Universal #73
Legacy number: 73
| Number | 73 |
| Original | If the demonstrative determiner follows the noun, then the adjective follows the noun. |
| Standardized | IF the demonstrative determiner follows the noun, THEN the adjective follows the noun. OR, BY CONTRAPOSITION: IF the adjective precedes the noun, THEN the demonstrative determiner precedes the noun. |
| Formula | N Dem ⇒ N A; equivalently: A N ⇒ Dem N |
| Keywords | order, noun, demonstrative, adjective |
| Domain | syntax |
| Type | implication |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | statistical (according to author absolute) |
| Basis | sample of 350 languages in Hawkins 1983 |
| Source | Hawkins 1983: 82 |
Discussion
Counterexamples
A N & N Dem: Tojolabal and Tzotzil (both Mayan) (Pickett 1983: 543).Berbice Dutch Creole; Mangbetu (C. Sudanic, Nilo-Saharan) [but see Comments], the latter is also a language with A N & N Num (Rijkhoff 1992: 257). Gbaya Kaka, Nzakara, Gbeya Bossangoa, Sango, Linda (all Adamawa-Ubangian, Niger-Congo); Majang (Surmic, Nilo-Saharan), Kresh (Bongo-Bagirmi, Nilo-Saharan); Gude (Biu-Mandara, Chadic, Afroasiatic), Hausa, Pa’anci (West Chadic, Afroasiatic), Chaha (Semitic, Afroasiatic); Lahu (Burmic, Sino-Tibetan)[but see Comments], Dafla (Tibetic, Sino-Tibetan)[but see Comments]; Central Agta (Philippine Austronesian); Nisgha, Coast Tsimshian (Tsimshianic); Jakaltek (Mayan) (Dryer 1989: 272, 2000).
Notes
1. Dryer 2000 no longer classifies Dafla (=Nishi) as AN & NDem, but as AN & DemN/NDem. In fact the typical structure is DemNDem, with two co-occurring demonstrative words. Also, closer examination of Lahu shows it to be AN/NA, not AN. Dryer classifies Mangbetu as NA, not AN.2. Cf. ##57, 114. 3. Since the 1990s Hawkins has proposed alternative explanations of his universals (see e.g. Hawkins 1993: 234).
Log in to join the discussion.
2. Cf. <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=57"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">, <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=114"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">.
3. Since the 1990s Hawkins has proposed alternative explanations of his universals (see e.g. Hawkins 1993: 234).