Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Thursday 29 May 2003 12:39, c stirling bartholomew wrote:
> on 5/29/03 10:31 AM, Dave Washburn wrote:
> > If you have a better way of formulating
> > that question, go for it.
>
> Sure, why not.
>
> Well lets take a look at how valve systems are designed on *vintage*
> motorcycles. The standard lash up was a camshaft lobe pushing against some
> linkage which applies pressure against a valve stem which is "default" in
> closed position held there by a spring.

OK, I could get picky about the "default" idea since there's an extraneous 
object involved, but I won't.  Let's run with this analogy a bit.

> Duccati had a different lash up where the valve was driven "positively"  in
> both directions, it was driven open and driven closed. This was supposed to
> eliminate valve float at high revolutions per second.

Interesting.  At the same time, this doesn't necessarily mean that there 
was/is no "default" position for the valve, particularly for questions of 
timing.  Since the most crucial position for timing (firing) is top dead 
center (TDC) one could make a case that "closed" is in fact the default 
position of this valve as well, regardless of the mechanism used to achieve 
that position.  Then again, all analogies eventually break down in some way.

> Well it is feasible that there are languages that work like the Ducatti
> system, constituent order has meaning but there is no default position. The
> whole question would have to be explored in terms of what this particular
> constituent means in this position. Notions like "fronting" only work for
> valves which are driven closed by a spring (having a passive default
> state).

What makes it feasible?  Do you have any particular languages in mind?  Has 
this been demonstrated with any language of which you are aware?  I don't 
know of any, with the possible exception of Chinese (and the only thing I 
know about it is I like the food).  If you know of such a language where this 
has been effectively demonstrated, let us know.  Otherwise, declaring such an 
idea "feasible" is a bit of an overstatement.  It is certainly within the 
realm of possibility, but possibility and feasibility are two very different 
things.  In every language I know, every constituent order has a meaning and 
a reason, and is either a basal structure or is derived for a particular 
reason.  But of course, there are hundreds of languages that I don't know, 
indeed have never even heard of.  So anything is possible, and I stand ready 
to be corrected if such a language has been discovered.

> This analysis is based to some extent on finite state theory which is more
> common among linguists working in artificial languages than natural
> languages.

Perhaps that's part of the problem with the no-base-order approach?

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur