Universal #1921
Legacy number: 1921
| Number | 1915 |
| Original | The lack of semantically significant determiners seems to be a property of the polysynthetic languages as a class. |
| Standardized | IF there is polysynthesis, THEN there are no semantically significant determiners. |
| Formula | polysynthesis ⇒ ¬ semantically significant determiners |
| Keywords | polysynthesis, determiner |
| Domain | inflection, syntax |
| Type | implication |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | statistical |
| Basis | Polysynthetic languages like Mohawk (Iroquoian), Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan), Kiowa (Kiowa- Tanoan), Gunwinjguan (Gunwingguan, Australian), Wichita (Caddoan), Chukchi (Chukchi-Kamchatkan), Ainu (isolate). Non-polysynthetic languages like Greenlandic (Eskimo-Aleut), Lakhota (Siouan), Slave (Athabaskan), Alamblak (Sepik-Ramu), Chichewa (Bantoid, Niger-Congo), Choctaw (Muskogean) |
| Source | Baker 1996: 253 |
Discussion
Counterexamples
Bininj Gun-wok (Australian) where demonstratives clearly function as determiners (Evans 2002: 29)
Notes
POLYSYNTHESIS: roughly, noun incorporation and bound agreement/cross-reference markers for subject and object(s) on the verb.What is "semantically significant"?
Log in to join the discussion.
What is "semantically significant"?