Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 4, 2025
It answers, in effect, two fundamental questions concerning the translation of concepts into linguistic symbols. The second question, it seems to me, is the more fundamental of the two. We can therefore simplify our classification and present it in the following form: I. Pure-relational / A. Simple Languages \ B. Complex II. Mixed-relational / C. Simple Languages \ D. Complex
These are the Mixed-relational non-deriving languages or Simple Mixed-relational languages. D. Such as express concepts of groups I, II, and III; in other words, languages in which the syntactic relations are expressed in mixed form, as in C, and that also possess the power to modify the significance of their radical elements by means of affixes or internal changes.
The illustrative material gathered in the table is far too scanty to serve as a real basis of proof, but it is highly suggestive as far as it goes. Of a passage from a pure-relational to a mixed-relational type or vice versa I can give no convincing examples. I have put French in C rather than in D with considerable misgivings.
A language of markedly mixed-relational type, but of little power of derivation pure and simple, such as Bantu or French, may be conveniently put into type C, even though it is not devoid of a number of derivational affixes. This conceptual classification of languages, I must repeat, does not attempt to take account of the technical externals of language.
These are the Mixed-relational deriving languages or Complex Mixed-relational languages. Here belong the "inflective" languages that we are most familiar with as well as a great many "agglutinative" languages, some "polysynthetic," others merely synthetic. To expressly consider compounding in the present survey of types would be to complicate our problem unduly. It is a matter largely of degree.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking