<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:3.0cm 2.0cm 3.0cm 2.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="DA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A reminder: the larger issue (matters of ‘categorization’, also of linguistic entities) was discussed 2 or 3 years ago on this list.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This resulted in a special issue of LT (20-2, 2016) on cross-linguistic comparison (‘Of categories: Language particular - comparative – universal’).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Here is a quotation from my contribution to this issue, showing that it is hardly surprising to find that ‘animal’ means different things in different languages:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US">“The fact that people may take different decisions in matters of categorization was already anticipated by the British philosopher
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:JA">John Locke (</span><span lang="EN-US">1689/1825: 322</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:JA">). In ‘<i>An essay concerning human understanding’</i> he concluded that all categories are
the products of our cognitive system, i.e. without us humans, there would be no categories:</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:JA"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:JA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:JA">“Men determine the sorts of substances, which may be sorted variously. From what has been said, it is evident that men make sorts of things.
For, it being different essences alone that make different species, it is plain that they who make those abstract ideas which are the nominal essences do thereby make the species, or sort. ...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:JA">… Nature makes many particular things, which do agree one with another in many sensible qualities, and probably too in their internal frame
and constitution: but it is not this real essence that distinguishes them into species; it is men who, taking occasion from the qualities they find united in them, and wherein they observe often several individuals to agree, range them into sorts, in order
to their naming, for the convenience of comprehensive signs; …”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:JA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:JA">In other words, since it is humans who do the categorization, we decide what is contained in the category
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">adjective</span> or how we rank entities on a scale of animacy or actuality. How we define categories or which features count as ‘relevant’ or ‘necessary’ depends on one’s theory, goals, method, data and, last but not least,
cultural factors, so disagreement is an inherent aspect of the categorization enterprise. It is probably easier to agree on what counts as a member of the category
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Bird</span> (but see Bulmer 1967) than to agree on what counts as a member of the category
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Adjective</span> - but this is just a matter of degree.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:JA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;text-autospace:none">
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-fareast-language:JA">Bulmer, Ralph. 1967. Why is the cassowary not a bird? A problem of zoological taxonomy among the Karam of the New Guinea highlands.
</span><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:JA">Man</span></i><span style="mso-fareast-language:JA"> 2(1). 5-25.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;text-autospace:none">
<span style="mso-fareast-language:JA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:14.2pt;text-indent:-14.2pt;text-autospace:none">
<span style="mso-fareast-language:JA">Jan</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:JA"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:JA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Ian Maddieson <ianm@berkeley.edu><br>
<b>Date: </b>Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 00.24<br>
<b>To: </b>Daniel Ross <djross3@gmail.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" <LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp] query: "animal"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As already mentioned, English usage is variable; for this native (British) English speaker ‘animal’ in non-scientific discourse
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">applies almost exclusively to mammals, and definitely does not include birds, fish, insects, etc. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In several West African languages the word for ‘animal’ also means ‘meat’, e.g. Yoruba <i>ẹran</i> /ɛɾɑ̃/ which applies<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">primarily but not exclusively to domesticated animals, like goats and cattle, and also to meat and also human muscle.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ian<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Oct 13, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Daniel Ross <<a href="mailto:djross3@gmail.com">djross3@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">David (and others),<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As already indicated by some replies, English is not that simple. In fact, there is a huge amount of variation between speakers. As a child I was interested in reading about animals (encyclopedias, etc.) and going to zoos, and for me personally
the wide, encompassing definition (all the way through sponges!) would apply. But I remember being in disagreements with other speakers who don't find insects (or 'lower' groups) to count, and some don't even count fish. It seems that the definition operates
as a prototype, with some speakers accepting a wider group (in effect radiating down the hierarchy) and others keeping the narrower prototypical group, maybe even just synonymous with "mammals" for some. Some survey research on the exact distribution (with
a very large sample, including different education levels, etc.) would be warranted here to make any strong generalizations. There's also a puzzle at the other end of the hierarchy, where humans are technically animals but many are reluctant to mention or
even accept that. At the same time, many or most speakers probably recognize that there is a technical definition, so this is also a question of register/context, and it might be variable within speakers. It would also be worth looking at other similar terms
like "bug" in English, which to me is essentially synonymous with "insect" (and I guess including other land-arthorpods), but for some speakers I think would extend further. As you asked, David, trying to find terms for other parts of the hierarchy is relevant.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for sharing an interesting question!<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Daniel<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Peter Arkadiev <<a href="mailto:peterarkadiev@yandex.ru">peterarkadiev@yandex.ru</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm afraid that the "animals, birds and fish" test does not really work, because one easily finds apparently contradicting examples "birds, snakes and other animals" suggesting that "birds" and "snakes" are "animals".<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(I am not claiming that I know how to interpret this discrepancy, I only point out the potential difficulty, which, I am sure, will pop up in other languages as well.)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Peter Arkadiev, PhD<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Institute of Slavic Studies<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Russian Academy of Sciences<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Leninsky prospekt 32-A 119991 Moscow<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:peterarkadiev@yandex.ru" target="_blank">peterarkadiev@yandex.ru</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://inslav.ru/people/arkadev-petr-mihaylovich-peter-arkadiev" target="_blank">http://inslav.ru/people/arkadev-petr-mihaylovich-peter-arkadiev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">13.10.2018, 21:17, "David Gil" <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">So from the comments by Hartmut (below) and Östen a short while ago, it is becoming clear that I was a little cavalier in my initial statement to the effect than English "animal"
refers to 1-7 and maybe 8. Interestingly, though, German "Tier" apparently does. Also, there may possibly be a split between Hartmut's Danish "dyr" (1-7) and Östen's Swedish "djur" (1 only) — though I now see some further discussion that calls this into
question.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">The observations that have been offered about the semantic range of English "animal" have already provided me with a solution to the problem that motivated my original posting.
Under the (apparently) false assumption that English has a single word for 1-7/8, it was a problem for the proposed notion of higher animal (covering 1-4/5) that there seemed to be no simple word for it. But if indeed ontological categories such as living
creature (covering 1-7/8) can exist without a simple word to designate them, then it is not a problem for the proposed notion of higher animal that there would seem not to be a single word for that category — at least from what I have been able to gather so
far.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Still, it would be nice if somebody came through with a language that had a simple basic word for higher animals (1-4/5), so I welcome further comments and discussion on this thread!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 13/10/2018 20:00, Hartmut Haberland wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Three comments:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In German, 1.-7. would work. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Where are fish like plaice, turbot, or eel? Category 2a?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My wife, L1 speaker of English, often commented on my typical German concept of Tier (1.-7.), when I referred to birds, fish and insects as animals which I stopped doing now. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Turbots have more axes of symmetry than anyone who ever filleted one for sushi will agree with me are convenient. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my opinion, the cut-off point for English is after 1.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I use Danish dyr like German Tier and nobody ever commented on it in 40+ years. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">What about bacteria (6a)? At least they move. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hartmut<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Den 13. okt. 2018 kl. 18.35 skrev David Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>:<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">Dear all,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">I am interested in exploring, cross-linguistically, the semantic range of words that correspond more or less to the English word "animal".</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">Here are examples of the things that English "animal" refers to:</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">1. dog, kangaroo, lizard, frog ...</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">2. eagle, sparrow, chicken, bat ...</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">3. bee, scorpion, spider, centipede ...</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">4. crab, shrimp ...</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">5. worm, leech ...</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">6. starfish, jellyfish, squid, octopus ...</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">7. oyster, clam ...</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">8. sponge (?) ...</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">I am looking for examples of languages in which the basic word closest to English "animal" is nevertheless different in its coverage. In particular, I would like to find instances — if such exist
— of languages in which there is a basic word that covers the examples in 1-4 (or maybe 1-5) to the exclusion of those in 5-8 (or maybe 6-8). (Note that the question concerns every-day words that reflect our naive folk biological knowledge, not with scientific
terms in those few languages that have such terminology.)</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">Some words of background: A colleague and I working in experimental cognitive science have found (non-linguistic) empirical evidence for the psychological reality of an ontological category that
consists roughly of animals of the kind exemplified in 1-4 (and possibly also 5). We are calling this category "higher animals". The characteristic prototypical features of higher animals include a single axis of symmetry, the existence of head, torso and
limbs, a face in the front of the head that includes sensory organs such as eyes, and a mouth for eating, and the ability to move forward in the direction that the head is facing. A challenge that we face is that, in the (few) languages that we are familiar
with, there is no simple word for higher animals. But we are hoping that other languages might have such a word. in addition, we would also welcome grammatical evidence for the category of higher animals, for example in the form of grammatical rules that
are sensitive to the animacy hierarchy by making reference to a cut-off point between higher and other animals.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">I look forward to your responses. Thanks,</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt">David</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>David Gil<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>David Gil<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ian Maddieson<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Department of Linguistics<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">University of New Mexico<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">MSC03-2130<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albuquerque NM 87131-0001<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>