agglutinative v flexive ⇒ classes<\/h3>\n
- \n
- Original<\/dt>\n
- Languages that tend towards isolating (such as most of those in east and south-east Asia) most typically employ noun classifiers, whereas languages that are strongly agglutinative (as in Africa) or inflectional (most Indo-European tongues) prefer systems of noun classes.<\/dd>\n
- Standardized<\/dt>\n
- IF a language is isolating (with bound morphology lacking), THEN there tend to be noun classifiers rather than noun classes.
IF there is agglutination or flexion (in languages with rich inflectional systems), THEN there tend to be noun classes rather than noun classifiers<\/dd>\n - Keywords<\/dt>\n
- agglutination, flexion, isolation, classifier, noun class<\/dd>\n
- Domain<\/dt>\n
- inflection, syntax<\/dd>\n
- Type<\/dt>\n
- implication<\/dd>\n
- Status<\/dt>\n
- achronic<\/dd>\n
- Quality<\/dt>\n
- statistical<\/dd>\n
- Basis<\/dt>\n
- languages in Dixon 1986<\/a><\/dd>\n
- Source<\/dt>\n
- Dixon 1986<\/a>: 109 (see also Dixon 1982<\/a>: 218,
![](\"..\/img\/entry.gif\")
<\/a>)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n- \n
- Counterexamples<\/dt>\n
- Marrithiyel (Daly, Australian) is a classifying language (see criteria in Dixon 1982: 217ff). Since Dixon treats category marker concord as a diagnostic of classing rather than of classifying status, there is a potential problem. Perhaps the correlation might be \u201crestated as being between complex morphology and concordial patterning, rather that the whole array of functional-semantic class features.\u201d (Green 1997: 248-251)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Universal 800: isolating ⇒ classifiersagglutinative v flexive ⇒ classes Original Languages that tend towards isolating (such as most of those in east and south-east Asia)…<\/p>\n