Universal 9: Proper Common ⇒ N G, Common Proper ⇒ G N
Original
If in apposition the proper noun usually precedes the common noun, then the language is one in which the governing noun precedes its dependent genitive. With much better than chance frequency, if the common noun usually precedes the proper noun, the dependent genitive precedes its governing noun.
Standardized
IF in apposition the proper noun usually precedes the common noun, THEN the head noun precedes the attributive noun. IF in apposition the common noun usually precedes the proper noun, THEN, with much better than chance frequency, the attributive noun precedes the head noun.
Slavic languages are mentioned in the Russian translation of Greenberg 1963 as counterexamples to part 2.In Old English (Germanic, IE), proper nouns precede their appositive common nouns in close-knit apposition (e.g., Ælfred cyning ‘Alfred king’; when the common noun is accompanied by a determiner and/or modifier, however, the order can be reversed: ‘the good king Alfred’ or ‘Alfred the good king’); genitives can precede or follow their heads (or also be split up: ‘with God’s help the almighty’s’), but a good case can be made for pre-head position of genitives being more common/basic.The eventual reversal of the order in apposition has been claimed to have been inspired by a single, culturally salient Latin model borrowed into Old English: Dominus Christ ‘Lord Christ’. Conceivably, left to its own devices, English might thus have continued to infringe on this universal.
See also #10 — to be DELETED.Greenberg’s Note 19:Languages with common noun–proper noun are Greek, Guarani, Italian, Malay, Serbian, Swahili, Thai, Welsh, Zapotec. Those with proper noun–common noun are Basque, Burmese, Burushaski, Finnish, Japanese, Norwegian, Nubian, and Turkish.*****Concerning the counterexample status of Old English, perhaps the universal shouldn’t really be assumed to apply to such personal name constructions in the first place. They consist of a term of address (title or kin term) as the common part and a personal name as the proper part (e.g., King Alfred, Captain Ahab, Master Copperfield, Father Christmas, Uncle Joe); they are NOT diachronically derivative of constructions consisting of head noun and an attributive nominal. The universal might have to be limited to name constructions which ARE diachronically derivative, such as for places and times, as copiously exemplified in English (New York State, Calton Hill, Cramond Island, Wivenhoe Park, London Town, Tower Bridge, George Square, David Hume Tower, Scotland Yard, Edinburgh University, etc.). Assuming that attributive genitives used to be pre-head in earlier English (as ‘s genitives still are), and assuming further that the actual source of these appositive name constructions were attributive constructions, with the attributive marker dropped (Hudson’s Bay > Hudson Bay, Humboldt’s Current > Humboldt Current, Princes’ Street > Princes Street), one would expect the ordering to remain the same. The correlation that Greenberg states as an achronic universal would thus be of a diachronic nature: as one construction (attribution) is reanalysed as another construction (close apposition), the ordering of the parts of these constructions remains unaltered. (Greenberg does reckon with some sort of a diachronic connection: constructions of the type of ‘City X’ are said to be possibly “assimilated” to genitive constructions, ‘the city of X’, “and may therefore be expected to show a similar order”. My claim here is that they are diachronically derived from genitive constructions, and for this reason alone — without any achronic universal demanding such harmony, but from simple inertia — may be expected to show a similar order.) Among place names, those with River (River Thames), Lake (Lake Windermere), Loch (Loch Ness), Cape (Cape Horn), and Mount (Mount Everest) deviate from the otherwise unexceptional Proper–Common pattern in Modern English. They retain the ordering in the source languages of these borrowed common nouns, namely French (perhaps Latin) and Gaelic.
See also #10 — to be DELETED.Greenberg’s Note 19:Languages with common noun–proper noun are Greek, Guarani, Italian, Malay, Serbian, Swahili, Thai, Welsh, Zapotec. Those with proper noun–common noun are Basque, Burmese, Burushaski, Finnish, Japanese, Norwegian, Nubian, and Turkish.*****Concerning the counterexample status of Old English, perhaps the universal shouldn’t really be assumed to apply to such personal name constructions in the first place. They consist of a term of address (title or kin term) as the common part and a personal name as the proper part (e.g., King Alfred, Captain Ahab, Master Copperfield, Father Christmas, Uncle Joe); they are NOT diachronically derivative of constructions consisting of head noun and an attributive nominal. The universal might have to be limited to name constructions which ARE diachronically derivative, such as for places and times, as copiously exemplified in English (New York State, Calton Hill, Cramond Island, Wivenhoe Park, London Town, Tower Bridge, George Square, David Hume Tower, Scotland Yard, Edinburgh University, etc.). Assuming that attributive genitives used to be pre-head in earlier English (as ‘s genitives still are), and assuming further that the actual source of these appositive name constructions were attributive constructions, with the attributive marker dropped (Hudson’s Bay > Hudson Bay, Humboldt’s Current > Humboldt Current, Princes’ Street > Princes Street), one would expect the ordering to remain the same. The correlation that Greenberg states as an achronic universal would thus be of a diachronic nature: as one construction (attribution) is reanalysed as another construction (close apposition), the ordering of the parts of these constructions remains unaltered. (Greenberg does reckon with some sort of a diachronic connection: constructions of the type of ‘City X’ are said to be possibly “assimilated” to genitive constructions, ‘the city of X’, “and may therefore be expected to show a similar order”. My claim here is that they are diachronically derived from genitive constructions, and for this reason alone — without any achronic universal demanding such harmony, but from simple inertia — may be expected to show a similar order.) Among place names, those with River (River Thames), Lake (Lake Windermere), Loch (Loch Ness), Cape (Cape Horn), and Mount (Mount Everest) deviate from the otherwise unexceptional Proper–Common pattern in Modern English. They retain the ordering in the source languages of these borrowed common nouns, namely French (perhaps Latin) and Gaelic.