Re: LANGUAGE LAWS

Tommie Powell wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out that some modern languages -- some languages that aren't
> purely polysynthetic -- show some polysynthetic tendancies.  And thanks for also
> pointing out that the agglutinative and fusional structures of modern languages
> could be viewed as incomplete forms of purely polysynthetic structures.  Both of
> those observations indicate that the human mind may be predisposed to creating
> purely polysynthetic structures -- which makes it all the more likely that, before
> simple-and-sloppy trade languages began arising about 6,000 years ago, we all
> spoke purely polysynthetic languages.
I don't think he pointed that out at all.  He merely stated that
polysynthetic can be seen as a combination of fusional and
agglutinating.  I don't think that any one type has a favored status,
and I don't see any evidence of it.  There are "stone age languages"
that are isolating, ones that are fusional, ones that are agglutinating,
and ones that are polysynthetic.  I agree with you that only purely
polysynthetic is restricted to stone age peoples, but I see no reason to
think that polysynthetic is "less sloppy" than other types, and there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see to say that it was the *only* type
spoken before agriculture.  Polysynthetic would probably have been more
common, and perhaps the relative ratios of the other types may have been
different, who knows?  But on what evidence do you say that the human
mind "may be predisposed to creating purely polysynthetic structures"?
So some modern languages have developed polysynthetic tendencies.
Others have developed isolating tendencies, or agglutinating tendencies,
or even fusional tendencies.  Since languages are continuously changing,
there will always be some languages developing towards any given type.

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
ICQ: 18656696
AOL: NikTailor