9.341, Disc: Russian Syntax

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-9-341. Sat Mar 7 1998. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 9.341, Disc: Russian Syntax

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors:  	    Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
		    Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
		    Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>
                    Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
                    Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:26:46 -0800
From:  Lotoshko Yurij <Yurij.Lotoshko at tversu.ru>
Subject:  Re: 9.249, Sum: Russian Syntax

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 03 Mar 1998 14:26:46 -0800
From:  Lotoshko Yurij <Yurij.Lotoshko at tversu.ru>
Subject:  Re: 9.249, Sum: Russian Syntax

> I must have missed the original query, but I would like to take
> exception to the idea that Russian is "basically SVO".  First of
> all, this seems to confuse theoretical and factual issues, since in
> many theories a language can be "basically" X and "superficially" Y,
> where X and Y are distinct (e.g., unless I am much mistaken there is
> hardly anyone other than me who does not accept the idea that within
> generative approaches to syntax Dutch and German basically are
> non-SVO, even though in another sense of the word "basically" they
> are precisely SVO).  Second, and perhaps even more importantly, it
> is by no mean clear, and certainly highly theory-dependent, whether
> Russian has any "basic" word order statable in terms of the
> primitives S,V, and O.  In fact, I dont think that this is the case
> at all, and any theory which requires it to be the case deserves to
> be scrapped.  It is likely that reference to 'S' and 'V' maybe
> necessary, but I dont know that this is true of 'O', and certainly
> reference to these three is not sufficient.


Only some examples:

>>From A. Blok (12 - poems)

Noch. Ulica. Fonar'. Apteka. ( 4 sent!!!! there no Verbs).
- -------------------

Xolodno. Temno. Nespit'sja --> 3 sent there no Sub. (podlezhashtego)


>AMR

-
All in Russian codepade 1251: TvGU (Tver State University)

Rossija, 17002, Tver, pr.Cajkovskogo, 70, Filfak, kafedra russkogo
	jazyka

http://www.tversu.ac.ru/Region/Education/TSU/Russian/persons/5034.ru.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-9-341