<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 href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</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 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 class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank"><haspelmath@shh.mpg.de></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 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 class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a>
<a 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>
      <br>
      <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 class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:+49%203641%20686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:+62%20812-8116-2816" value="+6281281162816" target="_blank">+62-81281162816</a>

</pre>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="m_-3856503022516973211mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a>
<a 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>
    <br>
    <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 class="m_-3856503022516973211moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <a href="tel:+49%203641%20686834" value="+493641686834" target="_blank">+49-3641686834</a>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <a href="tel:+62%20812-8116-2816" value="+6281281162816" target="_blank">+62-81281162816</a>

</pre>
  </div>

<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>