Print

Print


On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Alex Bicksler <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> On Oct 27, 2015 18:56, "Jeffrey Brown" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> It seems to me that a similar argument could be made with respect to
> relative clauses; it takes less effort if any type of nominal expression
> can be modified by a relative clause. However, languages differ on this:
> some are unable to relativize indirect objects or objects of comparison,
> while English has little problem doing so.
>

‚ÄčMinimization of effort affects relative clauses less than conjunctions.
Compare:
-- She bought the car from the man who was a friend of her brother.
-- She bought the car from the man. He was a friend of her brother.
‚ÄčIn fact, because of the processing complexity of relative causes,
paratactic constructions may take less effort.

Rethinking what Alex Fink had said, and given the number and diversity of
natlangs in the world, it wouldn't surprise me if there was one which did
not allow the conjoining of some part of speech. If that is the case,
though, I would suspect that under normal diachronic evolution, some word,
a comitative for example, would be pushed into service to function as a
conjunction for that part of speech.