Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs "Aspect-Prominent"

---In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...> wrote:
>Dirk Elzinga wrote:
>>Eldin:
>>You need to look at this book:
>>Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect, and mood.
>>John Benjamins. ISBN: 155619935X.
>
>I'd be very interested to know what typological generalizations it
>proposes, if you've read it. :)
Based on Dirk's recommendation I have ordered the book; but I haven't seen
it yet.

>From "Adjective Classes: A Cross Linguistic Typology"
Who wrote that and where can one get it?

>I know of the following claims regarding stative verbs and verby
>adjectives vs nouny adjectives:
>
>(1)
>if a language is head marking, it will have verb-y adjectives
>if a language is dependent marking, it will have noun-y adjectives,
>or adjectives will form a separate class
I didn't know that.

>(2)
>if a language is aspect prominent (to use the terminology of Bhat),
>it will have verb-y adjectives if a language is tense prominent, it
>will have noun-y adjectives, or adjectives will form a separate class
Is this so?  Slavic languages are well-known for being very aspect-
prominent (most of them) and not very tense-prominent (most of them).  Is
their "adjective-neutralization parameter" set to "verb", really?  I
thought many of them had adjectives as a separate class.

But a tendency towards stative verbs and a tendency towards aspect-
prominence seem to be correlated; and of course "stative verbs" are a lot
like "verby adjectives".  I just think Slavic languages -- perhaps unlike
some Caucasian and/or Kartvelian languages -- don't tend to be
active/stative in morphological alignment, nor to have
adjectives "neutralized" as verbs (that is, functioning as stative verbs).
I could be wrong; I've only "studied" one Slavic language (Russian), and I
can't say I know it (I didn't finish the course).  But from what I could
see it expressed the same notions English expresses by "adjectives" via a
separate class, neither verbs nor nouns, just as English does.

>There thus seems to be a proposed cluster of the features head
>marking, aspect prominent, with verb-y adjectives/stative verbs on
>the one hand, versus dependent marking, tense prominent, with noun-y
>adjectives on the other.
There does?  Who proposed it?

I've never seen either cluster quite that big before; I've also never seen
every pair within either cluster before (that is, each cluster contains a
pair I've never seen correlated before).

>Dixon, in the introductory paper of "Adjective Classes",
Haven't read it.  Can it be found online?

>claims that (1) seems to hold quite well, although there are
>exceptions (eg Korean),
I didn't know that.

>but (2) seems to have rather numerous exceptions.
>I haven't read any other proposed typological correlations connected
>to mood or evidentiality marking rather than tense or aspect marking.
Thanks.

-----
eldin