The most common word order among the world's 7000+ languages is Sub Obj Verb. But I have worked on languages in the Amazon that are SOV, VSO, VOS, OSV, SVO, and OVS. I have written full grammars of two of them. A propositions can serve as predicates of higher propositions in some languages. Syntactic variation is intense.
On another note, neurolinguistics research by Evelina Fedorenko and her colleagues at MIT's Brain and Cognitivie Sciences Department shows that language networks in the brain are built primarily around words/symbols, with syntax parasitic on words, which I independently predict in my book and recent work on the origin of language. Also Steve Piantadosi (Berkeley Psychology) has shown that all the memory needed for much of language is about 1.5 megabytes, a small amount, with the amount of memory required for syntax neglible, more evidence that symbols drive syntax. Dan > On Apr 19, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, and the location of the predicate in the sentence is also interesting. > For example, in classical ancient Chinese, the verb was at the end [as it is > in Latin]. I thought this implied that whatever was going on in the full > sentence, i.e, subject and object, involved both as co-agents in the action. > What was interesting is how this ancient Chinese format eventually gave way > to the modern mode where the verb is between the subject and object. > > Edwina > > > On Fri 19/04/19 1:42 PM , Dan Everett [email protected] sent: > > By the way, predicates in natural languages can vary for cultural reasons. > For example, "to give" in most languages is triadic, but it is dyadic in > Amele of New Guinea (as I discuss in Language: The Cultural Tool). > > Dan > >> On Apr 19, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] <>> >> wrote: >> >> Edwina, List: >> >> Giving and representing/mediating are both triadic relations, but they are >> not the same triadic relation; in fact, they are not even isomorphic triadic >> relations. I suppose that instead we can compare giving to determining, >> which better reflects "the flow of causation" in semeiosis--Sue stands in >> the relation of giving, of a book, to a child; the Object stands in the >> relation of determining, of a Sign, to an Interpretant. >> >> >> >> This treats determining as triadic, rather than dyadic, consistent with >> Peirce's definition that a Sign "is both determined by the object relatively >> to the interpretant, and determines the interpretant in reference to the >> object, in such wise as to cause the interpretant to be determined by the >> object through the mediation of this 'sign'" (EP 2:410; 1907). Notice, >> though, that the book corresponds to the Sign, rather than to either the >> Object or the Interpretant--which makes sense, since a book is a medium for >> the communication of a text from one person to another, and a Sign is a >> medium for the communication of a Form from an Object to an Interpretant. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:35 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] <>> >> wrote: >> John, list >> >> What if one were to diagram your suggestion of: Sue gives child a book - into >> >> DO=book....which is then transformed from its identity and domain [a >> bookstore], by the semiosic action of the triadic Sign, as held by the >> Representamen-and-its action, which is: Sue-Who-Gives into >> >> DI= book, which is now in a different domain and identity: that of the Child >> [who is also a semiosic triad which includes a Representamen]. >> >> Edwina >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] <> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] <> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm>http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >> <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> . >> >> >> >> > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
