LITMIR.BIZ

      Why is it important to count total number of prefixes and then calculate the ratio to the total number of affixes but not to estimate PAI by frequency of prefix forms in a random text?

      A certain language can have quite high value of PAI but in a particular text word forms with prefixes can be of low frequency. Our task is to estimate portion of prefixes in grammar but not portion of prefix forms in a random text. Prefixes/World index estimated by Greenberg was exactly that estimation of prefix forms frequency in a text (Greenberg 1960).

      Of course, that index also can give some general notion of prefixation ability of a language, though it is extremely rough and inaccurate since in a randomly chosen text can be very little amount of words with prefixes: the longer text is the more precision is the conclusion but anyway error of such estimation still remains very high; while when we count all exiting affixes of a certain language potential error is extremely low and even if we occasionally forget some affixes it doesn’t influence seriously on our results.

      Moreover I am to note that despite Greenberg made great work on the field of typology he didn’t actually use those results in his research; he was an adept of megalocomparison and made his conclusions basing on “mass comparison” of lexis but not on structural correlations; his interest in typology was a “glass beads game” and was separated from his actual field of studies.

      To those who think, that it’s impossible to estimate number of morphemes since living language always changes, I am to tell that living language doesn’t invent new morphemes every day, especially auxiliary morphemes. The fact that learning a language we can use descriptions of its grammar written some decades ago is the best proof that grammar is a very conservative level of any language.

      Hence, we can estimate total number of affixes of a living language as far as we can get its description where all stable forms are represented. And there is no need to care of what can be in a certain language in future, i.e.: we consider current stage of living language and don’t care of possible future stages since they simply don’t exist yet.

      As for possibility of count, I am to tell that even set of words is countable set while set of morphemes and especially auxiliary morphemes is not just countable set but also is finite set.

      2.1.4. PAI method testing: from a hypothesis toward a theory

      In order to test PAI hypothesis I paid attention to some languages of firmly assembled stocks: Austronesian, Indo-European and Afroasiatic.

      2.1.4.1. PAI of languages of Austronesian stock

      Polynesian group

      Eastern Polynesian Subgroup

      Hawaiian 0.82 (calculated after Krupa 1979)

      Maori 0.88 (calculated fater Krupa 1967)

      Tahitian 0.66 (calculated after Arakin 1981)

      Samoan-Tokelauan subgroup

      Samoan 0.5 (calculated after Arakin 1973)

      Tongic subgroup

      Niuean 0.8 (calculated after Polinskaya 1995)

      Tongan 0.78 (calculated after Fell 1918)

      Philippine group

      South Mindanao subgroup

      T’boli 0.72 (calculated after Porter 1977)

      Northern Luzon subgroup

      Pangasinan 0.6 (calculated after Rayner 1923)

      Malayo-Sumbawan group

      Malay subgroup

      Indonesian 0.53 (calculated after Ogloblin 2008)

      Pic. 2. Map representing location of Austronesian languages mentioned in current chapter: languages are marked by red, place names are maked by black.

      Chamic subgroup

      Cham 0.6 (calculated after Aymonier 1889; Alieva, Bùi 1999)

      Formosan group

      Bunun 0.8 (calculated after De Busser 2009)

      Eastern Barito group

      Malagasy 0.74 (calculated after Arakin 1963)

      2.1.4.2. PAI of languages Indo-European stock

      German group

      Dutch 0.49 (calculated after Donaldson 1997)

      German 0.51 (calculated after Donaldson 2007)

      English 0.61 (calculated after Barhkhudarov et al. 2000)

      Icelandic 0.63 (calculated after Einarsson 1949)

      Slavonic group

      Czech 0.52 (calculated after Harkins 1952)

      Polish 0.57 (calculated after Swan 2002)

      Celtic group

      Irish 0.67 (McGonage 2005)

      Welsh 0.35 (calculated after King 2015)

      Roman group

      Latin 0.26 (calculated after Bennet 1913)

      Spanish 0.34 (calculated after Kattán-Ibarra, Pountain 2003)

      2.1.4.3. PAI of languages of Afroasiatic stock

      Semitic group

      Central Semitic subgroup

      Arabic (Classical) 0.26 (calculated after Yushmanov 2008)

      Phoenician 0.26 (calculated after Shiftman 2010)

      Eastern Semitic subgroup

      Akkadian (Old Babylonian dialect) 0.2 (calculated after Kaplan 2006)

      Egypt group

      Coptic (Sahidic dialect) 0.87 (calculated after Elanskaya 2010)

Скачать книгу