Typology

Typology

February 16, 2008

SOV SVO VSO VOS OSV OVS

558 322 133 24 12 10

(from Harald Hammarstr¨ om’s review of Ethnologue 2005, available at http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2637.html)

CP ?

C’

NO SOV/VOS ∴ Base OV or AgrO/AspQ(FP)

wh

C

TP

topic

y/n

scramb

wh

T

LF

V2

Aux

subject

finite?

(unspecific?)

?

T’ VP V’ V finite? non-finite

1

object

1

right branching structures?

(1) (Or everything raised over?) a. Why fly ye not? b. He seeks thee not.

2

Negation(N) and Auxiliaries(I)

‘I’ for ‘inflection’, as opposed to adjectives (j) or adverbs (m), though auxiliaries frequently don’t inflect. S O V I N S O I V N S O N V I S V O I N S V I O N S V N O I S I O V N S I V O N S I N O V S N O V I S N V O I S N I O V O S V I N O S I V N O S N V I O V S I N O V I S N O V N S I O I S V N O I V S N O I N S V O N S V I O N V S I O N I S V V S O I N V S I O N V S N O I V O S I N V O I S N V O N S I V I S O N V I O S N V I N S O V N S O I V N O S I V N I S O I S O V N I S V O N I S N O V I O S V N I O V S N I O N S V I V S O N I V O S N I V N S O I N S O V I N O S V I N V S O N S O V I N S V O I N S I O V N O S V I N O V S I N O I S V N V S O I N V O S I N V I S O N I S O V N I O S V N I V S O

S O V N I S O I N V S O N I V S V O N I S V I N O S V N I O S I O N V S I V N O S I N V O S N O I V S N V I O S N I V O O S V N I O S I N V O S N I V O V S N I O V I N S O V N I S O I S N V O I V N S O I N V S O N S I V O N V I S O N I V S V S O N I V S I N O V S N I O V O S N I V O I N S V O N I S V I S N O V I O N S V I N O S V N S I O V N O I S V N I O S I S O N V I S V N O I S N V O I O S N V I O V N S I O N V S I V S N O I V O N S I V N O S I N S V O I N O V S I N V O S N S O I V N S V I O N S I V O N O S I V N O V I S N O I V S N V S I O N V O I S N V I O S N I S V O N I O V S N I V O S

2

S.V V.S

892 167

(argument more primary than predicate?)1

S.O O.S

1013 46

(by definition?)

V.O O.V

479 580

(attract or repel?)

3

Dichrony I (acqusition?) SOV(100%)

SOV(53%)

SVO(30%)

VSO(13%)

VOS(2%)

OSV(1%)

OVS(1%)

or (maximum entropy?):

1

SOV(17%)

SVO(17%)

VSO(17%)

VOS(17%)

OSV(17%)

OVS(17%)

SOV(53%)

SVO(30%)

VSO(13%)

VOS(2%)

OSV(1%)

OVS(1%)

So what’s so satisfying about the logical notation: ‘smart(me)’ or ‘∃x[smart(x)]’ ?

3

/

?d^cmjit DD

,