Re: Language "laws"?

Well, 'universals' aren't always universal. The only
universals I'm even remotely familiar with are
phonological universals; i.e., things like:

* any language that has [z] also has its unvoiced
equivalent, [s]
* all languages have at least two of the three
plosives in the triplet [p], [t], [k]
* all languages have [a] or something close to it (I
think...)
* if a language is missing a plosive from the set [b],
[p], [d], [t], [k], [g], it's most likely to be [g],
followed by [b].

I know of some grammatical universals, but generally,
they're even more uncertain than these phonological
universals I've listed. Most of the time, universals
will become self-evident as you look at more and more
languages.

For example, I've never seen a language without
pronouns; even my own conlang, Gi-nàin, has two. I did
try to eliminate those two completely, but generally,
every language will have a way of referring to an
antecedent without actually repeating the full
antecedent, even if they don't use it as often as our
very pronoun-happy English.

But the general consensus is, I think, that most
universals are bunk and the rest are simple
psychology.

 --- Rodlox <Rodlox@...> skrev:
>  I read on one conlanging webpage, that there are
> certain Universals or Laws
> to human language.
>
>  if this is true (and I don't know if it is/isn't),
> what are some of those
> Laws?
>
>  thanks.
>

Replies