[Lingtyp] Remind-Me particles across languages

Tue Apr 1 22:01:29 UTC 2025

Dear Jeanne,

What an interesting question, I am glad someone is looking into this.

In Chini (Lower Sepik-Ramu, Papua New Guinea), there are a few things to
note. (1) The adverb nuvkunI 'again' is used (using I for barred i here,
IPA symbols dont show up on the listserv). There is also a grammaticalized
form of this word, nI,  a clitic that attaches to the verb complex. It is
not to my knowledge used in this type of situation. (2) Depending on what
is meant, the irrealis plural form of the question word for 'what' mikngi
(as opposed to the more common paucal form, mIyi) may be used together with
nuvkunI in this circumstance, for ex in the following sentence, here a
reminder question the speaker was posing to herself. (mikngi more or less
translates as 'what out of all possibilities'.)

ku nuvkunI agIyikI mikngi achina?
ku nuvkunI agI-yi=kI m-i-kngi achi-n-a?
1SG.NOM again go.upriver-R.PC=CNT.R DIST-IRR-PL\what do.IRR-NMLZ.IRR.PFV-Q.R
'What was it I was going to go upriver (and) do again?'

Note the remind-me usage of nuvkunI isn't found in verbless clauses. In the
example you give, when asking for a reminder of someone's name (something
which a fieldworker necessarily asks a lot..) you say simply "What (lit.
where) is her/his name ("again")? nggI yigI ma? [3SG.POSS name where]

Cheers
Joseph

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 11:17 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
>         https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/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: A plea for productive & respectful rhetoric
>       (Wesley Kuhron Jones)
>    2. Re: Remind-Me particles across languages (David Gil)
>    3. Re: A plea for productive & respectful rhetoric (Patrik Austin)
>    4. Re: A plea for productive & respectful rhetoric (PONSONNET Maia)
>    5. New books published: A guide to gender and classifiers and
>       Clause chaining in the languages of the world (Alexandra Aikhenvald)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:54:51 +0000
> From: Wesley Kuhron Jones <wesleykuhronjones at gmail.com>
> To: Cat Butz <Cat.Butz at hhu.de>
> Cc: Adam Singerman <adamsingerman at gmail.com>,
>         lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A plea for productive & respectful rhetoric
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAO+vHGcFNBw4uudg4QGXM4caJJGMCk3N+Trov-kx-Nmefa5gHw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Adam and Cat,
>
> Thank y'all for putting into words much of what I was also thinking. Since
> y'all have addressed some of the content and the spirit of scientific
> inquiry, I'd like to address the delivery.
>
> I gather, from what Patrik has written, that he wants humanity to have a
> better understanding of language. But if you want to truly serve that goal,
> emotionally intelligent communication matters a lot. Approaching your
> interlocutors in a spirit of understanding and kindness is important, so
> that they are more receptive to what you want to show them. Our intellect
> is inextricably intertwined with our emotions, a fact that I long resented
> but have now come to embrace. While some may say that we should pay
> attention to the idea regardless of its delivery, the fact of the matter is
> that humans do not work this way most of the time. Humans are less likely
> to listen to you when you speak in aggressive and condescending ways. Using
> language that puts people on guard thus does a disservice to the goal of
> furthering knowledge and understanding. If you value the ideas over your
> own ego, then behaving compassionately will increase the probability of
> people listening to your message and taking it to heart.
>
> (This is leaving aside the myriad other benefits of practicing compassion.)
>
> And I hope that the way I've presented this message does not come across as
> condescending, which would negate my whole point. I see much of my past
> anger in you, Patrik, and I hope some of my words can stay with you and
> help you.
>
> Best wishes (and I mean it),
> Wesley Kuhron Jones
> Ph.D. student, University of Oregon
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:14?PM Cat Butz via Lingtyp <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > If the rest of the mailing list is anything like me, they're probably
> > just as uncomfortable with the messages as you, and think that what you
> > expressed in your plea goes without saying, which are two reasons to
> > just keep our mouths shut in disapproval, but now that you've made it
> > explicit, I might as well second you. I don't think the kind of anger
> > that speaks through Patrik's rhetoric should be what fuels scientific
> > discourse, and makes it harder to take it seriously. In any case,
> > Patrik, if your claims are true, they will hopefully be integrated into
> > linguistics regardless of your delivery of them.
> >
> > Warmest,
> > ---
> > Cat Butz (she)
> > HHU D?sseldorf
> > General Linguistics
> >
> >
> > Am 31/03/2025 00:07, schrieb Adam Singerman via Lingtyp:
> > > I am writing in response to Patrik Austin's message to LingTyp from
> > > Tuesday, March 25th, in which several different research traditions
> > > were disparaged using rhetoric that is at best simply not collegial
> > > and at worst counterproductive to our collective efforts as linguists.
> > > Patrik's message contained several comments which I think need to be
> > > called out, since if we allow this kind of rhetoric to take hold on
> > > LingTyp (or in our scholarly spaces in general) we will be unable to
> > > make progress towards our overall goal as linguists, which is to
> > > understand individual languages as well as capitalized Language in all
> > > its richness and complexity.
> > >
> > > I should say at the outset that I have been trained primarily in
> > > formal analysis & theory (generative syntax, generative phonology,
> > > Distributed Morphology) and while I agree with many of the goals of
> > > formal analysis & theory, I often find diachronic explanations for
> > > synchronic patterns to be more convincing and satisfying than
> > > formalist ones. (I enjoy teaching historical linguistics much more
> > > than I enjoy teaching syntactic analysis, for example.) So please do
> > > not think that I am writing this message because I am a practicioner
> > > of any particular formalist school of thought. On the contrary, I
> > > think that we ned to approach questions from different angles using
> > > the analytic tools provided by different schools of thought.
> > >
> > > Here are two comments from Patrik's message which bothered me:
> > > (1) "A summary shows that syntactic typology is BS, to put it politely"
> > > (2) "Figure 3... shows how not just syntactic typology but also
> > > Generative Grammar is BS, which everyone of course always knew"
> > >
> > > Both "syntactic typology" and "Generative Grammar" are *scientific
> > > research programs* in the sense of Lakatos. Hundreds if not thousands
> > > of linguists have made contributions to each of these research
> > > programs over the course of many, many decades, and some linguists
> > > have worked in both of these programs. In my experience the best
> > > linguists are ones who recognize that we will need formal AND
> > > functional explanations; it is an open question whether a given
> > > phenomenon is best explained formally or functionally, which is where
> > > a lot of the most interesting debate happens. Now, it is definitely
> > > the case that many individual *hypotheses* that have been formulated
> > > within the research program known as syntactic typology, just as it is
> > > surely the case that many individual *hypotheses* formulated within
> > > the research program of formal analysis/theory ("Generative Grammar")
> > > are false. This is how science progresses: hypotheses are formulated,
> > > are tested, and are falsified, and we discard the falsified ones. But
> > > to say that all of syntactic typology and all of Generative Grammar
> > > are BS is far too coarse and far too negative a judgment. Both of
> > > these research programs contain valuable insights, and to call them
> > > both bull**** is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> > >
> > > Finally, I want to respond to the following comment:
> > > (3) "linguistics is a farce, a status game, a broken system, and
> > > people doing it are hostages to the system with little will of their
> > > own. It is a sad, pathetic world, and no one can fix it because all
> > > participants are economically and emotionally tied to it."
> > >
> > > Once we make this kind of assertion, which disparages not only the
> > > research being done but also the people who do the research, we leave
> > > the territory of collegial, civil scientific discourse and enter a
> > > world of ad hominem attacks.
> > >
> > > I do think it is fair for someone to say that, in their opinion, too
> > > many resources (jobs, grants, PhD scholarships, publications in top
> > > journals, etc) have been devoted to a particular school of linguistics
> > > over another, and that our entire field would do better if there were
> > > to be more balance between the subfields. (For example, I think that
> > > more departments in the US should have historical linguists on
> > > faculty, and I think that all graduate students being trained in
> > > synchronic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc should have
> > > to take at least one semester of historical linguistics, too.) But to
> > > say that our entire field is "a farce, a status game, a broken system"
> > > ? and that all the researchers who work within this field are
> > > "hostages" who lack free will ? is not respectful or productive.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Adam
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Lingtyp mailing list
> > > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250331/9f876909/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 14:14:07 +0900
> From: David Gil <dapiiiiit at gmail.com>
> To: Jeanne Lecavelier des Etangs-Levallois
>         <lecavelierde at uni-potsdam.de>
> Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Remind-Me particles across languages
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAEoKyV9FbWxsyhnVefW5t3Kc5tG3zXfUSbmYCCkm_WaF3k4UNA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> In colloquial varieties of Indonesian, the form *tadi*, whose primary
> function is as a marker of proximal past time, can also be used in this
> context.  So for example:
>
> Siapa nama tadi
> who name PST.PROX
> (i) 'What was your name just before?' (but may have since changed, less
> likely reading)
> (ii) 'What's your name' (which you told me just before but I've since
> forgotten, more likely reading)
>
> David
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 7:00?PM Jeanne Lecavelier des Etangs-Levallois via
> Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> >   I am currently looking at Remind-Me particles (particles which express
> > that the speaker is asking for an information they used to know but
> > forgot,
> > like English "again" in "What's your name again?") across languages.
> > Specifically, I am interested in Remind-Me particles (i) which have
> > another
> > (canonical) meaning when used in other contexts, and (ii) whose
> > other/canonical meaning is not "again".
> >
> > For instance, French Remind-Me particle is "d?j?" ("already"): "Comment
> tu
> > t'appelles toi d?j? ?" (literally "What's your name already?") is
> > interpreted as "What's your name again? (I forgot)".
> >
> > If you know of any such particle (which can have a Remind-Me use, and
> > which
> > does not mean "again") in your native language or the language(s) you're
> > working on, please write to me :-)
> >
> > Many thanks for your help!
> > Best,
> > Jeanne Lecavelier
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
>
>
> --
>
> David Gil
>
> Senior Scientist (Associate)
> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
> Deutscher Platz 6, Leipzig, 04103, Germany
>
> Email: dapiiiiit at gmail.com
> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-082113720302
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/d9baa5af/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 09:51:58 +0200
> From: Patrik Austin <patrik.austin at gmail.com>
> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A plea for productive & respectful rhetoric
> Message-ID:
>         <CAJinr86wc86ZxDsjh_wZkHkApOvJrW2OQDALO5Eiz6T=
> F78tdg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Yes, let us discuss it constructively. What is the problem in linguistics
> that led to broken research, in your opinion?
>
>
>
> Am 31/03/2025 00:07, schrieb Adam Singerman via Lingtyp:
> > I am writing in response to Patrik Austin's message to LingTyp from
> > Tuesday, March 25th, in which several different research traditions
> > were disparaged using rhetoric that is at best simply not collegial
> > and at worst counterproductive to our collective efforts as linguists.
> > Patrik's message contained several comments which I think need to be
> > called out, since if we allow this kind of rhetoric to take hold on
> > LingTyp (or in our scholarly spaces in general) we will be unable to
> > make progress towards our overall goal as linguists, which is to
> > understand individual languages as well as capitalized Language in all
> > its richness and complexity.
> >
> > I should say at the outset that I have been trained primarily in
> > formal analysis & theory (generative syntax, generative phonology,
> > Distributed Morphology) and while I agree with many of the goals of
> > formal analysis & theory, I often find diachronic explanations for
> > synchronic patterns to be more convincing and satisfying than
> > formalist ones. (I enjoy teaching historical linguistics much more
> > than I enjoy teaching syntactic analysis, for example.) So please do
> > not think that I am writing this message because I am a practicioner
> > of any particular formalist school of thought. On the contrary, I
> > think that we ned to approach questions from different angles using
> > the analytic tools provided by different schools of thought.
> >
> > Here are two comments from Patrik's message which bothered me:
> > (1) "A summary shows that syntactic typology is BS, to put it politely"
> > (2) "Figure 3... shows how not just syntactic typology but also
> > Generative Grammar is BS, which everyone of course always knew"
> >
> > Both "syntactic typology" and "Generative Grammar" are *scientific
> > research programs* in the sense of Lakatos. Hundreds if not thousands
> > of linguists have made contributions to each of these research
> > programs over the course of many, many decades, and some linguists
> > have worked in both of these programs. In my experience the best
> > linguists are ones who recognize that we will need formal AND
> > functional explanations; it is an open question whether a given
> > phenomenon is best explained formally or functionally, which is where
> > a lot of the most interesting debate happens. Now, it is definitely
> > the case that many individual *hypotheses* that have been formulated
> > within the research program known as syntactic typology, just as it is
> > surely the case that many individual *hypotheses* formulated within
> > the research program of formal analysis/theory ("Generative Grammar")
> > are false. This is how science progresses: hypotheses are formulated,
> > are tested, and are falsified, and we discard the falsified ones. But
> > to say that all of syntactic typology and all of Generative Grammar
> > are BS is far too coarse and far too negative a judgment. Both of
> > these research programs contain valuable insights, and to call them
> > both bull**** is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> >
> > Finally, I want to respond to the following comment:
> > (3) "linguistics is a farce, a status game, a broken system, and
> > people doing it are hostages to the system with little will of their
> > own. It is a sad, pathetic world, and no one can fix it because all
> > participants are economically and emotionally tied to it."
> >
> > Once we make this kind of assertion, which disparages not only the
> > research being done but also the people who do the research, we leave
> > the territory of collegial, civil scientific discourse and enter a
> > world of ad hominem attacks.
> >
> > I do think it is fair for someone to say that, in their opinion, too
> > many resources (jobs, grants, PhD scholarships, publications in top
> > journals, etc) have been devoted to a particular school of linguistics
> > over another, and that our entire field would do better if there were
> > to be more balance between the subfields. (For example, I think that
> > more departments in the US should have historical linguists on
> > faculty, and I think that all graduate students being trained in
> > synchronic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc should have
> > to take at least one semester of historical linguistics, too.) But to
> > say that our entire field is "a farce, a status game, a broken system"
> > ? and that all the researchers who work within this field are
> > "hostages" who lack free will ? is not respectful or productive.
> >
> > Best,
> > Adam
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/eada098d/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 08:24:10 +0000
> From: PONSONNET Maia <maia.ponsonnet at cnrs.fr>
> To: Patrik Austin <patrik.austin at gmail.com>, Lingtyp Linguistics
>         Typology <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A plea for productive & respectful rhetoric
> Message-ID: <fcd6d56a7eaf45f2af49261bee37178a at cnrs.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Patrick, dear all,
>
>
> I agree that it is useful to question our activities, and that it must be
> done constructively.
>
>
> One first question I'd have for you Patrick (and others as well): are your
> criticisms addressed to linguistics specifically, or would they also apply
> to other scientific disciplines? Social sciences and humanities? Hard
> sciences?
>
>
> Cheers and thanks for the debate, Ma?a
>
>
> Ma?a Ponsonnet
>
> Charg?e de Recherche HDR @ CNRS Dynamique Du Langage
>
> 14, avenue Berthelot, 69007 Lyon, FRANCE  -- +33 4 72 72 65 46
>
> Adjunct @ University of Western Australia
>
> + + + + +
>
> Co-r?dactrice en chef du Journal de la Soci?t? des Oc?anistes
>
> https://journals.openedition.org/jso/
>
> Membre du Comit? d'Ethique de la Recherche, Universit? de Lyon
>
> <
> https://www.universite-lyon.fr/recherche/comite-d-ethique-de-la-recherche/comite-d-ethique-de-la-recherche-245561.kjsp
> >
>
> https://tinyurl.com/cerunivdelyon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De : Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> de la part de
> Patrik Austin via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Envoy? : mardi 1 avril 2025 09:51
> ? : lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Objet : Re: [Lingtyp] A plea for productive & respectful rhetoric
>
> Yes, let us discuss it constructively. What is the problem in linguistics
> that led to broken research, in your opinion?
>
> Am 31/03/2025 00:07, schrieb Adam Singerman via Lingtyp:
> > I am writing in response to Patrik Austin's message to LingTyp from
> > Tuesday, March 25th, in which several different research traditions
> > were disparaged using rhetoric that is at best simply not collegial
> > and at worst counterproductive to our collective efforts as linguists.
> > Patrik's message contained several comments which I think need to be
> > called out, since if we allow this kind of rhetoric to take hold on
> > LingTyp (or in our scholarly spaces in general) we will be unable to
> > make progress towards our overall goal as linguists, which is to
> > understand individual languages as well as capitalized Language in all
> > its richness and complexity.
> >
> > I should say at the outset that I have been trained primarily in
> > formal analysis & theory (generative syntax, generative phonology,
> > Distributed Morphology) and while I agree with many of the goals of
> > formal analysis & theory, I often find diachronic explanations for
> > synchronic patterns to be more convincing and satisfying than
> > formalist ones. (I enjoy teaching historical linguistics much more
> > than I enjoy teaching syntactic analysis, for example.) So please do
> > not think that I am writing this message because I am a practicioner
> > of any particular formalist school of thought. On the contrary, I
> > think that we ned to approach questions from different angles using
> > the analytic tools provided by different schools of thought.
> >
> > Here are two comments from Patrik's message which bothered me:
> > (1) "A summary shows that syntactic typology is BS, to put it politely"
> > (2) "Figure 3... shows how not just syntactic typology but also
> > Generative Grammar is BS, which everyone of course always knew"
> >
> > Both "syntactic typology" and "Generative Grammar" are *scientific
> > research programs* in the sense of Lakatos. Hundreds if not thousands
> > of linguists have made contributions to each of these research
> > programs over the course of many, many decades, and some linguists
> > have worked in both of these programs. In my experience the best
> > linguists are ones who recognize that we will need formal AND
> > functional explanations; it is an open question whether a given
> > phenomenon is best explained formally or functionally, which is where
> > a lot of the most interesting debate happens. Now, it is definitely
> > the case that many individual *hypotheses* that have been formulated
> > within the research program known as syntactic typology, just as it is
> > surely the case that many individual *hypotheses* formulated within
> > the research program of formal analysis/theory ("Generative Grammar")
> > are false. This is how science progresses: hypotheses are formulated,
> > are tested, and are falsified, and we discard the falsified ones. But
> > to say that all of syntactic typology and all of Generative Grammar
> > are BS is far too coarse and far too negative a judgment. Both of
> > these research programs contain valuable insights, and to call them
> > both bull**** is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> >
> > Finally, I want to respond to the following comment:
> > (3) "linguistics is a farce, a status game, a broken system, and
> > people doing it are hostages to the system with little will of their
> > own. It is a sad, pathetic world, and no one can fix it because all
> > participants are economically and emotionally tied to it."
> >
> > Once we make this kind of assertion, which disparages not only the
> > research being done but also the people who do the research, we leave
> > the territory of collegial, civil scientific discourse and enter a
> > world of ad hominem attacks.
> >
> > I do think it is fair for someone to say that, in their opinion, too
> > many resources (jobs, grants, PhD scholarships, publications in top
> > journals, etc) have been devoted to a particular school of linguistics
> > over another, and that our entire field would do better if there were
> > to be more balance between the subfields. (For example, I think that
> > more departments in the US should have historical linguists on
> > faculty, and I think that all graduate students being trained in
> > synchronic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc should have
> > to take at least one semester of historical linguistics, too.) But to
> > say that our entire field is "a farce, a status game, a broken system"
> > ? and that all the researchers who work within this field are
> > "hostages" who lack free will ? is not respectful or productive.
> >
> > Best,
> > Adam
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> > https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/aaedee4e/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 10:14:13 +0000
> From: Alexandra Aikhenvald <a.y.aikhenvald at live.com>
> To: "LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
>         <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> Subject: [Lingtyp] New books published: A guide to gender and
>         classifiers and Clause chaining in the languages of the world
> Message-ID:
>         <
> PN0PR01MB9320139BADCC496A65FF99A4A4A02 at PN0PR01MB9320.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear colleagues
>
> I would like to share with you discount flyers for two recently published
> books, both from Oxford University Press:
>
> A guide to gender and classifiers, by myself
>
> https://academic.oup.com/book/59732
>
> and Clause chaining in the languages of the world, edited by Hannah
> Sarvasy and myself,
> https://academic.oup.com/book/59261?login=false
>
> (Hannah has already shared the info with you all).
>
> A guide to gender and classifiers, published in March 2025 (25 years after
> my Classifiers: a typology of noun categorization devices, OUP, 2000, pb.
> 2003), contains a new approach to noun categorization (all fact based).
>
> I continue to work on this topic, and a more comprehensive (and longer!)
> book is in the making.
>
> Hope you enjoy the discounts and the reading.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Sacha
>
>
>
> Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, PhD, DLitt, FAHA, FQAAS, MAE
>
> Professorial Research Fellow and Australian Laureate Fellow
>
> Jawun Centre (formerly Centre for Indigenous Health Equity Research),
> Central Queensland University
>
> Cairns, Queensland, Australia
>
> Foundation Director of the Language and Culture Research Centre (JCU)
>
> Consultant, OED (South American languages)
>
> phone 61-400305315
>
> http://www.aikhenvaldlinguistics.com/;
>
> https://staff-profiles.cqu.edu.au/home/view/25682<
> https://mcas-proxyweb.mcas.ms/certificate-checker?login=false&originalUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fstaff-profiles.cqu.edu.au.mcas.ms%2Fhome%2Fview%2F25682%3FMcasTsid%3D20893
> >
>
>
> https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/view/all/ADD43F35E4ED54959A3F28C152248725.html
>
> https://www.ae-info.org/ae/Member/Aikhenvald_Alexandraalternative e-mail:
> a.aikhenvald at cqu.edu.au, nyamamayratakw at gmail.com, goldagorb at yahoo.com
>
> Serial Verbs                  The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality
>
> By Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
> Edited By Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
>
> Now available from Oxford University Press<
> https://global.oup.com/academic/product/serial-verbs-9780198791263?cc=au&lang=en&>
>                Now available from Oxford University Press<
> https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-evidentiality-9780198759515?cc=au&lang=en&
> >
>
> [Sig1]<
> https://global.oup.com/academic/product/serial-verbs-9780198791263?cc=au&lang=en&>
>           [Sig2] <
> https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-evidentiality-9780198759515?cc=au&lang=en&
> >
>
> My new book is https://profilebooks.com/work/i-saw-the-dog<
> https://profilebooks.com/work/i-saw-the-dog/>.
>
>
> [cid:630130ce-8375-4912-bb3b-44fbb541442e]
> ________________________________
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/fffa8127/attachment.htm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Outlook-Sig1.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 101702 bytes
> Desc: Outlook-Sig1.png
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/fffa8127/attachment.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Outlook-Sig2.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 107493 bytes
> Desc: Outlook-Sig2.png
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/fffa8127/attachment-0001.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Outlook-eyv2uti4.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 6948 bytes
> Desc: Outlook-eyv2uti4.png
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/fffa8127/attachment-0002.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: A guide to gender and classifiers 9780198863601-discount (1).pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 1297415 bytes
> Desc: A guide to gender and classifiers 9780198863601-discount (1).pdf
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/fffa8127/attachment.pdf
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: A guide to gender and classifiers 9780198863601-discount.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 360547 bytes
> Desc: A guide to gender and classifiers 9780198863601-discount.png
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/fffa8127/attachment-0003.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Clause chaining 9780198870319.pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 3275363 bytes
> Desc: Clause chaining 9780198870319.pdf
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/fffa8127/attachment-0001.pdf
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Clause chaining 9780198870319-chapter.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 355524 bytes
> Desc: Clause chaining 9780198870319-chapter.png
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/fffa8127/attachment-0004.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Clause chaining 9780198870319-discount media.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 413553 bytes
> Desc: Clause chaining 9780198870319-discount media.png
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250401/fffa8127/attachment-0005.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 127, Issue 1
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250402/664d3bd6/attachment.htm>