Re: Universal grammar
- From: Helmut Richter <hhr-m@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:48:06 +0200
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Hans Aberg wrote:
The original question was actually about linguistic grammar universals,
not language universals.
I am not sure I understand the difference between "linguistic grammar
universals" and "language universals". Let me try:
linguistic grammar universal: a notion or concept of grammar that is
applicable to all languages (or: a *question* of grammar that can be
asked for all languages)
language universal: a grammatical feature that is common to all
languages (or: an *answer* (to a question of grammar) that is true for
all languages)
So, if all languages have sentences with subjects - which is probably
not true, depending on the definition of "subject" - but there are
many ways to mark the subject of a sentence, subjecthood would be a
grammar universal but there would not be a language universal about
subjects.
--
Helmut Richter
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- References:
- Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: groups
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Universal grammar
- Prev by Date: Re: The Business Memoir - the ``whom'' question
- Next by Date: Re: it is worth it
- Previous by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|