is allowed, but people will always go to the default form. So I could say, con John, there as well. Yet, I think if you do a survey, people would prefer the 3SG. It's like, yeah. I was wondering how the kind of stories that you present here, fit with other commercialisation that goes within a language. I'm particularly interested in, like, development of auxiliaries and murderings. So, yeah. So, models and Maltese are, and Arabic, because they're the same. Are really, are really all pseudo-webs. So pseudo-webs are exactly the sort of things which I had been discussing here. So they really are a class of their own. And this and, however, is not a model in the other dialects. So there is an argument in the literature by Van Hoff, who believes that influence from our Italian ancestors, as it were, when they colonised the island. So she believes that there is a context story for the grammaticalisation of this paradigm as a model. Yet, in general, they are really an odd class of predicates. It's true. They are a very odd class of predicates models in Arabic. Yeah, they are not the canonical verb forms at all. So they could actually be, they could have just a default tree as teripresence in feminine masculine form only, for example. The only thing which is nice, I mean, what's nice with respect to this specific model is that it follows trajectory of changes from possessive structures to other, which is something which is well known. It's just that apparently no one, at least Heiner, which I read so much, believes that this is really not something that goes beyond Indo-European, but this is actually something which we're saying goes beyond, especially the universal perfect as well, which is present in the other dialects. Yeah. You had another? Did you have another? You do another one. Okay, yeah, this was actually a smaller question. So one, you had examples 11 and 12. So right at the beginning when you were introducing so much, yeah. Yeah. So not knowing enough about the language and how it does things. Can you ever end up with context in which it's ambiguous in these kind of things? No. So not having in 12 B for example where you obviously have some marking, do you ever have context in which the language is different? There are a lot of factors playing a role. So for example, the definiteness of the theme typically in a possessive structure typically you'd get an indefinite theme as opposed to in a locative structure where the theme is typically definite. That is one. Secondly a crucial point is that while in B that O is really agreement and you can't change it with an NP the argument of the real preposition and can alter it between being a pronoun as well as an NP. So those two factors are really crucial. And while that is the canonical order of each I mean shifting them would result in a topic structure. So in this case il ctip in the prepositional one in the locative one in 11 B is actually that is its canonical position as opposed to ctip in the possessive which is in its canonical position as it were. So in that way no, there wouldn't be ambiguity in that way. You will need the progressive marker, ed, an ddo ed il ctip. I already thought about that. I would need to insert it. Paolw, an ddo e'n saf o'r ed il ctip. You need the progressive which kind of locates it further. Yes, literally at him is being booked or is located booked. Yeah. The differential object of marking. Happened with top and ends? No, not really. Because in B the definite allows optional case marking. Sorry, in B. The accusive marking is optional as opposed to c where it's obligatory. That is kind of the minute difference. In C part together correct? With an indefiniment in A you may not have the You can't, exactly. Yeah, sorry. It's just notation. Why should it be that you can't be adjacent to people? Because in other Arabic where I see this as fun. Well, in its prepositional state function it's definitely not. In the possessive function it's also fine. I mean... I mean I think that gives me a much more of a point in saying that this could be really a constraint which is what is triggering. It's like a condition. From a kind of synchronic point of view I think it's very nice. I'm interested to know why this change has come about. I mean, can you think of other anything else in the language where there isn't some kind of intervening adverb that gets unbomatic? Yeah, it's an adverb. It's like a blocking effect. You may just follow up on that point. There's obviously no difference in phrasing, intonation when you put in an adverb. I mean, that's why I chose on purpose an adverb because if it were something else then it would be a clause. I mean, you're in another clause, it's another predicate of some sort and no no change in intonation at all. Yeah. What is important however is that for now it seems to me that it's a finite class of things which can come in between. So it's really three items which I found which is the still, already and perhaps, forcing. Else, I'll just default to kell which is the That doesn't link to the kind of perfective aspect you want to add. No, at that point, no. You're still pure past tense. Exactly. So that's why at that point I believe that we're still I plus V as it were. But then when you get the kin and the skell formation and the call formation, that's clearly something which is devoid of tense features at all because the I position now is filled again with some sort.  But yes, it's odd. Yes. I don't know. Okay. And also, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that La is an accused marker even in this example. Why wouldn't... Why would it make you decide it's an accused marker? Well, I'm assuming. So what would be the alternative? Still, the position. But there's something commenting between the verb and the verb. So another interpretation would be I saw something the verb to the verb. I saw something? Yeah, I saw the verb, or I found the verb to give it to you. Ah, you mean, why is this not being analysed as a... Incorrectly, only vowels are accused markers in Arabic. And you can think of any variety of Arabic where there is a consonant or well, La is not a pure consonant but still both present as a consonant as used as a case marker. Well, I mean in the literature, La as a date of case marker is well known even for the dialects themselves. So if you take Egyptian, for example, which No, I'm talking about the dialects. So if you take Egyptian which is really neat because it has the Marsher negation just like Maltese what happens is that you can still get the le pronoun inside the verbal construct. So you get the verb form and then you get ma in front and then you get two pronouns because you've got two slots available for the accusative and the dative and then you kind of close it with the sh. And that gives you evidence that this is really a verb form which includes within it two pronominal forms, one of which is dative marked. So there are arguments in the literature that the le as a dative realising the recipient or the goal or the secondary object or the indirect object whatever you want to call it in that use the le has developed as a case marker. There is evidence for this in the literature. Now what Maltese seems to have done is to kind of take this a step further. It's true that this thing, this fact does not happen in the other dialects, this part the accusative which I'm glossing as accusative. So what seems to have what I do not agree with you is that Ra is a typical C, the verb to C is a typical two place predicate subject object. So object, I mean Maria is what's being seen and I guess the most neutral way of considering Maria is to be the object and not the secondary object. Whereas with your analysis I'll be trying to force a secondary object interpretation to Maria which I wouldn't want to. And actually if I substitute Maria by a pronoun I do not get right la but I get righta. So there is no little marking there. Because you're treating this as a prepositional phase. You're treating that as a prepositional phase. Whereas I'm treating it as a noun phase that is accusative marked. It's not a complete verb unless there is a context where something is missing. But this is more tense. The example from Egyptian I would say No, I'm thinking of Baat for example. Batilha for example. Batilha a jawab or whatever. Batilha a qistab. Datlha and if you negate it it will become Mabatil Hish. And that Hish ash or what? So there that can only be treated as a pronominal form and not a PP inside a verb phrase. How can it be? A PP inside a verb form. It wouldn't make sense if you still want to consider it as a PP. Prepositional phase it is. But I mean even Ra'a in Arabic is really a two place predicate. So I wonder how you can force a secondary object reading to the item that's being seen. That's what I I do not agree with you. Cos if this were Shaf Shaf a ha Shaf is also a two place predicate like Ra'a. No? No, I'm talking about dialects, Shaf. And that Ra'a in this right is exactly the same as used in classical. Yeah. The point is in order to say that it will know you in Maltese you must say right little that's how you say it in Maltese. Yeah, but but in dialect. Yeah, Maltese is odd like this. Other dialects are different but Maltese is like this. So differential object marking is only found with object I meant, not secondary object is only present in Maltese. The other dialects do not seem to have it or do not have it. As opposed to the dative, the dative is across. This is accusative though. Tell me. If you go back to the last dialect and look at directional propositions there's two. There's Lila, which is one and then there's Illa. Ewa, ewa, ewa, ewa, ewa, ewa, yes. Now when I actually it was really difficult to find Lila in class in the Quran because usually they are all Illa. Illa, Illa. Thanks for that. Sorry. This is Illa. It's a directional propositions and actually I would say these are even. Can you do the previous slide? Yes. This one B is kind of all action because in that context where it's truly directional you expect Illa usually. Anyhow, that's my point is that there are these two things and they're very similar simultaneously. There's five differences. And then when you get to the dialects now I kind of, when I teach dialects, I say Illa is gone. Doesn't exist. But if you and kind of meaning-wise and functional-wise that's a convenient thing to say. But what you did and we were by no means the first to do it the whole time we were talking about something which is phonologically Illa or Illa and then suddenly we have Illa and you say it's the same. In the universal perfect. You say it's the same thing and like I say you're not at all the first to do this and if you look at Arabic dialects they do kind of synchronically they do seem to function the same way. So like he has his Illa and the negation is Illa or no, not Illa but Illa Anyway this is kind of marginal as a possibility in most dialects. Illa and the negation probably won't involve this in. So it looks like they are part of the same thing but I just wonder are they is it legitimate to really say to say this is just the same thing as there is this historical precedent that's still on the side. Yes. You're right you have a point. What is nice however is that what's beautiful to retain for sure to maintain is the grammaticalisation path because if this were really let's say if it were really the same law used in possessive structures then this is one way in which one could expect grammaticalisation. One way in which one direction which possessive structure could grammaticalise. So kind of it would fit nicely. I kind of suspect that I think one really ought to show this but somehow but I kind of suspect that at some very early point Illa and Illa fused themselves. True. So that would come even perhaps at the peace stage where Illa preposition. Yeah. But yes you have a point for sure. I mean they are more for lots of things screaming. So in classical Arabic it's Illa with a long R but in most dialects that final long round would be shorter anyway. So all you have is Illa versus Illa. We are screaming. And then you typically also find in the east the more east you go and the more gulf you become sar is obligatory. In which case then the vowel drops and you get sarla. So then kind of your left would just a loom. Whereas in Maltese and Syrian I mean at least when it's not with a sar it's clearer. There. Yeah but yes. Thank you.