Print

Print


Japanese arguably doesn't have an 'infinitive' though, or at least 
anything analogous to an IE infinitive. Do you mean 'base uninflected 
form'? That form is 100% valid as the verb of a main clause.

On 2019/01/29 15:42, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 13:28, Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> It's a bit surprising to me to hear that about verb inflections -
>> Japanese is /very/ pro-drop, and yet has no agreement marking on the
>> verb at all.
> That's a good point. I wonder what the infinitive usage statistics are
> for children acquiring Japanese as their L1....
>
> -l.
>
>> On 2019/01/28 18:22, Logan Kearsley wrote:
>>> This is a fairly old paper, but I only recently discovered it, and
>>> found it terribly interesting:
>>> http://web.uconn.edu/snyder/papers/EB_WS_FASL.pdf
>>>
>>> For one thing, it introduced me to an interesting developmental test
>>> for the "pro-drop" classification: If kids use a lot of infinitive
>>> forms before learning proper finite verb inflections, your language is
>>> *not* actually pro-drop. No particular reason for why that should be
>>> is presented, but it kinda makes sense to me: if the adults around you
>>> don't actually drop subject pronouns very often, then inflectional
>>> information in the verb is less important; but, if they do, verbal
>>> inflection becomes much more important for encoding thematic subjects,
>>> so it makes sense that it would be learned faster.
>>>
>>> Possibly of more direct relevance to conlangers: a distinction is made
>>> between dropping expletive subjects vs. thematic subjects (where only
>>> dropping thematic subjects "counts" as pro-dropping). I think this
>>> intuitively makes sense to a lot of people (i.e., all of the
>>> conlangers who include something in the grammar to the effect of "if
>>> you want to say 'it's raining', my language leaves out the 'it',
>>> because it's dumb."), but I haven't before seen it formally
>>> distinguished as a separate syntactic parameter.
>>>
>>> -l.