Print

Print


Quoting Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]>:

> >    Wonder what influences coulda made Mandarin become such a
> >"head-final"/left-branching language (modifier(s) + head word) ?
>
> But this was already a feature of Old Chinese. And Tibeto-Burman langs
> tend to be more left-branching than Chinese, on the average (e. g.
> they are often verb-final).

I'm curious: what is the most common branching typology for our
conlangs? Phaleran is very left-branching: SOV word order, relative
clauses before the noun they modify, adjectival particles before
the noun they modify.  Degaspregos was/is more right branching:
although it has mainly SOV word order, relative clauses and
adjectives usually come after the modified noun.

You know what -- we should compile a brief synopsis of all types
of conlinguistic typologies.  It would shed some light not so much
on language, but rather more likely, on the conlanger population.

==============================
Thomas Wier <[log in to unmask]>

"Aspidi men Saiôn tis agalletai, hên para thamnôi
  entos amômêton kallipon ouk ethelôn;
autos d' exephugon thanatou telos: aspis ekeinê
  erretô; exautês ktêsomai ou kakiô" - Arkhilokhos