<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Daniel and others,<br>
</p>
<p>Our ongoing debate over the term "coexpression" seems to involve
three different issues:</p>
<p>1. Whether we need a term with the proposed meaning<br>
2. If we do, whether "coexpression" is a good term for that
meaning<br>
3. What are the linguistic properties of the verbal prefix "co-"
in English</p>
<p>With regard to (1), my position (shared by many if not all of the
discussants) is that yes we do indeed need such a term. Skipping
down to (3), this is clearly an interesting research question
worthy of further discussion. (But I won't pursue it further
here.)<br>
</p>
<p>As for (2), I think it is fair to say that we have subjected the
proposed term "coexpression" to a higher degree of scrutiny than
has been the lot of most other newly introduced terms in
linguistics, and this is not necessarily a good thing. Pick a
random term in linguistics, and you could find as many reasons to
deem it inappropriate as has been done here for "coexpression".
Ideally, each new meaning would be assigned a new term consisting
of an arbitrary sequence of segments, which would be devoid of any
of the etymological and other associations that have been raised
in the present discussion with regard to "coexpress".
Unfortunately, as language users, we are highly conservative with
respect to creating new words from scratch, and instead strongly
prefer adapting existing words and morphemes to create new, albeit
related, meanings for them — and we do so in ways that the current
discussion has suggested may be at least partly inconsistent and
unsystematic. But that's how things work in scientific
terminology, and I think we just have to accept that.</p>
<p>David<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/07/2018 09:37, Daniel Ross wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAm4d-7ujWYPY8uobj3KSMDFyfuy2cAFuNjX9T4hJ+tU=E+4JQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>David,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you for the clarifications. I still don't find the
term etymologically convincing, although I do agree it is
convenient and aesthetically pleasing, so as I said before
maybe it'll be accepted for that reason, independently of the
etymology.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The problem I have with the abstract linguistic-system
sense of "express" as "mean" is that 'express' is not
something that abstract linguistic entities do, but
specifically something that utterances do. (I would not have
the same objection to "co-mean" or "co-encode" although those
are less aesthetically pleasing.) I think this relates to what
Seino van Breugel said earlier, correctly observing that
linguistic terms do not express but rather restrict
interpretations. I do not object to the traditional use of the
term "express" (as Seino suggested) because I find it to be
clear as a metonymic representation of speakers expressing
something through their utterances via those forms. However,
in that sense, it doesn't intuitively seem to me that
"coexpress" should refer to any abstract linguistic-system
sense, given that expression occurs through usage, not
systematic relationships in a language.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Collocate" is like the other terms-- it refers to
instances of doing something together, at the same time. My
objection isn't to the subject/object difference-- although
indeed that makes "coexpress" unusual and somewhat less
intuitive. It is that "coexpress" can never refer to any
instance where the two (or more) meanings are expressed at the
same time. There are no other such terms I can think of, where
"co-" refers to a general/habitual/systematic sense, rather
than at least possibly applying to actual instances. Again,
the only time when a word could in actual usage "coexpress" at
the same time would be in a pun. And to me, although linguists
rarely research puns, I'd rather not conflate that more
intuitive sense of "coexpress" with the other proposed usage.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm clearly now off on a tangent unrelated to the original
conversation here (wasn't sure about replying here or in the
new 'terminology' tangent), so I'll leave it at that. I don't
intend to prescribe usage of terms; my main point was just
that Martin's claim that the term was somehow more
etymologically appropriate than "syncretize" didn't seem
intuitively valid to me, because neither one is quite right--
but we can use them, and make them right, just through usage,
as is typically done anyway.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And regarding the current conversation, I think it's
important to think about how "co-" and other collectives do
require the arguments (whether subjects or objects) to be
"active" at the same time. So maybe that makes my comments
here slightly on topic.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Daniel<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 2:51 AM,
David Gil <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Daniel,</p>
<p>Thanks for your very helpful and insightful
comments. You're quite correct that I had ignored
aspectual effects, e.g. in (1), where the
(individuating, non-collective) inference would indeed
work much better in the progressive than in the past
or perfect.</p>
<p>But here's where I still differ. You write: "<b>I
welcome any counter examples where "co-" indicates
"variably"</b> rather than "together" (or "at the
same time")", from which I infer that you're assuming
that the proposed use of "coexpress" embodies such a
"variable" component. But I would question your
presupposition that "coexpress" involves such
variability. To go back to the original example, when
one says that "a form M coexpresses source and agent",
this is NOT tantamount to saying that sometimes it
expresses source and other times agent. Rather, what
it is asserting is that the form M HAS (as understood
in the atemporal sense of a description of a
linguistic fact) a range of meanings that encompasses
source and agent. Now it may sometimes be the case
that in one sentence M is unambiguously expressing
source while in another sentence M is unambiguously
expressing agent. But by the same token, in (1) "Mary
and John are cowriting this article", there may be
points in time when only Mary is writing, and points
in time where only John is writing, but this does not
preclude the collective nature of the overall
endeavor. Similarly, when we use "coexpress" in the
way Martin and I are advocating, we allow for the
possibility that it is NOT the case that sometimes M
expresses source and other times agent, but RATHER
that all of the time M expresses a single broad
meaning that includes both source and target. This is
precisely why we need a cover term such as "coexpress"
in addition to more specific terms such as
"vague"/"macrofunctional",
"polysemous"/"polyfunctional" and "homonymic".</p>
<p>Another objection to "coexpress" is that it requires
a plural object rather than a plural subject (as is
more commonly the case with "co-"). But there are
examples (albeit a bit hard to come by) where a verb
with "co-" does require a plural object. One obvious
albeit frozen case is "collect". Another potentially
better example would be "collocate", though the active
transitive usage seems to be rare; the best cited
example I could come up with was "to marshall and
collocate in order his batallions" (<a
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collocate"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wiktionary.org/wik<wbr>i/collocate</a>),
and that's characterized as "obsolete". (Though if I
had a better internet connection, I suspect I could
find more examples.) So I don't consider this as a
reason to reject "coexpress".<br>
</p>
<p>I realize that for some people this is all a lot of
"hair-splitting". But it's the nature of the
scientific enterprise that one person's hair-splitting
is another person's crucial distinction. Ultimately,
nobody's trying (or at least should be trying) to
impose their terminology on anybody else; rather, what
we should be doing is using reasoned argumentation to
convince other people that one's proposed terminology
is better, and to lead by example.</p>
<span class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888">
<p>David<br>
</p>
</font></span>
<div>
<div class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258h5"> <br>
<div
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126moz-cite-prefix">On
25/07/2018 13:25, Daniel Ross wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>All I intended to contribute here (in my
earlier message) was that English "co-" seems
relevant for comparison. The rest is probably
tangential, as may be my reply below.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But I'm puzzled by a few points in your
response, David:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First, (1) > (1') is a valid inference,
if we interpret "write" in the sense that
"cowrite" is interpreted-- as part of the
writing process. This is especially easy as an
inference with the progressive (as in your
example), although I can see why "Mary wrote
the article" is strange, but still may be
valid depending on how loosely we interpret
"write" in academia ("Mary can say she has now
written something in [the journal] <i>Language</i>?"),
so I think some of the quirkiness here comes
from how we use the term "cowrite" in academia
in contrast to "write" although that is not
strictly necessary. The distinction is
probably a pragmatic one, where "cowrite"
somehow has supplied an expectation of "not by
oneself", whereas likewise "coexist" does not
have an inference of "exist by itself" in your
(3), etc. In summary, there are some tricky
details related to lexical aspect, grammatical
aspect, and other factors, but I think,
broadly speaking, those examples behave
similarly. (Oddly, I'm actually arguing
'against myself' here because you suggest that
cowrite is the strongest in support of my
argument, but I'll address that in the point
below.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Second, you're correct that my phrasing may
have been misleading: remove the word
"exactly" if you wish, or more relevantly
reinterpret what I said as referring to a
cluster of related meanings. It's broadly the
same as the other examples from other
languages, and I'd like to emphasize how much
variability (e.g., reflexive, reciprocal)
there is in the examples given for other
languages just in the emails in the current
conversation. I don't think English is more
variable than others. That's what I meant by
English "co-" being the same-- it functions
similarly. Most importantly, what I meant to
point out is that this isn't some exotic
function only found in unfamiliar languages.
Randy didn't give any examples from Kyrgyz in
the first email, but I imagine some of them
would translate into English relatively
naturally with "co-".<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Third, no one has directly responded to
what I said about the semantics of
"coexpress", and <b>I welcome any counter
examples where "co-" indicates "variably"</b>
rather than "together" (or "at the same
time"). I'm not aware of any. If there are
some, then "coexpression" could fit that
model. None in your message, nor given by
others, have the "alternatively"
interpretation. "Corefer" does not refer to
ambiguous interpretations; "coexist" does not
refer to an electron being a wave and a
particle; "costar" does not refer to a single
actor playing multiple roles. And so forth.
(Your opaque examples also mean "together"
etymologically, not "alternatively".) Martin's
closest parallel suggestion was "coapply" but
that still means "together", not
"alternatively"-- to coapply glue and tape
does not mean choosing one or the other in a
particular context, but to do both. [Another
example might be "coteach" which could mean
either (most often) share teaching of a course
together with someone, or (less obviously)
teach two topics in a single course, but never
to teach two different topics in different or
alternating semesters.] "Coexpress" can
literally never actually express both things
at the same time, whereas all other "co-"
words I can think of entail doing something
"together"-- which likewise is a "collective"
interpretation (yes, vaguely with slight
variation, as noted above).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Additionally, some of the differences you
suggest may be related to the fact that
English collectives with "co-" do not require
a plural subject, a point of cross-linguistic
variation I mentioned in my previous message
but haven't explored (e.g., if plural subjects
were required, would your inferences apply or
not?). I would also guess that as I hinted,
the derivational/lexicalized nature of "co-"
explains some of the quirkiness in particular
verbs like "cowrite" (also "corefer"), whereas
in some other languages it may be more
regular/productive (possibly also
'inflectional', although that perhaps gets
into unnecessary theoretical/terminological
issues).<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The ways in which we agree include (at
least):</div>
<div>1. Terms like "collectivity" are often used
vaguely (though given the
multi-functionality/"coexpress<wbr>ion"! of
the same morphemes marking a variety of
functions, perhaps that is appropriate).</div>
<div>2. Looking at the semantics narrowly is
important, and your contributions are helpful.<br>
</div>
<div>3. My phrasing may have been misleading.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for your comments-- I agree with
your suggestions for understanding these
constructions better. My reply here (and I
hope your previous reply) should not be read
as indicating that we mostly disagree about
this topic, because I don't feel that we do.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Daniel<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at
12:01 AM, David Gil <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Daniel and others,<br>
<br>
In a 1996 article (reference below) I
point out that the term "collective" is
used with a bewildering array of
meanings. While the article deals
exclusively with collectivity as marked
on nominal expressions, the same point
is clearly relevant for the cases of
"verbal collectivity" being discussed in
this thread. In particular, I would beg
to differ with Daniel Ross' claim that
"In English, the (derivational) prefix
'co-' seems to have exactly this
function".<br>
<br>
Consider the following four examples:<br>
<br>
(1) Mary and John are cowriting this
article<br>
(2) These two noun-phrases corefer to
each other<br>
(3) These two species coexist in this
region<br>
(4) Mary and John costarred in the new
movie<br>
<br>
Each of these four sentences differs
logically from the others in ways that
have to do with collectivity, as
evidenced by the following potential
inferences:<br>
<br>
(1') Mary is writing this article<br>
(2') This noun-phrase refers<br>
(3') This species exists in this region<br>
(4') Mary starred in the new movie <br>
<br>
(1) > (1') is not a valid inference.<br>
(2) > (2') is a valid inference, but
is weird (in ways that I don't have time
to go into).<br>
(3) > (3') is a valid inference.<br>
(4) > (4') is a valid inference.<br>
<br>
The most common understanding of the
term "collective" is that it blocks
inferences from a plural set to its
individual members. Thus, under this
understanding, "co-" is marking
collectivity in (1), perhaps also in
(2), but certainly not in (3) and (4).
Now it may be the case that all of the
above usages of "co-" share a common
semantic core, but simply applying the
label "collective" to such a putative
common meaning doesn't help much in
trying to figure out its nature.<br>
<br>
And to return briefly to the
"coexpression" thread: given the
diversity of meanings of the "co-"
prefix (which is hardly exhausted by the
above four examples — and this is even
before we take into consideration its
opaque uses in "collect", "collate",
etc.), I don't see any problem with
using it in the word "coexpression" in
the sense intended by Martin and others.<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491ReferencesT"><span
lang="EN-US">Gil, David (1996)
"Maltese 'Collective Nouns':<span> </span>A
Typological Perspective", <i>Rivista
di Linguistica </i>8:53-87<i>.</i></span></p>
<div>
<div
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126h5">
<br>
<div
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491moz-cite-prefix"><br>
<br>
On 24/07/2018 23:59, Daniel Ross
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>In English, the
(derivational) prefix "co-"
seems to have exactly this
function, as I pointed out in
the previous discussion on this
list regarding why I found the
proposed term "coexpress(ion)"
to be odd because it refers to
alternatives rather than
collective action. I'm not sure
where this has been written
about (but probably someone has,
maybe for Latin?), and it is
derivational, perhaps not fully
productive, but it does seem to
be able to form new verbs, so it
seems to fit here.</div>
<div>(It is interesting to note
that at least in more
established verbs like
"cowrite", they do not strictly
require a plural subject-- "I
cowrote an article", as long as
the context allows for a
reasonable interpretation. If
you're looking at the typology
cross-linguistically that might
be an interesting point of
variation to consider.)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Daniel<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue,
Jul 24, 2018 at 8:11 AM,
"Ekkehard König" <span
dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:koenig@zedat.fu-berlin.de"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">koenig@zedat.fu-berlin.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi
Randy,<br>
<br>
rich information on the
reciprocal -
sociative/collective polysemy
can be<br>
found in all of the Nedjalkov
volumes. A condensed overview
is given in<br>
Chapter 5 of the first volume.
(I did a review of the 5
volumes for<br>
Language, 2011).<br>
<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Ekkehard<br>
<div>
<div
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Randy,<br>
> There is a similar
category in Wandala
(Frajzyngier 2012),<br>
> All best,<br>
> Zygmunt<br>
><br>
> From: Lingtyp <<a
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.ling<wbr>uistlist.org</a>>
on behalf of<br>
> "Randy J. LaPolla"
<<a
href="mailto:randy.lapolla@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">randy.lapolla@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Date: Tuesday, July
24, 2018 at 1:33 AM<br>
> To: "<a
href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST<wbr>.ORG</a>"<br>
> <<a
href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST<wbr>.ORG</a>><br>
> Cc: weifeng liu <<a
href="mailto:175204935@qq.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">175204935@qq.com</a>><br>
> Subject: [Lingtyp]
collective action marking<br>
><br>
> Hi All,<br>
> A student in China
(Liu Weifeng) working on
Kyrgyz asked me for
references<br>
> about collective
marking on the verb. This
marking in Kyrgyz (-ish-)
is<br>
> distinct from plural
marking, and used together
with plural marking, and<br>
> implies the action
was done by two or more
people together rather
than<br>
> individually.<br>
><br>
> I am aware of the
following article, though
do not have access to it,
and<br>
> don’t even know know
for sure whether it
documents this phenomenon:<br>
><br>
> Nedjalkov, Vladimir
P. 2007. Reciprocals,
assistives and plural in<br>
> Kirghiz. In
Nedjalkov, Vladimir (with
the assistance of Emma
Geniusiene<br>
> and Zlatka
Guentcheva) (eds.),
Typology of reciprocal
constructions,<br>
> 1231-1280. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.<br>
><br>
> I don't know of any
other works on this type
of category in any
language.<br>
> Has this been looked
into in any languages?<br>
><br>
> Thanks!<br>
><br>
> Randy<br>
> -----<br>
> Randy J. LaPolla, PhD
FAHA （羅仁地）<br>
> Professor of
Linguistics and Chinese,
School of Humanities<br>
> Nanyang Technological
University<br>
> HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang
Drive | Singapore 637332<br>
</div>
</div>
> <a
href="http://randylapolla.net/"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://randylapolla.net/</a><<a
href="http://secure-web.cisco.com/1r49xGHjDHpvduhLxc8xcFdeDWaQRDmx6JT631_HJ88j0WzNbUSSBJKa_anFZBkB1cSFVPmw9ikThvWoEF7RIEZwRrF41ZmOg8Q1r5KEyCUxZC5wuC28aG_DlUMVjf4vKly6Ga5U846AFU_8ciIgNuIsCxBZP90e2AXadGa_EaJF3qeI0PsXURTP7UIoNYFZSnz_SDDdFEuzk165x1qlfrXFPZWqpG2ZvIir6ai7vfmDn9hv5v1Fqfoz2YKBK325exE--qzqARuhIetwE_l8o-x0t3UnQiilemsqt4EqZfAOQo_BRlSyjjeIKhlCgtch0P5B9ppouqgFfeYSKqDwzhmlzNUAom_lTGiK5TO2YlOC2K2nbRFX-7nK89BmKSZm_brUS2-KjnVVKJrnPK9sM1XE5PPbNO8ggB4SPl9zw7DdqEaqZ_qgihNd8wV-Nb4yfRy2XIMtSrFC_G9CbVWKe-Q/http%3A%2F%2Frandylapolla.net%2F"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http:<wbr>//secure-web.cisco.com/1r49xGH<wbr>jDHpvduhLxc8xcFdeDWaQRDmx6JT63<wbr>1_HJ88j0WzNbUSSBJKa_anFZBkB1cS<wbr>FVPmw9ikThvWoEF7RIEZwRrF41ZmOg<wbr>8Q1r5KEyCUxZC5wuC28aG_DlUMVjf4<wbr>vKly6Ga5U846AFU_8ciIgNuIsCxBZP<wbr>90e2AXadGa_EaJF3qeI0PsXURTP7UI<wbr>oNYFZSnz_SDDdFEuzk165x1qlfrXFP<wbr>ZWqpG2ZvIir6ai7vfmDn9hv5v1Fqfo<wbr>z2YKBK325exE--qzqARuhIetwE_l8o<wbr>-x0t3UnQiilemsqt4EqZfAOQo_BRlS<wbr>yjjeIKhlCgtch0P5B9ppouqgFfeYSK<wbr>qDwzhmlzNUAom_lTGiK5TO2YlOC2K2<wbr>nbRFX-7nK89BmKSZm_brUS2-KjnVVK<wbr>JrnPK9sM1XE5PPbNO8ggB4SPl9zw7D<wbr>dqEaqZ_qgihNd8wV-Nb4yfRy2XIMtS<wbr>rFC_G9CbVWKe-Q/http%3A%2F%<wbr>2Frandylapolla.net%2F</a>><br>
<span
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491im
gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491HOEnZb">>
Most recent book:<br>
> <a
href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.routledge.com/The-<wbr>Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edi<wbr>tion/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9<wbr>781138783324</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span>
<div
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491HOEnZb">
<div
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491h5">>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
> <a
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
> <a
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.linguistlist.o<wbr>rg/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.linguistlist.o<wbr>rg/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a>
<a class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.linguistlist.o<wbr>rg/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span
class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888">
<pre class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
<a href="https://maps.google.com/?q=Kahlaische+Strasse+10,+07745+Jena,+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany</a>
Email: <a class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126m_8493159320531238491moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.linguistlist.o<wbr>rg/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
<a href="https://maps.google.com/?q=Kahlaische+Strasse+10,+07745+Jena,+Germany&entry=gmail&source=g" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany</a>
Email: <a class="gmail-m_-2792614564132227258m_5261682814749847126moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</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>