[Lingtyp] Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
Lameen Souag
lameen at gmail.com
Sun Nov 17 00:59:05 UTC 2019
Dear all,
Yet another parallel to the Shan case is found in Korandje, a Northern
Songhay language of Algeria. Proto-Northern Songhay *yer "we" and *indi
"you pl." would regularly have yielded ya and ndzi; instead, we find ya-yu
and ndz-yu, with the regular productive NP plural marker yu added. The
short forms without -yu are still reflected in subject agreement marking as
prefixes, but can no longer be used as independent words. (For more
details, see pp. 48-50 of my 2010 PhD thesis:
http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/13430/1/souag-thesis-final.pdf .)
But pronoun reinforcement isn't always as simple as adding a plural marker
or even a word marked for plurality. Other pronominal paradigms within the
language can also be pressed into service, like Syriac ḥnan "we" <
proto-Semitic *niḥnu, where the final -an presumably reflects the Syriac
1pl possessive -an < *-a-na, marked for person as well as number. Similar
cases can be found in Berber, eg Yefren 2pl knim (cp. El-Fogaha kni), where
the -m is most likely taken from the 2pl verbal subject agreement ending -m.
Best wishes
Lameen Souag
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:56 PM <lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org>
wrote:
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns (Jeremy Bradley)
> 2. Re: Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
> (Bernhard Wälchli)
> 3. Re: Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
> (Edith A Moravcsik)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:40:05 +0100
> From: Jeremy Bradley <jeremy.moss.bradley at univie.ac.at>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
> Message-ID: <3043cf29-5263-e2cc-ba2e-89a29c8ccc13 at univie.ac.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> This happens in Mari dialects as well: the pronouns nine 'these' and
> nuno 'those; they' can be encountered with the adnominal plural marker
> -βlak: nine-βlak, nuno-βlak.
>
> All the best,
> Jeremy
>
> On 16/11/2019 15:21, Johanna Laakso wrote:
> > The Hungarian case is a bit different: the -nk element in "mink" ‘we’
> > is, as Edith writes, a possessor or subject-person 1PL marker. But the
> > use of general common-noun plural markers on plural pronouns actually
> > does occur in some Uralic languages (and also independently of
> > contacts with Turkic). In quite a few Finnic varieties, we have
> > nominative plural markers (Proto-Finnic -t or its reflexes) on the
> > plural personal (and sometimes also demonstrative) pronouns, as in Far
> > North Finnish dialects (also Kven and Meänkieli) met, tet, het ‘we,
> > you.PL, they’ (~ Standard Finnish me, te, he). In the inflection of
> > Finnic plural pronouns, the plural element occurs regularly, as in
> > Standard Finnish me-i-lle we-PL-ADESSIVE ‘to us’ (cf. talo-i-lle ‘to
> > the houses’). Komi dialects have (as opposed to Standard Komi najö
> > ‘they’) also ‘they’ pronouns carrying the regular (a Permic
> > innovation) plural marker -jas: najöjas or najas ‘they’.
> >
> > And, in fact, coming back to Hungarian, it regularly builds the plural
> > forms of third-person and demonstrative pronouns with the general
> > common-noun plural marker -k: ők ‘they’ (ő ‘s/he’), eze-k ‘these’ (ez
> > ‘this’), azo-k ‘those’ (az ‘that’).
> >
> > Best
> > Johanna
> >
> > --
> > Univ.Prof. Dr. Johanna Laakso
> > Universität Wien, Institut für Europäische und Vergleichende Sprach-
> > und Literaturwissenschaft (EVSL)
> > Abteilung Finno-Ugristik
> > Campus AAKH Spitalgasse 2-4 Hof 7
> > A-1090 Wien
> > johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at <mailto:johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at> •
> > http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/
> > Project ELDIA: http://www.eldia-project.org/
> >
> >
> >> Edith A Moravcsik <edith at uwm.edu <mailto:edith at uwm.edu>> kirjoitti
> >> 15.11.2019 kello 19.52:
> >>
> >> Hello Ponrawee,
> >> In Hungarian, the first person plural pronoun is monomorphemic/mi/.
> >> However, in some colloquial versions,
> >> the form/mink/also occurs. The ending -/nk/is a first person plural
> >> suffix on verbs and on possessions, e.g.:
> >>
> >> usz-unk ‘we are swimming’
> >> csodá-nk ‘our miracle’’
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Edith M.
> >> *From:*Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> <mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>>*On Behalf
> >> Of*Ponrawee Prasertsom
> >> *Sent:*Friday, November 15, 2019 10:01 AM
> >> *To:*lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> <mailto:lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> >> *Subject:*[Lingtyp] Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
> >> Dear all,
> >> I have been looking at a number of Tai languages and found that in
> >> some of these languages, plural pronouns can optionally take a plural
> >> marker normally used on common nouns. For instance, in Shan
> >> (Southwestern Tai), the third person plural pronoun/khau/can
> >> optionally take the plural marker/cɯ(nai)/, viz./khau cɯ(nai)--/at
> >> least according to Cushing 1871.
> >> Assuming this analysis is correct (if it's not please kindly inform
> >> me), I'm wondering how rare this is for pronouns? A quick lookup
> >> revealed that a similar phenomenon called "double plural marking" is
> >> found in some languages, but seems to be restricted to common nouns
> >> only. Does anyone know of any other instances like this for pronouns
> >> in other languages?
> >> Sources: Cushing, Josiah Nelson. Grammar of the Shan Language.
> >> Rangoon: American Mission Press, 1871.
> >> Best regards,
> >> --
> >> Ponrawee Prasertsom
> >> Graduate Student
> >> Department of Linguistics
> >> Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
> >> Bangkok, Thailand
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> <mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> --
> Jeremy Bradley, Ph.D.
> University of Vienna
>
> http://www.mari-language.com
> jeremy.moss.bradley at univie.ac.at
>
> Office address:
> Institut EVSL
> Abteilung Finno-Ugristik
> Universität Wien
> Campus AAKH, Hof 7-2
> Spitalgasse 2-4
> 1090 Wien
> AUSTRIA
>
> Mobile: +43-664-99-31-788
> Skype: jeremy.moss.bradley
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20191116/d19ebc29/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:32:39 +0000
> From: Bernhard Wälchli <bernhard at ling.su.se>
> To: Ponrawee Prasertsom <ponrawee.pra at gmail.com>,
> "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
> Message-ID: <52d27b9f5e174d3782df04ee3dab0461 at ling.su.se>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear all,
>
> Bill Croft treats the phenomena in question in his seminal book
> “Explaining Language Change” (2000: 134) under the heading of
> “cryptanalysis” (§5.5): “In cryptanalysis, the listener analyses a covert
> semantic/functional property of a syntactic unit as not grammatically
> marked, and inserts {obviously it is meant when turning into a speaker
> again, BW} an overt marker expressing its semantic value.” Some of the
> examples discussed on this list are given in Bill’s subsection §5.5.3
> “Pleonastic double marking / reinforcement”.
> I am actually not certain whether this is the only possible
> interpretation. The overt marker could be inserted because the speaker
> considers the semantic property not sufficiently marked. I do not think all
> speakers using reinforcement are unable to analyze the non-reinforced
> expression (despite frequent claims by purists that using pleonasms is
> stupid). A more general mechanism that can account for reinforcement -
> although not the sublte differences in politeness in Turkish - is Lüdtke’s
> model of quantitative language change. (Croft 2000: 159 discusses it as the
> “periphrasis-fusion-erosion” cycle.) According to Lüdtke, speech has to be
> redundant since it occurs in a noisy environment, and this entails in the
> long run three types of changes for saying the same thing which trigger
> each other: fewer phonemes (Croft’s term “erosion”), more morphemes
> (Croft’s “periphrasis”) and fewer morpheme boundaries (Croft’s “fusion”)
> for conveying the same message. So, aren’t the phenomena under discussion
> here just instances of this? As in the well-known development of French
> demonstratives from Latin:
> ista N > (ecce)ista N > (c)este N > cette N > cette N(-ci)
> hoc > (ecce)hoc > (ç)o > ço > ce > ce(la) > cela > ça
> However, probably there is more to it if we take phonology into account.
> It seems to me that it happens very rarely that a structure Y-x (with -x
> being the marker) is reinforced pleonastically with a phonologically
> identical marker: Y-x-x. This seems to be due to avoidance of subsequent
> identical sequences (there is also a diachronic process doing away with
> them: haplology, funnily except in the term itself). Indeed, in no example
> mentioned so far, the new reinforced structure is Y-x-x (with x being the
> same allomorph).
> Against such phonological considerations one might argue that the
> reinforcing element is usually (has to be ??) more transparent than the
> earlier exponent of the semantic category (otherwise the reinforced marker
> is not “crypto-”). However, more transparent exponents also tend to be more
> productive, and it is more likely that reinforcement is done by a
> productive strategy than by a non-productive strategy. After all, if the
> point of reinforcement is more clarity for the listener, it might be
> strange to use non-transparent markers for that purpose. Another
> interesting question is: why is it just morphologically marked categories
> that tend to be reinforced? (This might be relevant for the issue of
> typological markedness.) Does anybody have an example where a singular
> personal pronoun is reinforced by a singular marker? (There are certainly
> many cases of dual pronouns being reinforced by ‘two’ and the like). Note
> also that reinforcement may entail more complexity as when gender is
> introduced in pronouns: Spanish nos-otros/nos-otras ‘we’, Lithuanian ju-du
> ‘you(dual)-two[M]’, ju-dvi ‘you(dual)-two[F]’.
>
> So here are some claims (I’d love to see counter-examples)
> 1. Reinforcing morphemes are more transparent and productive than
> reinforced morphemes.
> 2. Reinforced and reinforcing morphemes are not the same allomorph.
> 3. Reinforcing (except purely phonetic reinforcing e.g. by stress) occurs
> at the periphery (by affixes, adjacent words, not by infixes, ablaut etc.).
> 4. Typologically unmarked categories are not reinforced. (This does not
> hold. For instance, Indo-European present -i is a counter example, so no
> counter-examples for this, please)
> 4b. Much weaker: singular personal pronouns are not reinforced by singular.
> 4c. Typologically unmarked categories are reinforced less often than
> typologically marked categories [possibly a tautology when considered from
> a pan-chronic perspective]
> (Note that 4b can be accounted for by frequency, whereas 4 cannot.)
> Hence 4d: Typologically unmarked categories are not reinforced in uses
> where they are relatively more frequent than their marked counterpart.
> 5. Short forms are reinforced more frequently than longer forms.
> 6. Transparently marked forms are less frequently reinforced than opaquely
> marked forms.
> 7. Reinforcement is more likely to happen in phrases consisting of one
> word than in phrases consisting of several words (thus we typologists is
> less prone to be reinforced than we).
>
> Lüdtke, Helmut (1980). Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des
> Sprachwandels. ‘Sprachwandel als universales Phänomen’, 1-19; ‘Auf dem Weg
> zu einer Theorie des Sprachwandels’, 182-252. Berlin: de Gruyter.
>
> Best,
> Bernhard W.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Ponrawee Prasertsom <ponrawee.pra at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 5:01 PM
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: [Lingtyp] Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have been looking at a number of Tai languages and found that in some of
> these languages, plural pronouns can optionally take a plural marker
> normally used on common nouns. For instance, in Shan (Southwestern Tai),
> the third person plural pronoun khau can optionally take the plural marker
> cɯ(nai), viz. khau cɯ(nai)--at least according to Cushing 1871.
>
> Assuming this analysis is correct (if it's not please kindly inform me),
> I'm wondering how rare this is for pronouns? A quick lookup revealed that a
> similar phenomenon called "double plural marking" is found in some
> languages, but seems to be restricted to common nouns only. Does anyone
> know of any other instances like this for pronouns in other languages?
>
> Sources: Cushing, Josiah Nelson. Grammar of the Shan Language. Rangoon:
> American Mission Press, 1871.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Ponrawee Prasertsom
>
> Graduate Student
> Department of Linguistics
> Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
> Bangkok, Thailand
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20191116/cebc3bb9/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 22:55:59 +0000
> From: Edith A Moravcsik <edith at uwm.edu>
> To: Bernhard Wälchli <bernhard at ling.su.se>, Ponrawee Prasertsom
> <ponrawee.pra at gmail.com>, "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
> Message-ID:
> <
> MWHPR16MB1823E2AB35D57DCCB64EFF57BB730 at MWHPR16MB1823.namprd16.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thank you, Bernhard, for your very enlightening message rich both in data
> and in insight!
> Here are some facts about the accusative forms of Hungarian personal
> pronouns that pertain to the following three of Bernhard’s hypotheses:
>
> 2. Reinforced and reinforcing morphemes are not the same allomorph.
> 5. Short forms are reinforced more frequently than longer forms.
> 6. Transparently marked forms are less frequently reinforced than opaquely
> marked forms.
> Here is the paradigm of the accusatives of Hungarian personal pronouns:
>
> Sing 1 engem, engem-et
> 2 téged, téged-et
> 3 őt, ő-t-et
> Plu 1 mink-et
> 2 titek-et
> 3 ők-et
>
> Regarding point 2 (The reinforced and the reinforcing morphemes are not
> the same allomorph): This does not hold for the singular third person
> accusative form. The nominal accusative suffix is -t (with a vowel
> preceding it) and it occurs twice in ő-t-et.
>
> The same identical reinforcement occurs in demonstratives:
>
> ez-t, ez-t-et ‘this (accusative)’
> az-t, az-t-at ‘that (accusative)’
>
> The doubly-marked forms both for the third person singular pronoun and the
> demonstratives are highly colloquial; perhaps also dialectal. Jokingly,
> sometimes people also usu the triply-marked
> ez-t-et-et and az-t-at-at (but I have never heard ő-t-et-et).
>
> Regarding point 5 (Short forms are reinforced more frequently than longer
> forms): Both the third person singular pronoun and the demonstratives are
> short and thus they support this point.
>
> Regarding point 6 (Transparently marked forms are less frequently
> reinforced than opaquely marked forms): The singular first and second
> person pronominal accusatives are non-transparent (they are monomorphemic:
> engem, téged) and thus the fact that they are reinforced is in line with
> this point.
>
> Another relevant fact is that loanwords are sometimes reinforced -
> presumably because they are non-transparent in the borrowing language. I
> cannot think of an inflectional example but non-inflectional ones are
> “pizza pie” and “gelato icecream”.
>
> Best,
>
> Edith Moravcsik
>
> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On Behalf Of
> Bernhard Wälchli
> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2019 3:33 PM
> To: Ponrawee Prasertsom <ponrawee.pra at gmail.com>;
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
>
> Dear all,
>
> Bill Croft treats the phenomena in question in his seminal book
> “Explaining Language Change” (2000: 134) under the heading of
> “cryptanalysis” (§5.5): “In cryptanalysis, the listener analyses a covert
> semantic/functional property of a syntactic unit as not grammatically
> marked, and inserts {obviously it is meant when turning into a speaker
> again, BW} an overt marker expressing its semantic value.” Some of the
> examples discussed on this list are given in Bill’s subsection §5.5.3
> “Pleonastic double marking / reinforcement”.
> I am actually not certain whether this is the only possible
> interpretation. The overt marker could be inserted because the speaker
> considers the semantic property not sufficiently marked. I do not think all
> speakers using reinforcement are unable to analyze the non-reinforced
> expression (despite frequent claims by purists that using pleonasms is
> stupid). A more general mechanism that can account for reinforcement -
> although not the sublte differences in politeness in Turkish - is Lüdtke’s
> model of quantitative language change. (Croft 2000: 159 discusses it as the
> “periphrasis-fusion-erosion” cycle.) According to Lüdtke, speech has to be
> redundant since it occurs in a noisy environment, and this entails in the
> long run three types of changes for saying the same thing which trigger
> each other: fewer phonemes (Croft’s term “erosion”), more morphemes
> (Croft’s “periphrasis”) and fewer morpheme boundaries (Croft’s “fusion”)
> for conveying the same message. So, aren’t the phenomena under discussion
> here just instances of this? As in the well-known development of French
> demonstratives from Latin:
> ista N > (ecce)ista N > (c)este N > cette N > cette N(-ci)
> hoc > (ecce)hoc > (ç)o > ço > ce > ce(la) > cela > ça
> However, probably there is more to it if we take phonology into account.
> It seems to me that it happens very rarely that a structure Y-x (with -x
> being the marker) is reinforced pleonastically with a phonologically
> identical marker: Y-x-x. This seems to be due to avoidance of subsequent
> identical sequences (there is also a diachronic process doing away with
> them: haplology, funnily except in the term itself). Indeed, in no example
> mentioned so far, the new reinforced structure is Y-x-x (with x being the
> same allomorph).
> Against such phonological considerations one might argue that the
> reinforcing element is usually (has to be ??) more transparent than the
> earlier exponent of the semantic category (otherwise the reinforced marker
> is not “crypto-”). However, more transparent exponents also tend to be more
> productive, and it is more likely that reinforcement is done by a
> productive strategy than by a non-productive strategy. After all, if the
> point of reinforcement is more clarity for the listener, it might be
> strange to use non-transparent markers for that purpose. Another
> interesting question is: why is it just morphologically marked categories
> that tend to be reinforced? (This might be relevant for the issue of
> typological markedness.) Does anybody have an example where a singular
> personal pronoun is reinforced by a singular marker? (There are certainly
> many cases of dual pronouns being reinforced by ‘two’ and the like). Note
> also that reinforcement may entail more complexity as when gender is
> introduced in pronouns: Spanish nos-otros/nos-otras ‘we’, Lithuanian ju-du
> ‘you(dual)-two[M]’, ju-dvi ‘you(dual)-two[F]’.
>
> So here are some claims (I’d love to see counter-examples)
> 1. Reinforcing morphemes are more transparent and productive than
> reinforced morphemes.
> 2. Reinforced and reinforcing morphemes are not the same allomorph.
> 3. Reinforcing (except purely phonetic reinforcing e.g. by stress) occurs
> at the periphery (by affixes, adjacent words, not by infixes, ablaut etc.).
> 4. Typologically unmarked categories are not reinforced. (This does not
> hold. For instance, Indo-European present -i is a counter example, so no
> counter-examples for this, please)
> 4b. Much weaker: singular personal pronouns are not reinforced by singular.
> 4c. Typologically unmarked categories are reinforced less often than
> typologically marked categories [possibly a tautology when considered from
> a pan-chronic perspective]
> (Note that 4b can be accounted for by frequency, whereas 4 cannot.)
> Hence 4d: Typologically unmarked categories are not reinforced in uses
> where they are relatively more frequent than their marked counterpart.
> 5. Short forms are reinforced more frequently than longer forms.
> 6. Transparently marked forms are less frequently reinforced than opaquely
> marked forms.
> 7. Reinforcement is more likely to happen in phrases consisting of one
> word than in phrases consisting of several words (thus we typologists is
> less prone to be reinforced than we).
>
> Lüdtke, Helmut (1980). Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des
> Sprachwandels. ‘Sprachwandel als universales Phänomen’, 1-19; ‘Auf dem Weg
> zu einer Theorie des Sprachwandels’, 182-252. Berlin: de Gruyter.
>
> Best,
> Bernhard W.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:
> lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of Ponrawee
> Prasertsom <ponrawee.pra at gmail.com<mailto:ponrawee.pra at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 5:01 PM
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: [Lingtyp] Plural markers on (already) plural pronouns
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have been looking at a number of Tai languages and found that in some of
> these languages, plural pronouns can optionally take a plural marker
> normally used on common nouns. For instance, in Shan (Southwestern Tai),
> the third person plural pronoun khau can optionally take the plural marker
> cɯ(nai), viz. khau cɯ(nai)--at least according to Cushing 1871.
>
> Assuming this analysis is correct (if it's not please kindly inform me),
> I'm wondering how rare this is for pronouns? A quick lookup revealed that a
> similar phenomenon called "double plural marking" is found in some
> languages, but seems to be restricted to common nouns only. Does anyone
> know of any other instances like this for pronouns in other languages?
>
> Sources: Cushing, Josiah Nelson. Grammar of the Shan Language. Rangoon:
> American Mission Press, 1871.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Ponrawee Prasertsom
>
> Graduate Student
> Department of Linguistics
> Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
> Bangkok, Thailand
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20191116/8146660f/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 62, Issue 12
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20191117/e6583e03/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list