Editor for this issue: <>
I am working on a project to determine the modifier-head order in nominal compounds in a GB-like framework without resorting to movement. The problem is seen in English compounds like _lion-hunter_ which seem related to _hunt lions_ but whose modifier(adjunct, complement, specifier)-head order is just the reverse of the phrase. The working hypothesis of this project is that at least some languages maintain a strict modifier-head order which holds across syntax and the lexicon, and is most predictably reflected in the relation of adjuncts to nouns in NPs, e.g. _red car_ = M + H. If this hypothesis is true for some languages, conflicts arise between the Hoeksema-Stump 'head-application default' and the availability of prefixes and suffixes to mark compounds. The head-application default' is the preference affixes show for the heads of compounds, e.g. _understand_ : _understood_ and _mothers-in-law_. The conflict arises in languages whose modifier-head order is M + H if the language is predominately prefixing and those with H + M order if the language is predominately suffixing. I predict that if a language is compelled by default modifier position to locate the compound modifier in that position normally occupied by the affix if the derivation were not compound, affixation will be forced by the head-application default to an internal position (_mothers-in-law_) or to be omitted (_pick-pocket_). The first method seems very unpopular for derivation, probably because it violates Lexicalism; the second appears in French and other Romance language (_coup-eur_ "cutter" but _coupe-fil_ "wirecutter"). This variation in noun compound affixation, in other words, is predicted by the default order of the single adjunct modifying a noun in a NP: A + N in English, N + A in French. (_Pick-pocket_ compounds are, of course, unproductive in English). This principle holds in a substantial number of IE, Turkic, Finno- Ugric, Bantu, and Paleosiberian languages but the grammars seem to indicate that Amerindian languages like Kiowa, Navajo, Dakota, and Koasati do not follow this principle and often have opposite modifier-head order in NPs and compounds, e.g. Kaosati _isa hatka_ = house white "a white house" but _alahko-bit-li_ = gourd-dance-Suf "gourd-dancer (moth)". I am also having difficulty finding data from Turkana, Hausa, Somali, Djirbal, Diyari, or related Australian languages, some of which also seem to be problematic. I would deeply appreciate two bits of information on these or related languages or any other language with an interesting pattern between single NP adjunct and noun compound order: 1. The 'normal', 'default', or 'most common' order of Adj+N and V+Obj sequences in the language, and 2. some typical examples of synthetic V+N, A+N, and N+N nominal compounds with meanings like those of _lion-hunter_, _lion-hunting_, _lion-huntery_, _left-hander_, _(an) egg-head_, _(a) long-hair_. Any other advice on the languages mentioned above or any other which reflect or fails to reflect this parallel would also be appreciated. Please address all responses to me, <rbeardMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuebucknell.edu> and I will summarize the results and share them later on. --Robert Beard, Linguistics Program, Bucknell University
The July 27, 1992 issue of The New Yorker contains an article by Robert Cullen entitled "Siberia" in which the following sentence appears: Clumps of birch and evergreen trees broke up the vista of white rolling fields, populated by occasional flocks of black-and-white magpies or red-winged finches called _sneguri_ -- a name derived from on of the dozens of Russian words relating to snow. Well, it's been a long time, but I studied Russian for a number of years, and the only word relating to snow that I ever encountered was _sneg_ (along with a coue of clearly related forms like _snez^nyj_. This is also the only word listed in my (admitteldy poor) Russian dictionary. Did I miss something important, or are we seeing here an incipient myth comparable to the one about Eskimo words for snow? Steve Seegmiller <seegmillerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueapollo.montclair.edu>
I would like to know if anyone has used the ARTFL corpus for syntactic analyses? L. Lapierre Department of French Dalhousie (NS, Canada)Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
How big is the vowel repertoire of Mandarin Chinese? This question is prompted by the bizarre mapping of graph to segment in the Pin1-yin1 orthography. I also have a possibly garbled memory of someone claiming that the vowel repertoire was in fact much smaller than one would guess from the phonetic range on the surface; did someone claim there were only two vowel phonemes? Can anyone reconstruct the reasoning for me?Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue