<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Okay, then let's agree that no-one of
those who have taken part in this discussion has implied any
assumptions on discreteness of the distinction between finite and
non-finite.<br>
<br>
I see finiteness as one of those many concepts of traditional
grammar which have, over the past two and a half millennia, proved
useful in the description of the languages that they were coined
for and for some other SAE languages that are sufficiently
similar. Given such a grammatical concept, the question for the
typologist is then: Assume you discover in an unrelated language a
phenomenon which reminds you of that familiar concept: should the
phenomenon be subsumed under it, and if so, under what conditions?
Given a positive answer to the first question, you take those
structural and functional features which constitute the
traditional concept as a point of departure and relax them so that
the new phenomenon falls under the concept. You then check whether
the expanded concept is still useful. [And here we need an
explanation of what constitutes the usefulness of a scientific
concept.] It may, for instance, now overlap with other known
concepts, or the relaxed criteria may now be too weak; so the
expansion was not useful.<br>
<br>
Now applying this to 'finite vs. non-finite': In those languages
for which the distinction was first made, the definition is
simply: A verb form inflected for person is finite, other verb
forms are non-finite. And it has always been clear that the
distribution of these two kinds of forms over syntactic
constructions is such (with appropriate refinements) that finite
forms occur in independent clauses while non-finite forms occur in
dependent verbal constructions.<br>
<br>
You then come across a language like Cabecar (Chibchan) in which
the verb does not inflect for person in the first place. A
possible reaction of the analyst is: The language lacks the
finiteness distinction. Most analysts (including me) have not
resorted to this reaction, for at least two reasons: First, naming
the structural phenomena of every language by new terms only
because they do not straightforwardly fall under a traditional
concept is simply not feasible. Comparative linguists would no
longer be able to communicate. Second, there is a more general
basis to the traditional concept which is tangible in Cabecar,
too: In certain dependent constructions, the verb lacks certain
conjugation categories which it has as the main verb of an
independent clause. In Cabecar, this is mood and aspect. Thus,
Cabecar (as many other non-SAE languages) possesses a finiteness
distinction.<br>
<br>
In the particular case of the finiteness distinction, we are in
the happy situation to be able to heed Saussure's and Jakobson's
advice that what matters in language structure are differences. In
the case at hand, it is not necessary to name any particular
features like conjugation for person etc. to define 'finite'. It
suffices that the language distinguish between the conjugation of
a verb which is the main predicate of a sentence and its
conjugation in certain subordinate constructions, and that this
distinction can be made in terms of conjugation categories which
are marked in the former context, but not in the latter. The
methodological situation is not nearly as comfortable in cases
like 'ergative' or 'applicative', as these do not presuppose a
(gradual) binary distinction.<br>
<br>
A next step in the expansion of the concept could then be, as
suggested by Jürgen and others before him, to apply the finiteness
distinction not only to verb forms, but also to verbal
constructions and even to clauses. Although an expansion of this
sort has certainly been useful in some cases, there are always
limits for such expansions. For instance, certain modal particles
occur in German independent clauses which are banned from
subordinate clauses. This would not seem to be a good reason to
call the latter less finite.<br>
<br>
It is along these lines that I think we can still make responsible
use of traditional concepts.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Christian<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK0T6OgQrB1ONeYm1AqQrnv=LhKTJ3JCa_+azz0DcdjSWwTFzg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Dear
Cristian and everyone,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Read the
comments more carefully before replying because I did not say
nor imply that the concept should be dispensed with.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Adam<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at
12:46 PM Christian Lehmann <<a
href="mailto:christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">christian.lehmann@uni-erfurt.de</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Dear Adam and everybody,<br>
<br>
just a brief reply to this:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)"><span
style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:monospace" lang="FI">For
a functional-typological audience, I'm sort of
surprised the distinction is still brought up as if
it was discrete (or not just a matter of definition
as Martin points out), since Bybee discussed the
issue of inflectional status as a continuum with
lexical/derivational in her Morphology book some 30+
years ago. It's also well-known that these notions
of inflection/finiteness are tricky or nonapplicable
in many so-called polysynthetic languages (e.g. de
Reuse 2009).</span><span
style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:monospace"
lang="FI"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It is a recurrent misunderstanding among typologists,
chiefly of particularist persuasion, that a grammatical
concept should be dispensed with because it is not discrete,
covers a continuum, is not applicable to all languages or
what not. If one takes this position, then <b>no</b>
grammatical concept whatsoever can be used in the
description of more than one language. It seems more
realistic, and even methodologically more fruitful, to live
by concepts whose cross-linguistic application is "tricky".<br>
-- <br>
<div>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<br>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Adam
J.R. Tallman</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Post-doctoral
Researcher <br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Friedrich
Schiller Universität<br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="times new roman, serif">Department
of English Studies<br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>