9.304, Disc: Russian Syntax

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-9-304. Sun Mar 1 1998. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 9.304, Disc: Russian Syntax

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors:  	    Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
		    Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
		    Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>
                    Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
                    Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:22:47 -0500 (EST)
From:  manaster at umich.edu
Subject:  Re: 9.249, Sum: Russian Syntax

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:22:47 -0500 (EST)
From:  manaster at umich.edu
Subject:  Re: 9.249, Sum: Russian Syntax

I must have missed the original query, but I would like to take
exception to the idea that Russian is "basically SVO".  First of all,
this seems to confuse theoretical and factual issues, since in many
theories a language can be "basically" X and "superficially" Y, where
X and Y are distinct (e.g., unless I am much mistaken there is hardly
anyone other than me who does not accept the idea that within
generative approaches to syntax Dutch and German basically are
non-SVO, even though in another sense of the word "basically" they are
precisely SVO).  Second, and perhaps even more importantly, it is by
no mean clear, and certainly highly theory-dependent, whether Russian
has any "basic" word order statable in terms of the primitives S,V,
and O.  In fact, I dont think that this is the case at all, and any
theory which requires it to be the case deserves to be scrapped.  It
is likely that reference to 'S' and 'V' maybe necessary, but I dont
know that this is true of 'O', and certainly reference to these three
is not sufficient.

AMR

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-9-304