<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
There are definitely similarities between etic and emic on the one hand, and comparative concepts and language-specific categories on the other. I would say there are some differences as well.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Etic categories, in the morphosyntactic domain, are more like "purely semantic/functional" comparative concepts. For example, the property concept classes of dimension, value, age. But Martin argued for some comparative concepts that are hybrids, including
(crosslinguistically valid) formal properties. So for instance for me, "adjective" is a hybrid comparative concept that is whatever construction expresses modification of a referent by a property concept such as one of those classes just named. (Or more accurately,
the head of such a construction, with 'head' defined functionally as in Croft 2001, ch. 7.) And perhaps that construction instantiates a particular formal strategy, say the linker strategy, for adjectives. This is another hybrid comparative category. Neither
adjective nor linker strategy are etic categories in the usual sense.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Emic categories look a lot more like language-specific categories. But I would say that language-specific categories are construction-specific as well. So we might identify an adjective construction using a linking strategy in the language we're describing,
based on modification by certain property concepts. Then we can ask, what other lexical concepts can be used in this construction for modification? We'll come up with a set of lexical concepts, possibly not all the property concepts, possibly including non-property
concepts, that can be used in this construction for modification. Then we could use the capitalized term Adjective to describe this construction-specific word class, because we used the comparative concept adjective to single out this language-specific construction.
This would make it easier for someone else reading our language description to find the adjective (lower-case, comparative concept) construction in that language, for comparative typological or other purposes. As Johanna said, this is what descriptive grammarians
generally do, even if they aren't thinking about the issues in the way described here, and so typologists generally don't have a problem using descriptive grammars (and the prose description in the grammar can tell us if things are different). But Adjective
is not adjective; we haven't "discovered" an adjective class in the language, because adjective (lower case) is not a language-specific word class; it is a type of comparative concept.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes,</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Frank Seidel <<a href="mailto:frank.zidle@gmail.com">frank.zidle@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Dear all,<br>
</div>
Doris' point about etic and emic perspectives clarified one more issue about comparative concepts and language-particular categories for me. Since two linguists working on a same language might arrive at different analyses about phenomena found, so-called language
particular categories are at the same time analyst particular categories and I would thus still consider them to be etic perspectives on a language.
<br>
<br>
</div>
Furthermore, and I might understand Martin Haspelmath's (2010) paper wrongly, but the way he talked about grammatical concepts I understood them to be more akin to 'ad hoc' concepts/categories (e.g. things that you need to build a house). You need them for
a particular purpose, but they are otherwise useless. In this case they are concepts that are used to meaningfully compare structural-semantic/functional/communicative aspects of languages.<br>
<br>
</div>
>From a purely terminological standpoint I would argue that the difference between a concept and a category is that the concept helps you identify a set of items and basically 'turns' into a category once a set of items has been identified. So comparative concepts
'turn' into categories once items in different languages have been found. These concepts are, however, somewhat useless to use as an argument for a language particular analysis. Thus if one finds a group of "lexemes that denote a descriptive property and that
can be used to narrow the reference of a noun" in a particular language the language cannot be argued to have a grammatical category adjectives based on this. This is despite the fact that once I identify such a group of lexemes in a particular language, I
still have a category. This category is just useless for language particular analysis. They can only be viewed as adjectives for a comparative purposes. The question here would be, if this definition of a comparative concept adjective should be used for all
comparative purposes involving the idea of adjective?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>From a methodological standpoint, then, if I look for a set of 'adjectives' as comparatively defined in a language and then try to find language internal evidence that this group of items (or at least a part of this group) can be argued for as being its
own language specific category adjective, can I say that I have let the language show itself to me?<br>
<br>
Thanks all for reading.<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
Frank <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Everett, Daniel <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:DEVERETT@bentley.edu" target="_blank">DEVERETT@bentley.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Good point, Doris. At the risk of harping on a single subject, in my forthcoming Chicago press book the etic/emic distinction plays a major role in the empiricist theories of language and culture that I try to develop. These
are very important ideas that have been misunderstood and under-estimated for decades outside of some circles.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dan</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div> <br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jan 22, 2016, at 1:13 PM, <a href="mailto:Dlpayne@uoregon.edu" target="_blank">
Dlpayne@uoregon.edu</a> <<a href="mailto:dlpayne@uoregon.edu" target="_blank">dlpayne@uoregon.edu</a>> wrote:</div>
<br>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">It
seems to me that "comparative concept" in Martin's usage is close (if not identical) to what is called "etic " while language specific "descriptve categories" are "emic cagegories" as discussed by Keneth Pike abd used in anthropology long ago, with the additional
understanding that we are talking about conceptual notions of potential relevance to morohosyntax / discourse (not just to sound or eg. "marriage" in anthropology, etc.) </span>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
Aren't these the same kind of distinctions just under new names by a (somewhat) new generation?</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
Doris Payne</div>
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">--------
Original message --------</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">Subject:
Re: [Lingtyp] comparative concepts</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">From:
Matthew Dryer <</span><a href="mailto:dryer@buffalo.edu" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">dryer@buffalo.edu</a><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">></span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">To:<span> </span></span><a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">CC:
Re: [Lingtyp] comparative concepts</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria">Paolo’s comment here illustrates very well how wings is a comparative concept.<u></u><u></u></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><u></u> <u></u></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria">The primary motivation for my arguing against crosslinguistic categories in my 1997 paper was that linguists would debate for marginal cases whether a category in a particular language
was an instance of the crosslinguistic category, but I argued that such debates were merely terminological, not substantive.<u></u><u></u></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><u></u> <u></u></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria">Claiming that bats don’t have wings is an example of the same phenomenon: it all depends on how you define wings.<span> <span> </span></span>Paolo is assuming one definition, but many people
would assume a different definition.<span> <span> </span></span>There is no “right” definition.<u></u><u></u></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><u></u> <u></u></div>
<span style="font-size:12pt">Matthew</span><span> </span><br>
<br>
On 1/22/16 10:28 AM, Paolo Ramat wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<div>Hi David,</div>
<div>your comparison of linguistic facts with bats helps me to clarify (and this will be the end of my interventions!) my point: actually, bats don’t have wings but a kind of membrane that FUNCTIONS like wings which prototypically are formed by an ordered collection
of plumes. Similarly, in the Lat. construct<span> </span><em>me poenitet<span> </span></em>the accus.<span> </span><em>me<span> </span></em>has the same FUNCTION as Engl.<span> </span><em>I<span> </span></em>in<span> </span><em>I‘m sorry<span> </span></em>or
Germ.<em><span> </span>mir<span> </span></em>in <span> </span><em>Es tut mir leid<span> </span></em>(call it Patient or Experiencer). Once we have established what wings, PAT or EXP are, we can draw more or less narrow comparisons between bats, bees, eagles
etc. and between the theta roles implemented by<span> </span><em>me, I, mir<span> </span></em>etc. <span> </span></div>
<div>Consequently, I agree with your conclusions thet “comparative concepts [build on linguists’ analysis of languages] have a place in the grammatical descriptions of individual languages” and that “the ontological diversity of language-specific categories
and comparative concepts should be present within the grammatical descriptions of individual languages” .<span> The process is twofold : from the empirical observation of bats, bees, eagles etc. and Lat.,Engl.,Germ etc. to the creation of comparative concepts
(call them abstract<span> </span><em>tertia comparationis</em>) back to the analysis of flying objects and of linguistic extant data.</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Best,</span></div>
<div><span>Paolo</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div>°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Prof.Paolo Ramat</div>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">Academia Europaea<br>
Università di Pavia<br>
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS Pavia)<br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:small;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;display:inline">
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="background-color:rgb(245,245,245);background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial">
<div><b>From:</b><span> </span><a title="gil@shh.mpg.de" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">David Gil</a></div>
<div><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Friday, January 22, 2016 3:14 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b><span> </span><a title="lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></div>
<div><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re: [Lingtyp] comparative concepts</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="font-size:small;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;display:inline">
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">I've greatly enjoyed following this high-quality discussion: thank you all.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">In particular, I think the discussion has helped me to articulate an unease that I've always felt about the distinction between language-specific categories and what
Martin calls comparative concepts.<span> <span> </span></span>I agree wholeheartedly that we need to distinguish between, say, the Latin Dative, and a typologically-informed concept of dative that the Latin Dative may or may not instantiate to whatever degree.<span> <span> </span></span>(I
also agree that it's unfortunate that we don't have enough distinct terms to assign to all of these different things, and that we sometimes end up falling prey to the resulting terminological confusion.)<span> <span> </span></span>Where I think I part ways
with some of my colleagues is that I do not accept that language-specific categories and comparative concepts constitute two distinct and well-defined ontological types.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Let's take the wing analogy.<span> <span> </span></span>I agree that a statement such as "bats have wings" may be of more interest for somebody interested in comparative
evolution than for a specialist in bats — in that sense it resembles a comparative concept in linguistics.<span> <span> </span></span>But still, bats do have wings, even though they may differ in many ways from those of birds or bees.<span> <span> </span></span>And
yes, ontologically bat wings are a very different type of thing than, say, whatever feature of bat DNA it is that "generates" those wings.<span> <span> </span></span>However, these different ontological types all have a place within a description of bats,
even though a bat specialist might be more interested in the DNA while the comparative evolutionist will be more interested in the wings.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Getting back to languages, let's consider three hypothetical (and somewhat simplistic cases of) languages that Matthew would classify as having SVO basic word order:<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Language A:<span> <span> </span></span>has well-defined Ss and Os, and specific linearization rules that put the S before the V and the O after it.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Language B:<span> <span> </span></span>has well-defined Ss and Os, but no linearization rules that refer to them; instead it has specific linearization rules that put
the A before the V and the P after it.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Language C:<span> <span> </span></span>does not have well-defined Ss and Os, but has specific linearization rules that put the A before the V and the P after it.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">In Matthew's WALS chapter, all three languages are characterized as SVO; this is an example of what Martin and others call a comparative concept.<span> <span> </span></span>And
as we have found out over the last several decades, basic word order is a very useful comparative concept for us to have.<span> <span> </span></span>However, our three hypothetical languages arrive at their SVO order in very different ways, giving rise to
the impression that the respective bottom-up language-specific descriptions of the three languages will share no common statement to the effect that they have SVO word order.<span> <span> </span></span>And indeed, adequate bottom-up language-specific descriptions
of these three languages should look very different, reflecting the very different provenances of their SVO word orders.<span> </span><u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">However, I would like to suggest that there is also a place within the bottom-up language-specific description of each of the three languages for some kind of statement
to the effect that the language has SVO word order (in the sense of Matthew's WALS chapter).<span> <span> </span></span>Of course this is a different kind of statement to the ones previously posited, making reference to different levels of description.<span> <span> </span></span>But
we're already used to multiple levels of description within language-specific descriptions, for example when we talk about Ss and Os but also As and Ps, topics and comments, and so forth.<span> <span> </span></span>So there is no good reason not to allow for
a WALS-style word-order category such as SVO not to be written into the grammatical descriptions of each of our hypothetical three languages, even if in some cases it may be "derivative" or "epiphenomenal", and even if in some cases it is of relatively little
interest to language specialists. (Though as Matthew pointed out earlier on in this thread, the basic word order facts of a language have implications regarding other properties of the language in question even in those cases where the basic word order is
"derivative" of other factors.)<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">So what I'm suggesting, then, is that so-called comparative concepts have a place in the grammatical descriptions of individual languages.<span> <span> </span></span>This
is not to deny that comparative concepts are different kinds of creatures, which — by definition — are of greater relevance to cross-linguistic comparison than to the understanding of individual languages.<span> <span> </span></span>It follows that the ontological
diversity of language-specific categories and comparative concepts should be present within the grammatical descriptions of individual languages.<span> <span> </span></span>Some will object to this, but I have no problem with the proposition that a good description
of a language will be ontologically heterogeneous, e.g. containing some statements that are psychologically real and others that are not.<span> <span> </span></span>(I note here Eitan's suggestion earlier in this thread that some comparative concepts may also
be cognitively real.)<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span> </div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:cambria"><span lang="EN-US">Finally, and somewhat tangentially, a practical consideration:<span> <span> </span></span>a good reference grammar, while describing a language on its own terms without
imposing categories from outside, should at the same time maintain a parallel reader-friendly typologically-informed narrative, one of whose major tasks is to mention all of those cross-linguistically familiar typological categories — e.g. case marking, agreement,
gender, and so forth — that are absent from the language, if only to reassure the reader that the author didn't just omit mention of them for reasons of space, lack of interest, or whatnot.<u></u><u></u></span></div>
<pre cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-812-73567992" value="+6281273567992" target="_blank">+62-812-73567992</a>
</pre>
<div><br>
</div>
<hr>
_______________________________________________ Lingtyp mailing list<span> </span><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><span> </span><a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">Lingtyp
mailing list</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature">Frank Seidel, Ph.D.<br>
University of Florida<br>
Center for African Studies at the University of Florida<br>
427 Grinter Hall - PO Box 115560<br>
Gainesville, FL 32611-5560<br>
Tel: 352.392.2183<br>
Fax: 352.392.2435<br>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>