{"id":1998,"date":"2020-05-01T18:49:39","date_gmt":"2020-05-01T18:49:39","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-29T22:00:00","slug":"","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/universals-archive\/1998\/","title":{"rendered":"Universal 1992:"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3>Universal 1992: <\/h3>\n<dl>\n<dt>Original<\/dt>\n<dd>In synchronic as well as diachronic treatments of languages, the pronominal system is much more basic and primary than pronominal agreement in the finite verbs and predicative nouns. The choice of pronominal suffixes in finite verbs proceeds from the choice of the subject noun phrase of a sentence (which is replaceable by a pronoun), and not vice versa. Secondly, the pronominal (gender-number-person) contrasts found in finite verbs or predicative nouns are either of the same number or fewer than pronouns that govern them as subjects of sentences and not vice versa. &#8230; Since &#8220;agreement&#8221; between the subject and the verb in gender, number, and person is a redundant system, we notice the process of simplification affecting the verb system first. Consequently, there is no one-to-one relationship between the number of pronouns and their corresponding reference in the finite verbs.<\/dd>\n<dt>Standardized<\/dt>\n<dd>IF there are gender-number-person contrasts on the predicate agreeing in these categories with the subject, THEN there are the same contrasts on subject pronouns.<\/dd>\n<dt>Keywords<\/dt>\n<dd>agreement, verb, gender, number, person, pronoun<\/dd>\n<dt>Domain<\/dt>\n<dd>inflection, syntax<\/dd>\n<dt>Type<\/dt>\n<dd>implication<\/dd>\n<dt>Status<\/dt>\n<dd>diachronic<\/dd>\n<dt>Quality<\/dt>\n<dd>absolute<\/dd>\n<dt>Basis<\/dt>\n<dd>Dravidian, impressionistic<\/dd>\n<dt>Source<\/dt>\n<dd><a class=\"reference\" href=\"..\/references#Krishnamurti_2001\">Krishnamurti 1975\/2001<\/a>: 145<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl>\n<dt>Counterexamples<\/dt>\n<dd>Kasaba (a dubious Dravidian lg), allegedly distinguishing SG and PL for neuter only in verbal inflection, but not in demonstrative pronouns. <Author><\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Universal 1992: Original In synchronic as well as diachronic treatments of languages, the pronominal system is much more basic and primary than pronominal agreement in&#8230;<\/p>\n<div class=\"more-link-wrapper\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/universals-archive\/1998\/\">Read more<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Universal 1992:<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[346],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-universals-archive","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1998","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1998\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/typo.uni-konstanz.de\/rara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}