Universal #257

Legacy number: 257

 Number  257
 Original  Among the most important morphological implications of the active languages are the following: diathesis of the active verb differentiates between centrifugal and non-centrifugal versions; nominal category of possession which distinguishes forms of alienable and inalienable possession; Aktionsart gradations of the verb in lieu of temporal ones.
 Standardized  IF alignment is predominantly active, THEN (i) verbal diathesis is in terms of centrifugal vs. non-centrifugal versions, (ii) possession in nouns is distinguished as alienable vs. inalienable, (iii) Aktionsart is distinguished on verbs rather than tense.
 Keywords  alignment, active, verb, diathesis, version, possession, alienable, inalienable, Aktionsart, tense
 Domain  inflection, syntax
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  absolute?
 Basis  languages in Klimov 1977, Klimov 1977 1983
 Source  Klimov 1977: 140, 144; Klimov 1983: 94

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Notes
1. Klimov stated the correlation between inalienable possession and stative-active languages. Nichols claims a correlation between alienable/inalienable opposition and head-marking possession (#1590). Nichols explains the association with the stative-active type as follows: since stative-active languages are generally head-marking (#437), it is to be expected that they will have head-marked possession in particular, and if they have head-marked possession it is to be expected that they will have an alienable/inalienable opposition (Nichols 1992: 122). [Why this latter expectation? ]2. All of Klimov's implications and frequentalia have a diachronic dimension, since class, active, ergative, accusative types are conceived of as developmental stages, following upon each other in this sequence.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
1. Klimov stated the correlation between inalienable possession and stative-active languages. Nichols claims a correlation between alienable/inalienable opposition and head-marking possession (<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1590"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">). Nichols explains the association with the stative-active type as follows: since stative-active languages are generally head-marking (<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=437"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">), it is to be expected that they will have head-marked possession in particular, and if they have head-marked possession it is to be expected that they will have an alienable/inalienable opposition (Nichols 1992: 122). [Why this latter expectation?]

2. All of Klimov's implications and frequentalia have a diachronic dimension, since class, active, ergative, accusative types are conceived of as developmental stages, following upon each other in this sequence.