AW: AW: word order of cardinals
Thurgood, Graham
GThurgood at CSUCHICO.EDU
Wed Aug 22 15:03:46 UTC 2007
Jiarong and Gallong are quite distinct languages,
Graham
On 8/22/07 7:14 AM, "bingfu Lu" <lubingfu at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> Dear Mathew,
>
> Thanks for your valuable feedback!
>
> We may to check Sino-Tibetan:MIRISH: Gallong, which may be called Jiarong in
> Mandarin. Could you please tell us the relevant source of references?
>
>
>
> I am very interested in your data as follows:
>
> AdjN&OrdN 17
>
> AdjN&NOrd 2
>
> NAdj&OrdN 9
>
> NAdj&NOrd 46
>
>
>
> May the data indicates that in general, ordinals tend to precede N more
> strongly than adjectives do? This may follow the principle I called IP
> (Identifiability Precedence), which states that the more identifiability a
> modifier contributes to its mother NP, the more it tends to precede. Relevant
> data includes the following. While most adjectives follow cardinals in
> English, those that make the mother NPs definite can precede cardinals, such
> as in ¡®the following/biggest five balls¡¯, ¡®use left three lanes¡¯ (highway
> sign), ¡®the last/next three pages¡¯.
>
>
>
> Best
> Bingfu
>
> Matthew Dryer <dryer at BUFFALO.EDU> wrote:
>> It is not really accurate to say that Greenberg did not distinguish cardinal
>> and ordinal
>> numerals. Rather, he followed common usage in using the expression "numeral"
>> to
>> denote cardinal numerals. Hence all of his claims about numerals were claims
>> about
>> cardinal numerals.
>>
>> My typological database contains data on the order of ordinal numeral and
>> noun for a
>> small number of languages. The numbers of the four possible types for the two
>> orders
>> of cardinal numeral and noun and or ordinal numeral and noun are as follows,
>> where
>> 'Num' denotes a cardinal numeral and 'Ord' denotes an ordinal numeral:
>>
>> NumN&OrdN 17
>> NumN&NOrd 14
>> NNum&OrdN 7
>> NNum&NOrd 31
>>
>> While the type NNum&OrdN is the least frequent, it is by no means rare, since
>> there are
>> only twice as many (14 versus 7) of the type NumN&NOrd.
>>
>> The seven languages I code as NNum&OrdN are as follows, where the first item,
>> not in
>> all caps, is the name of the family, the second item, in caps, is the name of
>> the genus,
>> and then a list of the languages in that genus with this order:
>>
>> Niger-Congo:ADAMAWA-UBANGIAN: Gbeya Bossangoa, Linda, Zande.
>> Afro-Asiatic:BIU-MANDARA: Gude.
>> Sino-Tibetan:MIRISH: Gallong.
>> Trans-New Guinea:EASTERN HIGHLANDS: Yagaria.
>> Trans-New Guinea:AWJU-DUMUT: Kombai.
>>
>> As Thomas Stolz noted, the order of ordinal numeral and noun more closely
>> follows the
>> order of adjective and noun. The relevant data is:
>>
>> AdjN&OrdN 17
>> AdjN&NOrd 2
>> NAdj&OrdN 9
>> NAdj&NOrd 46
>>
>> In other words, in 17+46=63 languages out of 74 (or 85%), the ordinal numeral
>> occurs
>> on the same side of the noun as the adjective. Compare this with the fact
>> that 48 out of
>> 69 languages (or 70%) place the ordinal numeral on the same side of the noun
>> as the
>> cardinal numeral. Or, put differently, an ordinal numeral is twice as likely
>> to occur on
>> the opposite side of the noun from the cardinal numeral (30%) as it is to
>> occur on the
>> opposite side of the noun from the adjective (15%).
>>
>> Matthew Dryer
>>
>> Quoting bingfu Lu :
>>
>>> > Dear Thomas,
>>> > Thanks for your informative message!
>>> > Your information is consistent with our data.
>>> > What we are interested most is the likely implicational universal
>>> > as follows:
>>> > If ordinal numeral precedes the head noun, cardinal numerals do as
>>> > well.
>>> >
>>> > What we request for are, first, whether the universal is valid in
>>> > your data;
>>> > second, whether the universal has been proposed in the literature;
>>> > third, the respective numbers of languages of OrdN-CardN, NOrd-NCard
>>> > and OrdN-NCard (and OrdN-CardN if any).
>>> >
>>> > If ordinals behave more adjective-like than cardinals, then, the
>>> > proposed universal is quite expectable, according to Greenberg¡¯s
>>> > Universal 18 (When the descriptive adjective precedes the noun, the
>>> > demonstrative and the numeral, with overwhelmingly more than chance
>>> > frequency, do likewise).
>>> > Greenberg does not distinguish cardinal and ordinal numerals here.
>>> > Our current investigation is based on the distinction of the two
>>> > kinds of numerals. A further question is whether ordinals are
>>> > descriptive. ¡®First, second¡¯ may be if interpreted as ¡®primary,
>>> > secondary¡¯, but how about other ordinals?
>>> > In passing, we are investigating the relative order between
>>> > cardinals and ordinals when they both co-occur on the same side of
>>> > the noun. Our expectation that if both precede, the order is always
>>> > Card-Ord-N, while both follow, both order are possible, following the
>>> > pattern of adjectives and numerals in general.
>>> >
>>> > We hope we can find some answer to our inquiries in the literature
>>> > you mentioned, which we are still looking for.
>>> >
>>> > Best
>>> > Bingfu
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thomas Stolz wrote: v\:*
>>> > {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
>>> > w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape
>>> > {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
>>> > st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } Dear Bingfu,
>>> >
>>> > thanks a lot for your answer. Yes, I noticed that there were typos
>>> > in the original mail.
>>> >
>>> > The higher degree of adjective-like properties of ordinals as
>>> > opposed to cardinals is quite wide-spread. For instance, in my native
>>> > German, only the cardinal ONE behaves like an adjective (agreement in
>>> > case and gender) whereas the bulk of the cardinals is indeclinable.
>>> > However, all and each ordinal has to agree in gender, case and number
>>> > with its so-called head noun. Note that in German, cardinals and
>>> > ordinals precede the noun.
>>> >
>>> > More or less the same picture can be found in other SAE-like
>>> > languages such as Italian (ONE is like an adjective, from TWO upwards
>>> > cardinals remain uninflected whereas [ideally] all ordinals inflect
>>> > for gender and number according to the agreement rules; in addition,
>>> > Italian cardinals precede the noun whereas ordinals may be positioned
>>> > pre-nominally [= preferred position] as well as post-nominally [=
>>> > marked position under very particular conditions] ¨C and thus behave
>>> > syntactically a bit more like Italian adjectives which are normally
>>> > in post-nominal position).
>>> >
>>> > I am pretty sure that you¡¯ll encounter many such cases throughout
>>> > (¡°Indo-¡°)Europe. Have a look at Romance, Germanic, Celtic for that
>>> > matter (as you already know the Slavic data). By the way, I forgot to
>>> > tell you that in our project on the Grammar of Ordinaly at the
>>> > university of Bremen, there are two more people involved, viz. my
>>> > assistant-to-be Maxim Gorshenin and at Stockholm University, Ljuba
>>> > Veselinova with whom I have been working on ordinals for quite some
>>> > time.
>>> >
>>> > Please keep in touch and let us know what you have found out about
>>> > ordinals in the languages of the area you are scrutinizing.
>>> >
>>> > Best wishes.
>>> >
>>> > Thomas
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Prof. Dr. Thomas Stolz
>>> > Universität Bremen
>>> > FB 10: Linguistik
>>> > PF 330 440
>>> > D-28 334 Bremen/Germany
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ---------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > Von: bingfu Lu [mailto:lubingfu at yahoo.com]
>>> > Gesendet: Montag, 20. August 2007 17:02
>>> > An: Thomas Stolz; Linguistic Typology; Renping Jiang
>>> > Betreff: Re: AW: word order of cardinals
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Dear Thomas,
>>> >
>>> > Sorry, there is two typos in my previous posting:
>>> >
>>> > The title of the posting should be ¡°word order of ordinals¡±,
>>> > not ¡°cardinals¡±.
>>> >
>>> > ?lt;o:p>
>>> >
>>> > We want to know the possible counterexample and relevant
>>> > literature and data in other languages.
>>> >
>>> > In addition, in some languages, ordinals morphologically belong
>>> > to adjectives, such as Russian.?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In Russian, ordinals are more adjective-like than cardinals in
>>> > the sense that all ordinals are morphologically adjective but not all
>>> > cardinals.?What we really want to know is that is there any other
>>> > languages than Slavic where ordinals are more adjective-like than
>>> > cardinals.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your information of the literature, which is most
>>> > important and helpful to our?investigation!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > What you said about the particularity of number ¡®one¡¯ (even if
>>> > ordinals precede the noun, the cardinal ONE may follow the noun) is
>>> > totally consistent with our data. Many languages in China behaves
>>> > like Maltese in this aspect.?Renping may tell you which languages.?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Best
>>> >
>>> > Bingfu
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thomas Stolz wrote:
>>> > Dear colleagues,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > at the university of Bremen, we are currently conducting a
>>> > large-scale crosslinguistic study of the grammar of ordinal numerals.
>>> > We also look at word-order issues and word-class membership problems
>>> > of numerals. First of all, cardinal numerals behave like adjectives
>>> > in loads of languages ¨C especially Indo-European ones. However, this
>>> > is often true only of a certain sub-set of the cardinals (lower
>>> > cardinals as opposed to higher ones, digits as opposed to decimal
>>> > values, etc.). Thus, there is a difference between Latvian and
>>> > Lithuanian on the one hand and Greek on the other: Latvian and
>>> > Lithuanian treat most of their numerals as adjectives when it comes
>>> > to agreement while Greek has agreement only for numerals including
>>> > the digits 1, 3 and 4. Details can be found in the work by Hurford,
>>> > Veselinova and my own. For the latter see:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Stolz, Thomas. 2001. d?„Ordinalia ¨C Linguistisches
>>> > Neuland. Ein Typologenblick auf die Beziehung zwischen Kardinalia und
>>> > Ordinalia und die Sonderstellung von EINS und ERSTER.¡°, in Was ich
>>> > noch sagen wollte¡– A multilingual Festschrift for Norbert Boretzky
>>> > on occasion of his 65th birthday, herausgegeben von Birgit Igla &
>>> > Thomas Stolz (= Studia Typologica 2). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
>>> > 507-530.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Stolz, Thomas. 2002. „Is ‚one¡® still ‚one¡® in
>>> > ‚tewnty-one¡®? On agreement and government properties of
>>> > cardinal numerals in the languages of Europe.¡°, Sprachtypologie und
>>> > Universalienforschung 55, 354-402.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > STOLZ, Thomas & VESELINOVA, Ljuba. 2005.
>>> >
>>> > „Ordinal numerals.¡°, in: The World
>>> > Atlas of Language Structures, edited by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S.
>>> > Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
>>> > 218-221.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Please note that there are also interesting problems on the
>>> > micro-level: even if ordinals precede the noun, the cardinal ONE may
>>> > follow the noun (this is the case in Maltese, for instance).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Good luck with the project and keep me informed
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thomas Stolz
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Prof. Dr. Thomas Stolz
>>> >
>>> > Universität Bremen
>>> >
>>> > FB 10: Linguistik
>>> >
>>> > PF 330 440
>>> >
>>> > D-28 334 Bremen/Germany
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ---------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > Von: Discussion List for ALT
>>> > [mailto:LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG] Im Auftrag von bingfu Lu
>>> > Gesendet: Samstag, 18. August 2007 17:16
>>> > An: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>>> > Betreff: word order of cardinals
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Dear colleagues,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > One colleague of mine is investigating the word order of
>>> > ordinal numerals. Based on her database of 112 languages in China,
>>> > she got the following implicational universal: If ordinal numeral
>>> > precedes the head noun, cardinal numerals does as well. Her data as
>>> > shown below:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Ord-N & Card-N 53
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > N-Ord & N-Card 52
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > N-Ord & Card-N 15
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > N-Ord & N-Card 0
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > (some languages has two order, therefore, the total numbers of
>>> > languages above is larger than 112).?We want to know the possible
>>> > counterexample and relevant literature and data in other languages.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In addition, in some languages, cardinals morphologically
>>> > belongs to adjectives, such as Russian.?We also need to know other
>>> > languages where cardinals morphologically as adjectives.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Replies to this inquiry can be send to my colleague Renping
>>> > Jiang (renpingjiang at 126.com) and me.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > If correspondents is enough, we will make a summary.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Bingfu Lu
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Institute of Linguistics
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>
--
Graham Thurgood
Professor of English and Linguistics
English Department
California State University, Chico
Chico, CA 95929-0830
email: gthurgood at csuchico.edu
http://www.csuchico.edu/~gt18/GWT_Homepage.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20070822/72fba02d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list