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.