Re: Never violate a universal unless it seems like a good idea at the time

Andreas Johansson/Greenberg wrote:
> I note with a certain dismay that #40, which as I said appears to be the
only
> one that Tairezazh defies, appears to belong to the "absolute" category:
>
> Universal 40. When the adjective follows the noun, the adjective expresses
all
> the inflectional categories of the noun. In such cases the noun may lack
overt
> expression of one or all of these categories.
>
I need to go back and re-read that one in context, if there is any--- does
the 2nd sentence mean (1) even if the noun lacks inflectional categories,
the adjective must have them; or (2) if the noun lacks inflectional
categories, then the adjective will also lack them, by definition.

Kash seems to violate this-- nouns are marked for case/number, adjectives
are not, e.g. standard _puna-ç-i virik_ house-pl-gen. pretty 'of (the)
pretty houses'  (although in archaizing/formal/poetic work you can say _puna
virik-(i)ç-i_, translating the pl and gen to the adjective).  But total
concord is flat out wrong: *punaçi virikiçi.

If (1) is the case, Indonesian languages violate it, though if (2) is the
case, then they squeak in under the wire-- IN nouns have no case markings,
and neither do adjectives. OTOH if you _do_ pluralize the noun, you don't
pluralize the adj.-- rumah-rumah besar 'big houses'.

Perhaps #40 is not as absolute as claimed.  Incidentally, there is a huge
website (German, IIRC) with 100s of proposed "universals", some of them,
suspiciously, based on evidence from just a handful of languages.

Reply