Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
They are: A. Such as express only concepts of groups I and IV; in other words, languages that keep the syntactic relations pure and that do not possess the power to modify the significance of their radical elements by means of affixes or internal changes. We may call these Pure-relational non-deriving languages or, more tersely, Simple Pure-relational languages.
These are the Pure-relational deriving languages or Complex Pure-relational languages.
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.
Ewe is either isolating or only barely agglutinative, while Shilluk, though soberly analytic, is one of the most definitely symbolic languages I know; both of these Soudanese languages are pure-relational.
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
The relationship between Polynesian and Cambodgian is remote, though practically certain; while the latter has more markedly fusional features than the former, both conform to the complex pure-relational type. Yana and Salinan are superficially very dissimilar languages. Only a few schematic indications are possible. A separate volume would be needed to breathe life into the scheme.
Word Of The Day