Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <marty
linguistlist.org>
I must have missed the original query, but I would like to take exception to the idea that Russian is "basically SVO". First of all, this seems to confuse theoretical and factual issues, since in many theories a language can be "basically" X and "superficially" Y, where X and Y are distinct (e.g., unless I am much mistaken there is hardly anyone other than me who does not accept the idea that within generative approaches to syntax Dutch and German basically are non-SVO, even though in another sense of the word "basically" they are precisely SVO). Second, and perhaps even more importantly, it is by no mean clear, and certainly highly theory-dependent, whether Russian has any "basic" word order statable in terms of the primitives S,V, and O. In fact, I dont think that this is the case at all, and any theory which requires it to be the case deserves to be scrapped. It is likely that reference to 'S' and 'V' maybe necessary, but I dont know that this is true of 'O', and certainly reference to these three is not sufficient. AMRMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue