Re: Reference Grammars (was: Doraja)

>Matt Pearson scripsit:
>
>> A very good recent reference grammar that I've been reading is "A
>> Grammar of Lezgian" by Martin Haspelmath, published by Mouton de
>> Gruyter (1993).  It's impeccably organised, impressively complete,
>> and includes a variety of useful and unusual features, including a
>> concordance of example sentences.  Most importantly, every single
>> point in the grammar is illustrated with at least one--and in many
>> cases several--example sentences, with full morpheme-by-morpheme
>> glosses.
>
>Ahem.  What about the Lojban reference grammar, which is even available
>on the Web?
Ahem yourself.  My failure to mention the Lojban Reference Grammar
in the same breath as Haspelmath's grammar was in no way intended
as an insult.  :-)  The LRG is an excellent piece of work, but the original
question was asking about *natlang* grammars, I think.  And anyhow,
Lojban is so different from natlangs in terms of its lexico-syntactic
structure that the organisation and presentation of the LRG may not be
easily translatable to other more naturalistic conlangs.  (The LRG
*does* set an impressively high standard when it comes to depth
and detail, though--one to which I aspire with my Tokana reference
grammar.)

>Also there is _Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar_ by
>Li & Thompson, which was my explicit model.
Another good one.

Matt.