<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
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">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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></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
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 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 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>
</body>
</html>