Re: Géarthnuns takes on Greenberg's Word Order Universals
|From:||DOUGLAS KOLLER <laokou@...>|
|Date:||Friday, September 15, 2000, 3:47|
From: "SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY"
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, DOUGLAS KOLLER wrote:
> > > 10. Question particles or affixes, specified in position by referenceto a
> > > particular word in the sentence, almost always follow that word. Such
> > > particles do not occur in languages with dominant order VSO.
> > I not quite sure I understand this one, but based on 9, I guess theanswer
> > would be 'no'?
> I think it would be "N/A" or "yes". The universals says that if the
> interrogative particle must occur next to a specific word/category, it
> will almost always follow it.
But if my interrogative 'particle' must occur next to a verb, and it's a
prefix, doesn't that make it 'no'? (N/A may well be the easier answer :) )
Or is "particle" the linchpin word?
> > > 26. If a language has discontinuous affixes, it always eitherprefixing or
> > > suffixing or both.
> > N/A? Discontinuous affixes?
> Discontinuous affixes are affixes that appear in two separate locations.
> For example, if the past tense were expressed by ke-ta, a past tense verb
> would be ke-bal-ta.
Well then this seems obvious, but I still don't think I'm getting it. If a
language has affixes that go before or after the verb, they will either go
in front of the verb, after the verb, or both? Duh!?! What's the point of
> > > 28. If both the derivation and inflection follow the root, or theyboth
> > > precede
> > > the root, the derivation is always between the root and theinflection.
> > >
> > > 29. If a language has inflection, it always has derivation.
> > Not quite sure I get 28 & 29. What is "derivation" here?
> Derivational morpheme.
Perhaps an example would help me out here...
For example, if English had an accusative case mark by -a, "electric" going
to a noun becomes "electricity" which in the accusative becomes
"electricity-a" and not "electric-a-ity? Not getting it.