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. Only some examples: >From A. Blok (12 - poems) Noch. Ulica. Fonar'. Apteka. ( 4 sent!!!! there no Verbs). - ------------------- Xolodno. Temno. Nespit'sja --> 3 sent there no Sub. (podlezhashtego) >AMR - All in Russian codepade 1251: TvGU (Tver State University) Rossija, 17002, Tver, pr.Cajkovskogo, 70, Filfak, kafedra russkogo jazyka http://www.tversu.ac.ru/Region/Education/TSU/Russian/persons/5034.ru.htmlMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue