Re: Géarthnuns takes on Greenberg's Word Order Universals

From: "SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY"

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, DOUGLAS KOLLER wrote:
>
> > > 10. Question particles or affixes, specified in position by reference
to 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 the
answer
> > 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 either
prefixing 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
this universal?

> > > 28. If both the derivation and inflection follow the root, or they
both
> > > precede
> > > the root, the derivation is always between the root and the
inflection.
> > >
> > > 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.

Kou