Print

Print


Indonesian uses rising intonation as one of the ways of expressing negation. I found this very bizarre when I first heard about it, but I guess the idea is that you turn a statement into a rhetorical question (“I know” > “Do (you think) I know?”), which implicates the negation (which then becomes a conventional meaning of this intonational pattern).

Unfortunately, I don’t have an immediately-accessible source for this (and I don’t speak Indonesian).

Siva

> On 15 Jul 2015, at 9:30 am, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets, On 13/07/2015 15:01:
>>> g. In no language can an affirmative be turned into a negative by changing
>>> the intonation contour (Horn 1989).
>>> 
>> Ja ja... In Dutch, the sequence "ja ja": "yes yes" can have an affirmative
>> or negative meaning purely depending on the intonation contour used. Plenty
>> of other languages feature similar phrases. And if you want a more
>> "traditional" type of example, I believe that some language of Africa
>> (Igbo?) can mark negation purely through the change of the tone of the verb
>> (it's a tonal language in any case).
> 
> I think what is meant is analogous to yes-no question-formation in many lgs. The Dutch case is one idiom, not a regular process. The Igbo case as you describe it sounds like inflection with tone; tone is not intonation.
> 
>>> l. In every language in which there is a person and number inflection,
>>> there is also a tense, aspect, and mood inflection (Bybee 1985; 267).
>>> 
>>> 
>> Here, I can answer more authoritatively: the Shizunai dialect of Ainu
>> definitely breaks that one: it has person and number inflection, and can
>> (weakly) be argued to have aspect and mood inflection (although most, even
>> arguably all, of it is through auxiliary constructions), but it definitely
>> lacks any form of tense as a grammatical category.
> 
> I think "a tense, aspect and mood inflection" means "an inflection for tense, aspect or mood (TAM)".
> 
>> There's a very good reason why many of us are wary of any UG claim.
> 
> Those were claims about universals, not necessarily claims of UG. UG is what is a genetic characteristic of the species. To me, Statements A--F look to arise necessarily from the fundamental architecture of language, while Statements G--Y look to be statistical tendencies, where any absence of exceptions is an accident of insufficiency of number of languages (absolutely or in samples). I haven't read Newmeyer's book, so don't know what he says about them.
> 
> --And.