Universals

> From:    DOUGLAS KOLLER <LAOKOU@...>
> Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_G=E9arthnuns_takes_on_Greenberg's_Word_Order_Universals?=
>
> > 26. If a language has discontinuous affixes, it always either prefixing
or
> > suffixing or both.
>
> N/A? Discontinuous affixes?
I don't know of a natlang example, but my Daimyo has discontinous suffixes,
e.g.:

   To get 'brother.AGT.SG' you do:  [monospaced font helps]

    daidj--m       base form for 'brother'
        -le-t'-z   discontinuous suffix for agentive case
             -e-   singular number
    ============
   <daidjlemt'ez> 'brother.AGT.SG'

..Although of course a native speaker wouldn't need to do the little math
equation.

In accordance with the universal, there is prefixing.

    x#z-          definite article
       d`um-n     base form for 'blood'
          -e-     singular number
    =========
   <xuzd`umen>   'DEF.blood.SG', "the blood"

The '#' is a notation that the root vowel is to be repeated (prepeated?)
there.  Most prefixes are #-form, but they can *not* be discontinuous like
le-t'-z is.

> > 28. If both the derivation and inflection follow the root, or they both
> > precede
> > the root, the derivation is always between the root and the inflection.
> >
> > 29. If a language has inflection, it always has derivation.
>
> Not quite sure I get 28 & 29. What is "derivation" here?
I think it means what is used to make words change parts of speech.
e.g. in English 'walk' can take -ing to act as a noun, and, in accordance
with universal 28, we'd say 'walkings' to pluralize it, and not 'walksing'.
(Of course, 'walk' can also be zero-morpheme derived to? a noun)

> From:    DOUGLAS KOLLER <LAOKOU@...>
> Subject:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:__G=E9arthnuns_takes_on_Greenberg's_Word_Order_Universa?=
>          =?iso-8859-1?Q?ls?=
>
> > > > 26. If a language has discontinuous affixes, it always either
> > > > prefixing or suffixing or both.
> > >
> > > N/A? Discontinuous affixes?
> >
> > Discontinuous affixes are affixes that appear in two separate locations.
> > For example, if the past tense were expressed by ke-ta, a past tense
verb
> > would be ke-bal-ta.
>
> Well then this seems obvious, but I still don't think I'm getting it. If a
> language has affixes that go before or after the verb, they will either go
> in front of the verb, after the verb, or both?   Duh!?! What's the point
of
> this universal?
It means that not *all* these inflections will be discontinuous.

For example, these "Semitic-type" conlangs, where you have a root "CCC" and
discontinuous morphemes to make "aCCaC" and "CeCCi" and "CCewiC".  To
conform to the universal, there must be *some* prefixing/suffixing or both.
That is to say, [I guess,] that not *all* of the morphology could be carried
out discontinually, or by means of separate words, or what have you.

This page came up in the web search:
http://angli02.kgw.tu-berlin.de/Korean/Artikel02/morphology.html

> > > > 28. If both the derivation and inflection follow the root, or they
> > > > both precede the root, the derivation is always between the root
> > > > and the inflection.
> > > >
> > > Not quite sure I get 28 & 29. What is "derivation" here?
> >
> Perhaps an example would help me out here...
>
> For example, if English had an accusative case mark by -a, "electric"
going
> to a noun becomes "electricity" which in the accusative becomes
> "electricity-a" and not "electric-a-ity? Not getting it.
That's it.  Or, to avoid making things up, 'electric' going to a noun
becomes 'electricity', which in the plural would become 'electricities' and
not '*electrics-ity'.

> From:    =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Rhiemeier <joerg.rhiemeier@...>
> Subject: Nur-ellen takes on Greenberg's universals
>
> >10. Question particles or affixes, specified in position by reference to
a
> >particular word in the sentence, almost always follow that word.  Such
> >particles do not occur in languages with dominant order VSO.
>
> I don't have the faintest idea what is referred to here.
If your question word belongs to a word (say the word you're asking about)
it should go after the word.

Like Latin:

     Ambulabasne cum puella?

The question marker -ne belongs to what's being questioned, and by the
universal it comes after.  If Latin were VSO then according to the universal
it shouldn't have -ne at all.

     *Muke!