Typology

February 16, 2008

SOV 558
SVO 322
VSO 133
VOS 24
OSV 12
OVS 10
(from Harald Hammarström’s review of Ethnologue 2005,
available at http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2637.html)

CP

? C’ NO SOV/VOS
∴ Base OV
wh C TP or AgrO/AspQ(FP)

topic y/n ? T’

scramb wh T VP

LF V2 Aux subject V’

finite? (unspecific?) V object

finite?

non-finite

1
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 V N I
S O I V N S O I N V
S O N V I S O N I V
S V O I N S V O N I
S V I O N S V I N O
S V N O I S V N I O
S I O V N S I O N V
S I V O N S I V N O
S I N O V S I N V O
S N O V I S N O I V
S N V O I S N V I O
S N I O V S N I V O
O S V I N O S V N I
O S I V N O S I N V
O S N V I O S N I V
O V S I N O V S N I
O V I S N O V I N S
O V N S I O V N I S
O I S V N O I S N V
O I V S N O I V N S
O I N S V O I N V S
O N S V I O N S I V
O N V S I O N V I S
O N I S V O N I V S
V S O I N V S O N I
V S I O N V S I N O
V S N O I V S N I O
V O S I N V O S N I
V O I S N V O I N S
V O N S I V O N I S
V I S O N V I S N O
V I O S N V I O N S
V I N S O V I N O S
V N S O I V N S I O
V N O S I V N O I S
V N I S O V N I O S
I S O V N I S O N V
I S V O N I S V N O
I S N O V I S N V O
I O S V N I O S N V
I O V S N I O V N S
I O N S V I O N V S
I V S O N I V S N O
I V O S N I V O N S
I V N S O I V N O S
I N S O V I N S V O
I N O S V I N O V S
I N V S O I N V O S
N S O V I N S O I V
N S V O I N S V I O
N S I O V N S I V O
N O S V I N O S I V
N O V S I N O V I S
N O I S V N O I V S
N V S O I N V S I O
N V O S I N V O I S
N V I S O N V I O S
N I S O V N I S V O
N I O S V N I O V S
N I V S O N I V O S

2
 S.V 892
V.S 167
(argument more primary than predicate?)1

S.O 1013
O.S 46
(by definition?)

V.O 479
O.V 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?):

SOV(17%) SVO(17%) VSO(17%) VOS(17%) OSV(17%) OVS(17%)

SOV(53%) SVO(30%) VSO(13%) VOS(2%) OSV(1%) OVS(1%)

1
So what’s so satisfying about the logical notation: ‘smart(me)’ or ‘∃x[smart(x)]’ ?

3
/ ?d^cmjit DD