accusative and ergative languages

[Ralf-Stefan Georg]

>Pat responds:

>Well, on page 40 of Chao's Mandarin Primer, are listed "Affixes":

>11 are listed; of these 6 qualify as related to "inflections" :
>modal -m(en), phrase marker -le; completed action -le; progressive
>action -j(y/e); possibility or ability -de; subordination -de.

>Undoubtedly, a historical grammar might provide a few more but I consider
>this a pretty simple system.

This is getting weary. I think no sane linguist will be unaware of the fact
that there are languages with fewer purely morphological means than others.
Also, "simpler" and "not-so simple" phonological systems have been heard of.
But, if I'm not completely mistaken, there was talk about sthl. like
general, overall simplicity of languages, which is a pre-scientific notion,
quite simply, if this pun is allowed.

If we assume, as of course we have to, that human languages are
problem-solving devices which face a set of possible communicative
problems, which is the same for all linguistic communities (don't come with
obvious cultural differences, which pertain to vocabulary only; I'm aware
of the fact that not all linguistic communities of the planet need to talk
meaningfully about the various kinds of fish in the Yenissey, or the
Sepik). Languages make different choices regarding the set of functions
they grammaticalize (tense vs. aspect or both, inferentiality, relative or
absolute tense, number, participant-identification, reference-tracking,
pragmatic categories, you name it), the hows and whys of which are the
object of linguistic typology. One language uses grammaticalized
bound-morphology for, say, inferentiality, others have to use different
means to convey the idea. But they are all able to convey the idea, however
elegant, or however clumsy. The idea is that they *use means* to do it, or
that speakers may find these means, even if the category is weakly or not
at all grammaticalized in their language (your inflection paradigm may be
my intonation pattern, your inferentiality affix may be my expletive
adverb; to convey the idea of the Dakota sentence-particle /yelo/ or Thai
/khrap/ I may even be forced to say each time "I am male"; clumsy, but
possible, if I face the necessity). The description of these means is the
task of the grammarian. Some grammarians are aware of this task, and write
a 600-page grammar of Chinese, some aren't (or simply want to produce a
primer to help you get along abroad) and write a 60-pp. treatment of
Russian. So what ?

I will not deny that notions of simplicity vs. complexity may be useful
distinctions when talking about subsystems. For the characterization of
whole languages they are definitely not useful. The grammar-school like
rote learning of paradigms, which your Chinese teacher will be able to
spare you, will be compensated by having to digest subtle and difficult
rules of syntax.

Stefan

Stefan Georg
Heerstrasse 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
+49-228-69-13-32