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

Peter Bleackley wrote:

>Reading Greenberg's list of universals
>
>http://angli02.kgw.tu-berlin.de/Korean/Artikel02/Appendix3.html
>
>I've discovered that Khangaþyagon violates universals 2,3,6,10,12, and
>possibly 23 although I'm not sure of his terminology. This is mainly
>because Khangaþyagon is based on what seemed plausible to me without
>reading the list.
So 3, meaning it's VSO and postpositional? Did this affect 22, the order of
standard-marker-adjective in comparisons?
(compare Rhean |dla draaz noonyan| "than house bigger")

So here's what I know of mine:

Rhean violates 2, 4, 9, 22

Tolborese violates 1, 9, 20*, 21
(here I've considered Tolborese's considerable supply of prefixes
as "prepositions")

Lidric, from what little I know if it, violates only number 6. NOTHING
comes before a verb unless it's modified by that verb acting as a relative
clause. A bit like Japanese in reverse.

Omurax violates 1, 3, 6, 12, 20* (and formerly 38)
(Omurax also violates the unlisted Universal 0, "Languages have verbs".
Omurax also has some local cases but no adpositions at all. Since nothing
precedes the TMA particle, I considered the language "verb"-initial where
this applied.)

*In both of these languages, numerals are nouns. The phrases in question
would be:
Tolborese: (PFX-)number-CONS GEN-noun CLASS-adjective CLASS-demonstrative
Omurax: number(-CASE) noun-GEN "ni" adjective-GEN "ni" demonstrative-GEN

>I'd be interested to know how many universals other people's conlangs
>violate, and whether this came about naively or deliberately.
I found out about those universals long after most of Rhean had taken
shape, and while Tolborese and Omurax were still only sketches. I see them
as interesting observations on existing natural languages, not rules to
be "broken". Although, setting out to violate every one of them in one
language would be an interesting project, and likely to produce a rather
convoluted, "inside-out" feeling grammar.

M

Reply