<div dir="ltr">Dear all,<div>thanks again for all your answers. I am glad that my questions has triggered such an hot and interesting discussion.</div><div>Like David, I have been fascinating with parts-of-speech (un)markedness since my introduction to linguistic typology.</div><div><br></div><div>As for marking strategies, in my research on 'referential properties', I have simply applied what has been done for 'predicative properties', that is, I have assumed that in Italian something like 'il buono' is structurally more marked than something like 'il cane buono' 'the good dog' and less marked than 'il cane è buono' 'the dog is good'. Still, we have some examples in Italian where predicative properties can be constructed without verbal copula and something like 'quello buono' 'good one', probably falls under this construction. </div><div><br></div><div>I may be wrong, but I think that from a cross-linguistic perspective we still do not have a clear description on how property concepts function as referents; in David's map, adjectives can be syntactically nouns in some languages, but they can be functionally either, as far as I can see from Randy's explanation of Mandarin 'hong de', predicative or referential. </div><div><br></div><div>Are there any languages that explicitly mark this difference i.e., which they employ a dedicated marker for property concept (PC) with referential function and with argument (i.e. not quality/abstract) meaning? I think that in Italian the distributional difference between 'il rosso' and 'quello rosso', that is, between a construction involving a simple article vs. a construction with a complex article (I employ Ch. Lyons 1999 distinction) goes in this direction; the former construction codes a PC with referential function, the latter a property concept with predicative function, which may grammatically act as a noun.</div><div>Moreover, things are clearer in argument nominal constructions such as 'Non posso sopportare queste stupid-aggini stupid-NMLZ', 'I cannot stand these stupid arguments'. Finally, note that the non-argument counterpart of 'quello rosso' is 'l'essere rosso' 'the being red', in which the predicative adjective red is nominalized by the means of a nominalized copula construction.</div><div><br></div><div>With respect to marking strategy 'heaviness' e.g., 't<span style="font-size:13px">he definition of Mandarin </span><i style="font-size:13px">de</i><span style="font-size:13px"> as a word ', the issue is not clearer in languages marking 'substantivization' with bound morphemes. For instance, in Lezgian, the substantizer -da/-di is employed both with PC with referential function:</span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px">(Haspelmath 1993:112)</span></div><div><div>I dünja.da-l qʰsan-bur pis-bur.u-laj gzaf ja. </div><div>this world-SRESS good-NMLZ.PL bad-NMLZ.PL-SREL many COP</div><div>'In this world the good (people) are more numerous than the bad (people).'</div></div><div><br></div><div>and PC with predicative function grammatically acting as nouns:</div><div><br></div><div>(Haspelmath 1993:111)</div><div><div>Hixtin televizor k'an-zawa wa-z? Gweči-di, č'exi-di, rang.uni-n-di?</div><div>which television want-IMPF you-DAT little-NMLZ.SG big-NMLZ.SG color-GEN-NMLZ.SG</div><div>'What kind of TV set do you want? A little one, a big one, a color one?'</div></div><div><br></div><div>whereas inflected property words are employed without further marking in Rawang (but, what about the TOPIC marker?):</div><div><br></div><div><div>Rawang (LaPolla & Poa 2001:258)</div></div><div><br></div><div>tē-rì nō shvnvt-í wvp yàng-à<br></div><div>large-PL TOP gun-INS shoot TOPyrs-3PL.PST<br></div><div>'The big ones were shot by gun.'</div><div><br></div><div>Still, I do not know how to classify tē-rì. Perhaps languages lacking an adjectival category or showing `verby' adjectives do not display an exact distinction between PC with referential functional and substantivized predicative PC.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you, best.</div><div><br></div><div>Luigi</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-06-13 12:24 GMT+02:00 David Gil <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Randy,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your comments. Two points:<br>
<br>
With regard to whether Mandarin <i>de</i> is a separate word or
not, your criticism is well-taken; my only defense is that that is
the way it is usually characterized, and that in a typological
survey of this scope, there is no other way of doing things other
than to rely on extant descriptions. Except perhaps to sidestep the
issue of wordhood altogether and simply collapse "affix" and
"separate word" into a single type, which, I suspect, is what would
do now if I were doing the chapter all over again.<br>
<br>
But I really don't see your point when you write: "I still don’t see
what lumping together language forms that aren’t similar into
categories that make them look similar does for us." Surely this is
the only way for rational inquiry into language (or any other
phenomenological domain) to proceed. "Similar" and "not similar"
aren't binary holistic choices, they only have meaning in the
context of particular criteria or properties. We observe two
entities, call them A and B, and then say Hey, A and B are alike <b>with
respect to</b> property X. The value of saying this depends on
how trivial or insightful the property X turns out to be, ie. what
further understandings X leads us towards. But crucially, the value
of X is not negated by pointing to properties Y, Z, W, V etc, with
respect to which A and B differ. The existence of such properties
with respect to which A and B differ is totally irrelevant to the
value of property X, they do not impinge on it in any way.<br>
<br>
You ask "what has lumping Mandarin and English together in this
context taught us about the languages?". Well one of the things
I've always been interested in is cross-linguistic variation with
respect to parts-of-speech inventories. The present WALS map
addresses the issue of whether a language distinguishes between
adjectives and nouns. (Note: I'm saying "addresses", not
"answers".) Specifically, if a language, like English or Mandarin,
needs to add a grammatical marker to an adjective in order to give
it the distributional properties of a noun, then this provides good
reason to suspect that in such languages, adjectives and nouns
constitute different word classes, defined distributionally.
Whereas if a language, like Italian or Hebrew, doesn't need to make
use of such a marker, then perhaps it doesn't distinguish between
adjectives and nouns (as indeed is suggested by the traditional term
"substantives" that groups the two classes together), though
alternatively it could be the case that the language in question
does distinguish between adjectives and nouns using other criteria.<br>
<br>
So all this is relevant to English and Mandarin, regardless of the
myriad other important differences between English <i>one</i> and
Mandarin <i>de.<br>
<br>
</i>Best,<br>
<br>
David<div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13/06/2016 17:44, Randy John LaPolla
(Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Hi David,
<div>Thanks for your reply. The crux may be the
definition of Mandarin <i>
de</i> as a word (you don’t specify phonological word or
grammatical word, but since you treat clitics—grammatical words
that aren’t phonological words—differently, I am assuming you
mean phonological word). It cannot appear on its own, and when
added to another word, like <i>hong</i>, they are
pronounced together, so it patterns like a clitic, and so is
unlike English
<i>one</i> in that way as well (people are often thrown
off by the fact that in Chinese each character is written
separately, but that doesn’t mean each character is a
phonological word). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And although I don’t want to start the whole debate
we had in January again, I still don’t see what lumping together
language forms that aren’t similar into categories that make
them look similar does for us. Although I can see the practical
difficulties of taking the actual facts of all the languages
seriously, very concretely, what has lumping Mandarin and
English together in this context taught us about the languages?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks very much.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All the best,</div>
<div>Randy</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 12 Jun 2016, at 1:36 pm, David Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>> wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Randy,<br>
<br>
Yes, my chapter in WALS characterizes the English and
Mandarin constructions as "of the same type
structurally", and yes, the two constructions are
different from each other in precisely the ways that you
describe!<br>
<br>
That's what typology does: dividing things into classes
according to one set of criteria, thereby putting in to
the same class things that are very different according
to other sets of criteria. And that's precisely what
has happened here. My WALS chapter asks whether an
adjective can occur on its own as a noun, without any
further morphosyntactic marking and the answer for both
English and Mandarin is the same: no. It then further
asks, for languages that require such morphosyntactic
marking, what the formal properties of the marking is,
distinguishing between affixes and separate words, and
between forms that occur before and after their host
adjective. And once again, Mandarin and English come
out the same, with a separate word that occurs after its
host adjective. That's all the WALS chapter purports to
say.<br>
<br>
Now clearly many constructions in different languages
with the same WALS feature values will differ from each
other in myriad other ways, as is the case for English
and Mandarin here. You may feel that the typology
proposed in the "Adjectives without Nouns" WALS map
overlooks what's "most important" about the
constructions in question, and you could indeed be right
about that. I suspect, however, that an alternative
"Adjective without Nouns" map distinguishing between
"English and Mandarin types" on the basis of headedness
would have been impractical to produce, since it is too
theory dependent, and hence it would not have been
possible to glean the necessary information from
available grammatical descriptions of a sufficiently
large sample of languages. (In fact, while I agree
entirely with your description of the difference between
English and Mandarin, I bet that there are even
grammatical descriptions of English and Mandarin out
there that would see things differently.)<br>
<br>
I hope this clarifies matters ...<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 12/06/2016 08:20, Randy
John LaPolla (Prof) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Hi David,
<div>It seems from your message here and from
your chapter in WALS that the English construction
with
<i>one</i> and the Chinese construction
with <i>de </i>are of the same type
structurally. I don’t know if I have read you right,
but although they are made up of the word
representing a property concept followed by another
word, the two constructions are quite different (and
the natures of all of the words involved are
different as well). In the relevant use of English
<i>one</i>, it is a pro-form (see <span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'" lang="EN-US">
Goldberg, Adele E. & Laura A. Michaelis. 2016.
One among many: anaphoric <i>
one</i> and its relationship to numeral <i>one</i>. </span><span><i>Cognitive Science</i>
40.4:1–26. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12339</span> for
interesting discussion) and clearly the head of the
phrase, but in the Chinese example <i>de</i>
is only a nominalizer and clearly not the head of
the phrase, either in terms of structural behaviour
(e.g. in English
<i>one</i> patterns like other heads, e.g.
we can say “this one”, but this is not the case with
Chinese
<i>de</i>) or in terms of speakers’ “feel”
for what is the core element of the phrase.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This sort of goes back to the discussion
on categorization we had back in January.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>All the best,</div>
<div>Randy</div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:white">-----</span></span>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:white"><b>Prof. Randy J.
LaPolla, PhD FAHA</b> （羅</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:white;font-size:13px"><font face="Song">仁地</font></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background-color:white">）|
Division of Linguistics and
Multilingual Studies | Nanyang
Technological University</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><br>
<span style="background-color:white">HSS-03-45,
14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore
637332</span></span></span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="background-color:white"> | </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="background-color:white">Tel:
(65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax:
(65) 6795-6525 | <a href="http://randylapolla.net/" target="_blank">
</a><a href="http://randylapolla.net/" target="_blank">http://randylapolla.net/</a></span></span></span></div>
</span></span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 11 Jun 2016, at 3:33 pm, David
Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Luigi,<br>
<br>
Unlike many of my typologist colleagues who
seek refuge from the muddy waters of formal
criteria in the supposed clarity of
semantics, I find semantic criteria to often
be just as problematical, if not more so,
than their formal counterparts.<br>
<br>
For the purposes of my WALS map, I did not
use headedness as a defining criteria, and I
would not wish to take a stand on the
headedness in the examples that you
discuss. By "adjective" I meant
property-denoting word one of whose typical
functions is as an attribute of a noun, and
by "noun" I meant thing-denoting word. The
map shows the morphosyntactic strategies
that a language uses to allow an adjective
to occur in a noun slot — typically, but not
criterially, heading a phrase that occurs in
an argument position. This definition is
met, among others, by the <i>one</i>
in English <i>
beautiful one</i>, the <i>de</i>
in Mandarin <i>hong de</i>, and
also by the lack of (dedicated
adjective-to-noun conversion) marking in the
Italian
<i>il bello</i>.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<div>On 10/06/2016
23:01, Luigi Talamo wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Dear
all,</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">thanks
a lot for your all answers, I really
appreciate that.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I
have found your data very
interesting, many comments will
follow :-)</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I
begin below with David's answer.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif">One of
the two kinds of
nominalization mentioned in
the query ('beautiful' >
'beautiful one') is the
subject of my WALS map #61
"Adjectives without Nouns".<br>
<br>
David</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">Thanks David, I have
read your WALS map at the
beginning of my work; maybe you
remember that we have exchanged
a couple of e-mails some time
ago. As you mention in the WALS
article, the most important
issue here is whether adjectives
are syntactic heads in
constructions such as 'the white
one', which translates in
Italian as 'quello bianco'. As
you probably noticed, I did not
consider these constructions in
my study, as they appear to me
to be more 'predicative' than
'referential', at least in
Italian; moreover, the syntactic
head of the Italian construction
is most likely the deictic
quello 'this'. But what about
the Mandarin example that is
reported in your map, Wǒ yào
hóng de. ? Is </font><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">hóng
a property concept with
referential function ?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Thanks</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Luigi</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">On
09/06/2016 21:14, Luigi
Talamo wrote:<br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Dear
all,</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">I am
conducting a
research on the
lexical
nominalisation of
property concepts in
contemporary
Italian. My study
involves two types
of nominalisation
strategy, affixation
such as bello
`beautiful' ->
bell-ezza `beauty
(abstract concept)'
and zero-marking
('conversion'), such
as bello (adj) ->
`(il) bello' ->
`the beautiful
person', `beauty
(abstract concept)'
and `what is
beautiful about
something'. </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Drawing
mostly from 'Leipzig
Questionnaire On
Nominalisation and
mixed Categories'
(Malchukov et alii
(2008)) and studies
on adjectival and
mixed categories, I
have elaborated a
series of
morpho-syntactic and
semantic parameters,
which I have
employed to study
de-adjectival
nominalizations in
actual, corpus-based
contexts.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">I would
like to insert in my
study some
cross-linguistic
notes on the
phenomenon, which I
hope to further
study from a
typological
perspective. I will
be glad if you can
provide me some
examples from your
languages of
expertise. I have
found some examples
of de-adjectival
nominalizations here
and there in
grammars, but I was
not able to exactly
figure out which are
the parameters
involved; moreover,
some recent works
(among others, Roy
(2010), Alexiadou et
alii (2010),
Alexiadou &
Iordachioaia (2014))
give interesting
insights on
de-adjectival
nominalization, but
examples are limited
to European
languages.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">I am
particularly
interested in
non-European
languages showing a
distinct class of
adjectives;
morpho-syntatic
parameters include
case, number,
gender, definiteness
and specificity,
degree, external
argument structure
and, possibly,
verbal parameters,
which are however
not very significant
for Italian
de-adjectival
nominalisation;
semantic parameters
include referent
animacy, the
distinction between
the nominalisation
of the adjectival
'argument' vs. the
nominalisation of
the adjective itself
e.g., softie `a
thing which is soft'
vs. softness and the
semantic type of
property concepts
e.g., PHYSICAL
PROPERTY or HUMAN
PROPENSITY.<br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">So,
possible questions
are as following:</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">1. Can
property concepts be
turned into nouns?</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">2. Which
strategies are
employed for this
purpose?</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">3. Which
parameters do
de-adjectival nouns
display?</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">4. Are
there any missing
values for a given
parameter? For
instance,
de-adjectival nouns
can be only singular
or definite or
restricted to the
subject position.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">5. Are
de-adjectival nouns
found in both
semantic types of
nominalization? For
instance, I have
observed that
European languages
focus on the
nominalisation of
the adjective
itself, while
argument
nominalizations are
scarcely attested,
limited to certain
language varieties
and not stable in
the lexicon.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">(needless
to say, questions 2
to 4 can have
multiple answers,
helping to describe
different patterns
of property
nominalisation)<br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Thanks
in advance for your
help, all the best.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">Luigi</font></div>
<font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif"><br clear="all">
</font>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif">--
<br>
</font>
<div><font face="arial,
helvetica,
sans-serif">PhD
Program in
Linguistics
('Scienze
Linguistiche')<br>
University of
Bergamo and
University of Pavia
- Italy</font></div>
</div>
<font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">
<br>
</font></div>
</div>
<span><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">
<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>
</font></span></blockquote>
<span><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif" color="#888888"><br>
<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>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:%2B49-3641686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-82238009215" value="+6282238009215" target="_blank">+62-82238009215</a>
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">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>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
<br clear="all">
</font>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">-- <br>
</font>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">PhD Program in
Linguistics ('Scienze
Linguistiche')<br>
University of Bergamo and
University of Pavia - Italy</font></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<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>
<br>
<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>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:%2B49-3641686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-82238009215" value="+6282238009215" target="_blank">+62-82238009215</a>
</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="2">CONFIDENTIALITY:
This email is intended solely for the person(s)
named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
you are not the intended recipient, please delete
it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its
contents.<br>
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when
necessary. Thank you.</font> </blockquote>
<br>
<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>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:%2B49-3641686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-82238009215" value="+6282238009215" target="_blank">+62-82238009215</a>
</pre>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:%2B49-3641686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:%2B62-82238009215" value="+6282238009215" target="_blank">+62-82238009215</a>
</pre>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">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"><div><br></div>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">PhD Program in Linguistics ('Scienze Linguistiche')<br>University of Bergamo and University of Pavia - Italy</div>
</div></div>