Re: THEORY: questions

From: "Christophe Grandsire" <christophe.grandsire@...>
>En réponse à Muke Tever <alrivera@...>:
>>
>> Hmm, I don't remember seeing that there.  (At least, on the list of
>> universals[1].. is the list of universals different from the list of
>> primitives?)
>
>They don't list AND!! Is it not a universal? I mean, languages can lack the
>word itself, but I don't think they can lack the idea of association.
My understanding is that it's a list of *lexical* universals.
Offhand, I could imagine its not being listed meaning either of two bits:

    - some language doesn't mark "and" with a morpheme at all, e.g.
        "It's raining cats, dogs, schoolbuses"

    - some language uses a word for "and" that has a different primary
meaning:
        "It's raining cats with dogs with schoolbuses"

(or whatever)

    *Muke!