<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Peter,<br>
<br>
I'm not sure whether there's anything in Minangkabau corresponding
precisely to your two registers in Sasak. But of course, the terms
I've been loosely referring to as kinship terms in Minangkabau (and
Indonesian) have so many other functions pertaining to politeness
and the maintaining of inter-personal relationships that I feel one
is doing them an injustice by labeling them as kinship terms. <br>
<br>
Random example: a young Minangkabau woman has (at least) three terms
for 'elder brother' available, <i>uda</i>,<i> mas</i> (borrowed
from Javanese), and <i>abang (</i>borrowed from Indonesian)<i>. </i>She
might use <i>uda</i> to call a waiter at a local-style restaurant,
<i>mas</i> to call a waiter at a western-style restaurant, and <i>abang</i>
to call her husband. And then of course, her inventory of elder
brother words will contrast with another inventory of words whose
literal meanings are 'father', 'uncle', etc. <br>
<br>
As I suggested in an earlier posting, its not clear to me that these
words really are kinship terms, at least in an emic,
language-internal sense. Even though as typologists engaged in
cross-linguistic comparisons, it's convenient to talk of them as
such.<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/07/2017 16:24, Peter Austin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAH6bkG9bOvRVSbyHVr2Bn8vg1ZOGPA5gKz6H8Ve40VfB1Zo2bg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="auto">David
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Are there politeness differences in the
Minangkabau system? C.f.. my earlier post about Sasak polite
vs. non-polite terms. Deference is of course asymmetrical:
owed to senior kin but not juniors. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Peter</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 21 Jul 2017 21:24, "David Gil" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a></a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div 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="m_-3856503022516973211moz-cite-prefix">On
21/07/2017 14:36, David Gil wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> 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="m_-3856503022516973211moz-cite-prefix">On
21/07/2017 10:39, Martin Haspelmath wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote 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="m_-3856503022516973211moz-cite-prefix">I
also have a comment on Maïa Ponsonnet's crictical
remark concerning the term "universal":<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:courier
new,courier,monaco,monospace,sans-serif;font-size:medium">
<div>
<div>
<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/"
target="_blank">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 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;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
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;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
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;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
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;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
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;line-height:16.0pt;layout-grid-mode:char"><span
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>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<hr>
<div
id="m_-3856503022516973211ydp2f44aed4yahoo_quoted_0908802504"
class="m_-3856503022516973211ydp2f44aed4yahoo_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="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de"><haspelmath@shh.mpg.de></a></a>
wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div
id="m_-3856503022516973211ydp2f44aed4yiv4734335248">
<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="m_-3856503022516973211ydp2f44aed4yiv4734335248csl-bib-body"
style="line-height:1.35;padding-left:2em">
<div
class="m_-3856503022516973211ydp2f44aed4yiv4734335248csl-entry">Greenberg,
Joseph H. 1966. <i>Language
universals, with special reference
to feature hierarchies</i>. The
Hague: Mouton.<br clear="none">
</div>
<span
class="m_-3856503022516973211ydp2f44aed4yiv4734335248Z3988"
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="m_-3856503022516973211moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">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="m_-3856503022516973211mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-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="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:+49%203641%20686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:+62%20812-8116-2816" value="+6281281162816" target="_blank">+62-81281162816</a>
</pre>
<fieldset class="m_-3856503022516973211mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-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="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:+49%203641%20686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:+62%20812-8116-2816" value="+6281281162816" target="_blank">+62-81281162816</a>
</pre>
</div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote>
<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>