Print

Print


Take Polish - it inflects verbs by number, person and gender, and is
pron-drop. I don't know stats for infinitives with language aquisition, but
both my younger siblings, and my cousins' children were using inflected
forms when learning. (I am a native speaker).

On the subjct of defining pron-drop language as one that allows to drop
pronouns as subject, Polish demands it. I mean noone uses pronouns as a
subject until it carries additional meaning. Otherise it is a big stylistic
error. I mean I still, after learning English for over 20 years, have to
often check whether I skipped pronouns as subject or not. In all foreign
languages I know.
Phrase "it rains" is not a perfect example, because although in normal
every day Polish it is in fact "pada" - "(it) falls", but that can also
refer to any other type of precipitation, and hearing "pada" you
automaticly think of rain, because the whole phrase is "Pada deszcz" (Rain
falls). Better would be "Grzmi." (It thunders).

It always was strange for me that both Russian and Icelandic have good
conjugation, but still require pronoun subject, and Japanese doesn't.

wt., 29 sty 2019 o 23:26 Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> napisaƂ(a):

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 14:44, Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> That would seem to make doing a comparable test rather difficult--but
> English has similar issues, and while they make it harder to collect
> significant amounts of usable data, it's not impossible. The base
> uninflected form of English verbs is also a valid finite form, but you
> can still do the test on English L1 learners by identifying places
> where a different form *should've* been used in adult speech, but the
> child substituted the base form instead.
>
> -l.
>
> > 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.
>