<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Apologies to everyone, but some of what I said in previous postings
about sibling terms in the languages of Indonesia turns out to be
inaccurate.<br>
<br>
I had said that Minangkabau and other languages possess the
following system:<br>
<br>
younger sibling<br>
older sister<br>
older brother<br>
<br>
In fact, I neglected to take into account a fourth term, older
sibling, which results in the following system<br>
<br>
younger sibling<br>
older sibling<br>
older sister<br>
older brother<br>
<br>
So while the system still maintains the asymmetry whereby gender is
only distinguished for older siblings, not for younger ones, the
distinction is optional rather than obligatory. Here are the
amended text counts for Minangkabau and Jakarta Indonesian, with the
older sibling term now thrown in to the mix:<br>
<br>
Minangkabau<br>
591 - younger sibling<br>
536 - older sibling<br>
998 - older sister<br>
1197 - older brother<br>
<br>
Jakarta Indonesian<br>
3050 - younger sibling<br>
3982 - older sibling<br>
749 - older sister<br>
710 - older brother<br>
<br>
So with older sibling now included, Jakarta Indonesian now falls
into line with Minangkabau: in both languages, older siblings may be
sex-differentiated while younger siblings aren't, and
correspondingly, older siblings occur more frequently in texts than
younger siblings. (The main difference between the two languages is
that amongst older siblings, sex differentiation occurs relatively
more frequently in Minangkabau than in Jakarta Indonesian.)<br>
<br>
Apologies, once again, for the inaccuracy of the earlier postings.
(I'm certainly learning a lot about the languages that I work on
from this thread.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/07/2017 14:36, David Gil wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5971F536.2020502@shh.mpg.de" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Two unrelated comments on Martin's latest.<br>
<br>
First, I think that one can indeed argue that sex is less
important for cousins than for siblings. One of several possible
reasons: Given a culture with nuclear families, limited bathroom
facilities, and modesty constraints governing cross-sex bathing,
whether my siblings were brothers or sisters would affect my daily
life much more than whether my cousins, who I only met once a
month, were male or female.<br>
<br>
Secondly, some very rough and ready frequency counts from two
languages of Indonesia that distinguish gender for older siblings
but not younger ones:<br>
<br>
Minangkabau<br>
591 - younger sibling<br>
998 - older sister<br>
1197 - older brother<br>
<br>
Jakarta Indonesian<br>
3050 - younger sibling<br>
749 - older sister<br>
710 - older brother<br>
<br>
Minangkabau conforms to what I take to be Martin's
generalization: older siblings are more important than younger
ones, and this is reflected both in (a) a gender distinction, and
(b) greater frequency, a roughly 4:1 ratio. However, Jakarta
Indonesian exhibits a conflicting pattern, in which younger
siblings are referred to roughly twice as frequently as both male
and female older siblings together. These differences could be due
to differences between the languages, or differences between the
corpora, or both. Lots more work needed here ...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/07/2017 10:39, Martin
Haspelmath wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5971BDCA.8040806@shh.mpg.de" type="cite"> It
is indeed an interesting suggestion (by Bingfu Lu) that sex
neutralization in kinship terms is related to the importance of
sex for observers. This factor may also explain that we often
have sex-differentiated terms for domestic animals, but rarely
for wild animals.<br>
<br>
But the "importance" of sex differentiation is not easy to
assess. As Greenberg notes, there is a tendency to neutralize
sex also in more remote relationships (e.g. with cousins, where
even English neutralizes, and with in-laws), and it is hard to
argue, for example, that sex is less important in cousins than
in siblings. So maybe frequency of use is a better explanation
after all? Does anyone have frequency counts for 'younger
sibling' and 'older sibling' terms? (And frequency counts for
domestic as opposed to wild animals?)<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I also have a comment on Maïa
Ponsonnet's crictical remark concerning the term "universal":<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:592673830.1620490.1500592591535@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family:courier new, courier, monaco,
monospace, sans-serif;font-size:medium;">
<div>
<div>
<!--StartFragment-->
<div><small>However, I wonder is calling such hypotheses
"universals" too early can create other problems. We
may then omit to disqualify the hypothesis, even
after many, many counter-examples have been
provided. So we may end up postulating universality
based on say, 10 cases, and 10 years later still be
busy providing counter-examples for what we still
call a "(potential) universal" while say, 20
counter-examples, have already been provided.</small></div>
<small> </small>
<div><small><br>
</small></div>
<small> </small>
<div><small>So perhaps calling it "hypothetical
implication" may be safer?</small></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The danger certainly exists that some claims become very famous
and are repeated and believed even though there is no good
evidence for them (e.g. that spinach contains a lot of iron).<br>
<br>
But I feel that it is clear that every claim in science has the
status of a hypothesis that is subject to potential
disconfirmation. The differences reside in the amount of
supporting evidence. The <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/archive/">Konstanz
Universals Archive</a> is a great resource both for references
to claims of universals and for the basis of the claims (thus,
without reading Greenberg (1966), one can see that universal No
1656 is based on 120 languages).<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
On 21.07.17 01:16, bingfu Lu wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:592673830.1620490.1500592591535@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family:courier new, courier, monaco,
monospace, sans-serif;font-size:medium;">
<div>
<div>
<p
style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:21.25pt;mso-char-indent-count:1.77;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif" lang="EN-US">I agree with
Martin’s bold claim. It seems to be very natural in
the following senses.</span></p>
<p
style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:21.25pt;mso-char-indent-count:1.77;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif" lang="EN-US">First, from the
formal perspective, babies are very likely to be
neutralized in sex. If there is a continuum of sex
neutralization from the point of being very young
(babies) to the point of very old, then, the younger
section, which includes the babies, should be more
likely to be neutralized.</span></p>
<p
style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:21.25pt;mso-char-indent-count:1.77;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif" lang="EN-US">Second, from the
perspective of linguistic iconicity, babies tend to
be sex-neutralized because their sex features are
least developing. And it is natural, the less
sex-developing, the easier to be sex-neutralized. </span></p>
<p
style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:21.25pt;mso-char-indent-count:1.77;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif" lang="EN-US">According to the
degrees of development in sex features, it might to
be predicted that there may be some languages where
the very old elders are neutralized in linguistic
form, since very old elders are sex-retrodegraded. </span></p>
<p
style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:21.25pt;mso-char-indent-count:1.77;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif" lang="EN-US">In short, the sex
neutralization is more likely when the sex features
are less strong and less important in age. </span></p>
<!--EndFragment--></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<hr>
<div id="ydp2f44aed4yahoo_quoted_0908802504"
class="ydp2f44aed4yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>On Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 5:10:32 PM GMT+8,
Martin Haspelmath <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de"><haspelmath@shh.mpg.de></a>
wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="ydp2f44aed4yiv4734335248">
<div> On the basis of Turkish (<i>kardeş</i>) and
Minangkabau (<i>adiak</i>), which neutralize the
sex distinction in the younger sibling term, one
could propose the following universal:<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
"If a language makes a distinction between elder
and younger siblings and neutralizes sex only in
one type, then it neutralizes in younger
siblings."<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
This may seem bold, but I think that such bold
formulations are productive in that they are
likely to elicit responses from language
specialists whose language goes against the
generalization. (And if the bold generalization
makes it into print somewhere, then one can even
write an abstract on the basis of one's data and
argue against a previous claim.)<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Now it so happens that a claim very similar to the
one above has already been made, on p. 76-77 in
Greenberg's chapter "Universals of kinship
terminology", which is Chapter five of his most
important work:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</div>
<div>
<div class="ydp2f44aed4yiv4734335248csl-bib-body"
style="line-height:1.35;padding-left:2em;">
<div class="ydp2f44aed4yiv4734335248csl-entry">Greenberg,
Joseph H. 1966. <i>Language universals, with
special reference to feature hierarchies</i>.
The Hague: Mouton.<br clear="none">
</div>
<span class="ydp2f44aed4yiv4734335248Z3988"
title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fzotero.org%3A2&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Language%20universals%2C%20with%20special%20reference%20to%20feature%20hierarchies&rft.place=The%20Hague&rft.publisher=Mouton&rft.aufirst=Joseph%20H.&rft.aulast=Greenberg&rft.au=Joseph%20H.%20Greenberg&rft.date=1966"></span></div>
<br clear="none">
Greenberg formulates the generalization in terms
of one kind of kinship being "marked", the other
"unmarked". "Marked" features tend to be
neutralized, so saying that younger siblings are
"marked" amounts to the same as the above claim.
(In my view of things, this would mean that some
kinds of kinship features are more frequently used
than others.)<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
(Greenberg also says somewhere that masculine/male
is unmarked, so he probably predicts that female
terms ternd to be neuralized for age, thus
answering Siva Kalyan's question.)<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
So there are a lot of interesting predictions that
could be tested if someone finally made a
comprehensive world-wide database on kinship terms
(I think some people near Hedvig are working on
this).<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Martin<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
IPF 141199
Nikolaistrasse 6-10
D-04109 Leipzig
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
</body>
</html>