Editor for this issue: Jody Huellmantel <jody
linguistlist.org>
Paul Llido writes: "The terms, "nomen", "verbum", "adverbum", etc. definitely were a legacy of latin grammarians. Their use in English as primitives needs to be defined distributionally." But if the criteria for defining nouns, verbs, etc. in English are different from the criteria used for Latin, then how do we know that English Nouns and Verbs have anything to do with Latin Nouns and Verbs (I use capitalization to indicate language-particular categories)? Obviously, the only answer is that they express similar notions. The conclusion is that THERE ARE NO universal syntactic categories. What is universal is the broad pragmatic functions and conceptual distinctions expressed by language, as well as distributional patterns expressed by implicational universals. The same reasoning applies to all other morphosyntactic categories, as has been argued persuasively by Bill Croft in recent work (see also his 1991 book "Syntactic categories and grammatical relations", U of Chiacgo Press). Since all languages perform basically the same tasks, there are a lot of similarities and many universals, but there are no universal morphosyntactic features. Martin Haspelmath (haspelmathMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueeva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Inselstr. 22 D-04103 Leipzig (Tel. (MPI) +49-341-9952 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616)