Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Universals

From:Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
Date:Friday, September 15, 2000, 14:53
> 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!