7.687, Qs: Syntactic typology, E-mail in Yiddish, Etymology of streak

[The Linguist List]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-7-687. Sun May 12 1996. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  148
 
Subject: 7.687, Qs: Syntactic typology, E-mail in Yiddish, Etymology of streak
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu> (On Leave)
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <dseely at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Associate Editor:  Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Assistant Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
                   Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
                   Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Editor for this issue: dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu (Ann Dizdar)
 
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then  strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list.   This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
 
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Fri, 10 May 1996 10:26:25 PDT
From:  fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick Newmeyer)
Subject:  Syntactic typology and syntactic change
 
2)
Date:  Sat, 11 May 1996 10:29:14 +0900
From:  tsuguya at gol.com (Tsuguya Sasaki)
Subject:  E-mail in languages using non-Roman characters
 
3)
Date:  Sat, 11 May 1996 12:10:02 MDT
From:  hcannon at macalstr.edu (Heather Cannon)
Subject:  etymology of "streak"
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Fri, 10 May 1996 10:26:25 PDT
From:  fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick Newmeyer)
Subject:  Syntactic typology and syntactic change
 
This posting is meant both as a query and as a discussion piece. If
our goal is to explain why the languages of the world have the
typological distribution that they do (a goal shared by both
'structuralists' and 'functionalists'), we want to be reasonably sure
that the typological generalizations we take as the explananda are
real generalizations and not merely artifacts of sampling method or
some built-in, but dubious, assumption. As Matthew Dryer has shown in
several papers, to insure this is not so easy. He has shown that just
taking a 'random sample' of the world's languages will not give us the
right typological generalizations, due to the accidental fact of
history that some language families are much bigger than others. So, a
random sample of languages will give us about equal percentages of SVO
and SOV, with most of the remainder VSO. But as Dryer points out, 71%
of VSO languages are in one family (Austronesian) and 40% of SVO
languages are in one family (Niger-Congo). Correcting for this fact
(to the extent that it is possible to do so), SOV order is by far the
predominant one.
 
Dryer proposes a sampling method to correct for skewed sizes of
language families, which is not my purpose to discuss here. Rather, I
wish to point out that there is another potential way to test whether
typological generalizations are 'real'. Suppose that 70% of languages
have syntactic feature 'X' and 30% of languages have feature 'Y',
where not having X implies Y, and not having Y implies X. We want to
know if the 70%-30% split reflects something meaningful. Then, all
other things being equal, IN SYNTACTIC CHANGE, we should find X
arising somewhat more than twice as often as we find Y arising.
 
Does anybody know / has anything been written on whether such
predictions are borne out for attested (not reconstructed!) syntactic
changes in the world's languages for whatever typological feature? My
impression is that for basic word order change, the prediction fails
miserably. That is, it is my impression (am I right?) that there are
many more attested examples of SVO order arising than SOV order
arising. This despite the conclusion that there is something 'real'
(i.e. something to be explained) about a preference for SOV order.
 
The problem, of course, is that there are very few languages whose
development we can study for longer than a century, and they are
almost all in just a few language families. So, if attested SOV -> SVO
is more common than attested SVO -> SOV, that might merely be an
accidental consequence of what we have documented for us in the
historical record.
 
Would anybody care to comment on this general problem in a Linguist
List posting?
 
Fritz Newmeyer
fjn at u.washington.edu
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:  Sat, 11 May 1996 10:29:14 +0900
From:  tsuguya at gol.com (Tsuguya Sasaki)
Subject:  E-mail in languages using non-Roman characters
 
Dear linguists,
 
We, some Hebraishts-cum-Yiddishists in the cyberspace, are discussing
about and searching for the best way to send and receive e-mail in
Yiddish using Hebrew characters (including all diacritical marks
specific to Yiddish). For the time being we are exchanging our
messages in Romanized Yiddish.
 
We are interested to know how other less-known languages which use
non-Roman characters are struggling with the problem of sending and
receiving e-mail in their original characters. I should be grateful if
you would inform us of the state of the art in your language(s). I
will report about the answers here after a while.
 
Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Tsuguya Sasaki
Doctoral Student, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Research Fellow, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Kyoto =
University)
tsuguya at gol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date:  Sat, 11 May 1996 12:10:02 MDT
From:  hcannon at macalstr.edu (Heather Cannon)
Subject:  etymology of "streak"
 
Members,
 
        I am trying to find the etymology of the phrase "to streak",
meaning to run naked.  A prof here at Macalester College claims that
the phrase originated here, but I can't find any proof to back that up
- or to disprove it.  The dictionaries I have checked don't even list
this as a meaning of "streak" so I guess it's slang, though certainly
in common usage -- especially here at Mac where it's a popular
pasttime. :)
 
Any help or leads would be very much appreciated.
 
Thank you.
 
Heather Cannon
hcannon at macalstr.edu
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-7-687.