Print

Print


Couldn't the reason be that of minimization of effort?
Let's suppose, for some language, that there is some part of speech for
which there is no conjunction. Then, to communicate the conjoining, the
speaker would be required to use two sentences or two clauses:
-- John went to the market and Tim went to the market
-- John went to the market and he went to the gym
-- John went to the market with his brother and he also went with his sister
It seems natural that conjoining would develop for every part of speech.



On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:21:00 +0000, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >Latin and, I suspect, most other languages, can do this
> >also, just like English.  More interestingly, what languages
> >can't?
>
> Let me foreground this question for more attention.  I'd also like to know.
>
> Anyway, my instinctive reaction is not "ho hum conjoined verbs", but "yes,
> why _should_ you be able to go around conjoining every kind of
> constituent?".  For instance, a quite common state of affairs, found in
> five languages out of twelve in the world, is that different words for
> 'and' are used for noun phrases and for clauses (
> http://wals.info/chapter/64 ; also unsurprising in view of their
> different typical kinds of sources, e.g. comitative 'with' versus 'then').
> In a language where some of the words for 'and' can't be used with some
> kinds of constituent, it seems entirely reasonable to me that maybe there's
> some kinds of constituent which no word for 'and' can be used with.
>
> Alex
>