Re: Tripartite (was Re: Trigger language?)
|From:||daniel andreasson <danielandreasson@...>|
|Date:||Friday, January 17, 2003, 18:12|
Josh Roth wrote:
> I think it is the case that most languages that are
> tripartite are only partially so. I see a reference
> though to "a group of Australian Aboriginal languages
> spoken in south-east Queensland which make three-way
> distinctions for A, S, and P across all NPs." There's
> also a partially tri. Iranian language, Yazgulyam, and
> others among Australian and Papuan langs.
Yes! Now that you mention it, I remember reading about Yimas
in an article by Kibrik. Let's see if I can dig it up.
Here we go.
Kibrik, Alexandr E. "Beyond subject and object: Toward a
comprehensive relational typology", Linguistic Typology 1
It's a very interesting, but rather complicated discussion
on the topic of different language types. I really recommend
it though. ISTR that I've mentioned it on this list before.
(Some people on this list would have easy access to it, since
I hear he's a prof at their uni, lucky bastards. ;)