accusative and ergative languages

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Ralf-Stefan and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Ralf-Stefan Georg <Georg at home.ivm.de>
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 1999 5:27 AM

>> Pat wrote:

>> Well, on page 40 of Chao's Mandarin Primer, are listed "Affixes":

>> 11 are listed; of these 6 qualify as related to "inflections" :
>> modal -m(en), phrase marker -le; completed action -le; progressive
>> action -j(y/e); possibility or ability -de; subordination -de.

>> Undoubtedly, a historical grammar might provide a few more but I consider
>> this a pretty simple system.

R-S sighed:

> This is getting weary. I think no sane linguist will be unaware of the fact
> that there are languages with fewer purely morphological means than others.

Pat sympathizes:

Apparently not.

R-S continued:

> Also, "simpler" and "not-so simple" phonological systems have been heard of.
> But, if I'm not completely mistaken, there was talk about sthl. like
> general, overall simplicity of languages, which is a pre-scientific notion,
> quite simply, if this pun is allowed.

> If we assume, as of course we have to, that human languages are
> problem-solving devices which face a set of possible communicative
> problems, which is the same for all linguistic communities (don't come with
> obvious cultural differences, which pertain to vocabulary only; I'm aware
> of the fact that not all linguistic communities of the planet need to talk
> meaningfully about the various kinds of fish in the Yenissey, or the
> Sepik). Languages make different choices regarding the set of functions
> they grammaticalize (tense vs. aspect or both, inferentiality, relative or
> absolute tense, number, participant-identification, reference-tracking,
> pragmatic categories, you name it), the hows and whys of which are the
> object of linguistic typology. One language uses grammaticalized
> bound-morphology for, say, inferentiality, others have to use different
> means to convey the idea. But they are all able to convey the idea, however
> elegant, or however clumsy.

Pat interjects:

Yes, some people use a drill-stick and bow to make a fire, and some use
matches.

R-S continued explaining:

> The idea is that they *use means* to do it, or
> that speakers may find these means, even if the category is weakly or not
> at all grammaticalized in their language (your inflection paradigm may be
> my intonation pattern, your inferentiality affix may be my expletive
> adverb; to convey the idea of the Dakota sentence-particle /yelo/ or Thai
> /khrap/ I may even be forced to say each time "I am male"; clumsy, but
> possible, if I face the necessity). The description of these means is the
> task of the grammarian. Some grammarians are aware of this task, and write
> a 600-page grammar of Chinese, some aren't (or simply want to produce a
> primer to help you get along abroad) and write a 60-pp. treatment of
> Russian. So what ?

> I will not deny that notions of simplicity vs. complexity may be useful
> distinctions when talking about subsystems. For the characterization of
> whole languages they are definitely not useful. The grammar-school like
> rote learning of paradigms, which your Chinese teacher will be able to
> spare you, will be compensated by having to digest subtle and difficult
> rules of syntax.

Pat concludes:

In my opinion, dearth of morphological devices is validly characterised as
"simple".

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)