Presented in the following list are the attested -iēs-type, -iēs/-ia-type, -itiēstype and the itiēs/-itia-type nouns as excerpted from Gradenwitz (1904: 446- 447), Mikkola (1964: 182, 1966: 121-123), Delatte et al. (1981: 412), Busa (1988: 287), Brosman (1987) and Daude (2002: 231ff.) in alphabetical order. For each form the synchronic situation is presented – the meaning accoding to the OLD, the first attestation of the form in -iēs and the -ia one (if existent), transparent derivational source visible in Latin, if attainable. Following the synchronic analysis is the diachronic one with comparative evidence drawn from the other Indo-European languages. The etymologies of every word are presented as found in the literature.

The -iēs/-ia-type stems

Table 2 presenting the -iēs forms in Latin alongside the place of their earliest attestations and the ia-by forms and their attestation.

Discussion of the forms:

ACIES – aciēs, -ēī ‘sharpness, a sharp edge (esp. of a weapon), point, battle array, sight, pupil of eye;’ earliest attestations: Ennius, Plautus, cf. WH: I 8, OLD: 28, EM: 8-10. Descriptively, the word seems to be the abstract to the adjective ācer ‘sharp, pointed’ but the initial vowel length of the latter speaks formally against this assumption. Theoretically one could also think of deriving it from the verb acēre (so de Vaan 2008: 21) but the semantics here does not seem very probable: the meaning of acēre is very specialized: ‘to be sour (of wine)’ while that of aciēs remains very broad. Connected with acēre is the noun acētum ‘vinegar’ (cf. Weiss 2009: 293). However, it is also thinkable that acēre might have at some point in time meant ‘to be sharp’ and been the basis for the abstract noun meaning ‘sharpness’ before the meaning of the verb developed further into a specialized one ‘to be sour.’

When we take into account the comparative evidence, the picture becomes clearer. Aciēs has cognates in Germanic: Old Saxon eggja, Old High German ekka, Modern German Ecke ‘edge’ which all point to the Proto-Germanic *aǥjō. This in turn should be the development of the Proto-Indo-European *ak-ieh2 < *h2eḱyeh2. The presence of the -i-abstract in aciēs alongside the adjective in -r- (cf. Greek akrós < *h2eḱ-ró) points most probably to the Caland suffix (cf. Nussbaum 1976a: 15, Rau 2009: 74).

Abstract: This chapter introduces readers to the book. It first elucidates a belief shared by all of its authors concerning Taiwan's exceptionalism in two areas – external and internal affairs. Second, it looks at the literature on the unique situation of Taiwan in the landscape of international affairs and its consequences for the island, with particular attention to the state of research on this topic in Poland. Finally, it presents the structure and content of this volume.

Keywords: Taiwan, China, international recognition, international status, sovereignty, South China Sea, UNCLOS, United States, cross-Strait relations, soft power, diplomacy, democratization, Sunflower Movement, civil society, indigenous tourism, sustainable tourism, ecotourism, environmental awareness

Introduction

Take a look at the political map of the world and you will see that almost every piece of land belongs to a state. This division – in contrast, for example to the split created by a valley between two mountains – is man-made, imaginary and arbitrary, and therefore can be easily questioned. Indeed, in addition to the multiple disputed borders that permeate the world map, some countries are not recognized or partially recognized. Other states decide whether a certain political unit can be recognized as sovereign. Again, even though their decision concerns imaginary divisions created by borders, accepting or rejecting them has far-reaching consequences in real life. The unrecognized country remains excluded from a club of sovereign states, which makes cooperation with its members very difficult or even impossible. It has no choice but to invent novel ways to conduct external relations. Moreover, this specific international situation has a major impact on its politics, people's lifestyles, culture, etc.

This book is about such an exceptional entity in the international community of states – Taiwan. Taiwan is a small island that covers an area of 35,883 km2 and lies nearly 180 km off the southeastern coast of mainland China across the Taiwan Strait. Its surface is approximately 395 km long from north to south and 145 km across at its widest point. Its landscapes are captivating. No wonder the Portuguese sailor navigating towards Japan in 1542 called this land Ilha Formosa – “beautiful island.”

The Latin fifth declension has been the subject of research ever since the beginning of Indo-European linguistics (cf. Pedersen 1926 for earlier studiēs, Leumann 1977: 285, 444-447, Klingenschmitt 1992: 127-135, Meiser 1998: 147-149). Scholars tend to view this type of inflection either as directly inherited from Proto-Indo-European (Brugmann 1888: 313-314, Pedersen 1926, Schrijver 1991: 379-387, Kortlandt 1997, Beekes 2011: 199) or as an inner-Italic creation (Osthoff 1884: 338, Sommer 1914: 394-402, Steinbauer (undated) apud Mayrhofer 1986: 133-134, Klingenschmitt 1992: 127-135, Nussbaum 1999, Piwowarczyk 2017a).

The two most commonly used forms in this declension -diēs, -ēī ‘day’ and rēs, -ĕī ‘thing’ – are clearly not original *ē-stems. The former most probably comes back to a hysterokinetic u-stem with the acc. form being the only directly inherited one from Proto-Indo-European (cf. WH: I 349-351, EM: 311-313, Leumann 1977: 356-358, Weiss 2009: 253-255, Nussbaum 1999, Rau 2010). The latter could go back to an i-stem *(hx)reh1-i-s (cf. Weiss 2009: 253-255, Meiser 1998: 148, WH: II 430-431, EM: 1008-1009, Mayrhofer 1976: 45-46) or a root noun *(hx)reh1- (cf. Schindler 1972a: 41). Both formations would eventually develop into the same form in Latin (cf. de Vaan 2008: 520-521, Szemerényi 1956). The etymology of the rest of the words declining according to this type – plēbēs ‘people,’ fidēs ‘ faith,’ spēs ‘hope’ – remains unclear. Perhaps they go back to the proto-forms: *speh1- or *spēh2, *bhidh-ei and *pleh1-dhu̯-es respectively (cf. Meiser 1998: 148-149, de Vaan 2008: 580, 218-219, 471 and Piwowarczyk 2017a for all the mentioned forms respectively).

Apart from these forms, there are also numerous abstract formations in -iēs of the type: aciēs ‘sharpness’ and also abstracts in -iēs/-ia (māteriēs ‘matter, wood’) and -itiēs (nōtitiēs ‘acquaintance’) which have the alternating forms of the first declension (ie. respectively māteria, and nōtitia). The alternating forms are attested already in archaic Latin and are used exchangeably. can discern between those formations which show the alternation in the same period, those in which the -iēs variant is attested earlier and the -ia later and those in which the -ia variant is attested earlier and the -iēs form later. Most of the formations can be seen either as either deverbal (cf. seriēs) or denominal in origin (māteriēs, cf. Mikkola 1964: 168).

In what follows I will try to present a coherent theory on the origin of this type of inflection building especially on the earlier hypotheses put forward by Osthoff (1884: 338), Klingenschmitt (1992: 127-135) and, most of all, Nussbaum (1999).

It seems that the Latin fifth declension iēs/-ia inflection consists of several different formations which can be traced back to the proto-language:

• a) the devī-́ type abstract formations to inherited Caland roots: e.g. aciēs (*h2eḱ-ih2), maciēs (*maḱ-ih2) with comparative counterparts in Greek akrós (*h22eḱ-ro-), makrós (*maḱ-ro-) (cf. Weiss 1993: 140, Nussbaum 1999, Rau 2009: 74),

• b) vr̥kīḥ-type formations with genitival semantics: e.g. māteriēs ‘wood, timber, matter’ derived from māter ‘trunk of the tree,’ saniēs ‘pus from wound, bloody matter’ from *h1sh2en-ih2 with the base form attested in Hittite išhan ‘blood’ <*h1sh2en (cf. Klingenschmitt 1992: 128, Nussbaum 1999),

• c) simple deverbal abstracts in *-iiā-: e.g. seriēs ‘row’ derived from serere ‘to join’ with comparative counterparts in Greek penía ‘poverty’ derived from pénomai ‘to be poor,’ Hittite šariya (cf. Chantraine 1933: 81, CHD: 259),

• d) compounded deverbal abstracts in *-iā-: e.g. effigiēs ‘image’ dervied from effingere ‘to fashion’ with comparative counterparts in Vedic -vidyā ‘knowledge,’ -yajyā ‘sacrifice’ (Wackernagel-Debrunner II.2.: 831ff.),

• e) adjectival abstracts in *-iiā-: e.g. luxuriēs from *luxuro- with comparative counterparts in Greek sophía ‘skill, wisdom’ from sophós ‘skilled, wise’ (cf. Chantraine 1933: 82).

As to their origin – I would argue that the starting point for the creation of the -iēs type of abstracts was either an original nominative in -iēs and an accusative made to that analogically in iem or an original accusative in -iem which would be the basis for remodelling of the nominative. Since there is no actual evidence for a *-ie̯ h11 - nominal suffix (cf. the discussion of the theories of Pedersen 1926 and Schrijver 1991: 379-387 in Piwowarczyk 2016, 2017b) I would opt for an original -iem accusative to which an analogical -iēs nominative was created. The model for such an analogical reshaping would be clear – the inherited accusative diem was the basis of the new nominative in diēs (following Nussbaum 1999 and Osthoff 1884: 338 and contrary to Klingenschmitt's hypothesis with the analogical model being uolpem).

The word in an Indo-European language consists of a lexical morpheme (lexeme, root, abbreviated as R), a derivational one (a suffix, abbreviated as S, forming a stem with the lexical morpheme) and an inflectional one (the ending, abbreviated as E), cf. Matthews (1991: 24-60). The lexical morpheme is the carrier of semantic meaning while the derivational morpheme identifiēs the morphological class to which the word belongs (nomen agentis, nomen actionis, nomen instrumenti etc.). Finally, the inflectional morpheme identifiēs the function of the word in sentence. An example of such a formation would be the acc. sg. of the word for ‘parent,’ Proto-Indo-European *ĝénh1-tor-m̥ (R-S-E). Formations with the derivational morpheme zero are called root formations. A formation with one suffix is a primary formation whereas one with two or more suffixes is a secondary formation (cf. Fortson 2010: 83-85). Whereas it is more or less clear that the primary stem formation is governed by a set of rules within the Indo-European accent-ablaut system of paradigms (cf. Fortson 2010: 119-122), the setup of secondary formations seems less clear.

I recognize the following types of accent-ablaut paradigms in the protolanguage (cf. Schaffner 2001: 76-94, Meier-Brügger 2003: 201-218, Neri 2003: 12-43, Widmer 2004: 49-54, Weiss 2009: 257ff.):

For root nouns I recognize three types:

Furthermore I follow the opinion of Jochem Schindler (class teaching) that the terminology used for the primary athematic formations presented above should not in principle be used to the secondary types such as the thematic declension or vr̥kī́ḥ formations as it is used by Rix (1976: 121-127), Schaffner (2001: 76-94). Cf. also the similar opinion of Meissner (2005: 33).

The process of derivation, that is forming new words on the basis on the ones already existing in the lexicon, is primarily an analogical process through which a productive affix is added to an already existing lexeme thus creating a new word (cf. Matthews 1991: 61-69, Heidermanns 1996: 44). Derivation, in contrast to inflection, is generally irregular and unpredictable (cf. Heinz 1961) and the problem with the assumption whether a certain formation is productive in the language or not stumbles upon the problem of the lack of native speakers in case of arcane languages (cf. Matthews 1991: 69-81, Bauer 2001).

The purpose of the following monograph is to investigate in detail the origin of the Latin nouns of the fifth declension in -iēs and the alternating -iēs/-ia type along with the -itiēs and -itiēs/-itia type. It has been observed long ago that Latin possessed stems in -ēs (rēs ‘thing,’ fidēs ‘faith’) and -iēs (diēs ‘ day,’ aciēs ‘ sharp edge’) which had the typical paradigm characteristic of the fifth declension (that is, the -ē-stems) along with the stems in -iēs and -itiēs which alternated with -ia and -itia of the first declension (cf. māteriēs, effigiēs, notitiēs alongside māteria, effigia, notitia). I will term these three types the rēs-type, aciēs-type (showing uniform -iēs throughout the paradigm) and the māteriēs type (showing the alternation between -iēs and -ia forms in the paradigm) for the sake of convenience. There have been numerous attempts at explaining the precise origin of this formations but none has succeeded so far in explaining all the facts without problems. In this work I will present the synchronic Latin material and the diachronic evidence for every form and I will put forward a solution which, in my opinion, would be the best to explain the origin of those formations.

The outline of the work is as follows: in the first chapter an outline of the Indo-European derivational morphology is presented taking into account the contemporary theory of classifying the proto-language inflectional classes not into stems but according to their affiliation within the particular accentablaut paradigm. Afterwards, the basic theoriēs on the word-formation are presented: external (additive and substitutive) and internal derivation and the problem of productivity. In the second chapter the Latin fifth declension is presented with the discussion of its most representative forms and the views on its origin. In the third chapter all of the Latin -iēs, -iēs/-ia and -itiēs/-itia formations are presented. The earliēst attestations are given for every form with the illustrations taken from the representative texts, alongside with the possible derivational base, if attested in Latin, and the etymology which includes the comparative evidence from the other Indo-European languages.

Abstract: This paper argues that recognition of Taiwan's status quo and security resulting from the guarantee of triangular relations with the United States and China should not eliminate the impact of local, societal, and political factors on the respective power positions of the players involved or their embroilment in the U.S.-China-Taiwan triangle. The study explores these factors influencing the identities and interests of players with the advent of political leadership changes. We ask how policies adopted by newly elected politicians toward others in the triangle contribute to Taiwan's stability in the future.

Keywords: cross-Strait relations, triangular relations

Introduction

Today, the distinctiveness of Taiwan in the world is still shaped by the legacy of the Civil War in China in 1949, in addition to the Cold War in Asia. It is continually reaffirmed through declining international recognition for the Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC, Taiwan), amounting to only 17 states in 2018. Taiwan maintains its status quo in an atypical way, co-crafted through an intricate security mechanism of relations with profound influence from the United States (the U.S.) and the People's Republic of China (PRC, China). This phenomenon has been widely discussed within academia, regardless of the methodological assumptions in the field of international relations. It comes as no surprise that the relations between the U.S., China, and Taiwan have ultimately been captured using the well-grounded and fitting term ‘triangle.’

Various studies facilitate an understanding of the Taiwan issue by explaining triangular relations. Lowell Dittmer introduced the perspective of the ‘strategic triangle,’ operationalized as the contingency of each bilateral relation with the third power and the security dimension of that contingency. Dittmer identifies Taiwan's triangle as dependent on linkages between the U.S., USSR, and PRC – the Great Strategic Triangle during the Cold War. After this broader strategic nexus collapsed, Taiwan's triangle became ‘autonomous’ – a mini-triangle, characterized by the “imbalance of power among the three actors.” By distinguishing between positive and negative behavior between two symmetric and asymmetric players – “strongly influenced by the power ratio (strong/weak),” Dittmer outlined the possible configurations of the triangles by bilateral amity and enmity in the triad, such as ‘Stable Marriage,’ ‘Romantic,’ and ‘Ménage a trois,’ later supplemented by a fourth configuration – the ‘Unit-Veto.’