Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>]

Consider Russian, as described by Terence Wade in his standard work "A
Comprehensive Russian Grammar" (second edition, Blackwells 2000) and as I
can confirm from knowing the language quite well. The syntax allows almost
entirely free word order. "The order 'given' information + 'new' information
(with less essential preceding essential new items) is standard in a Russian
sentence" (Wade, p.522). This standard order is determined by the
pragmatics, entirely independently of syntactic categories like subject and
object - just as in the tentative ideas I just posted. Actually I think
English can be analysed rather similarly except that to fit the syntax to
the required word order strategies like using the passive (rare in Russian)
become necessary.

It is true that in Russian "The order subject + verb + object is encountered
in the vast majority of sentences which contain these three elements" (Wade
p.525), but only because pragmatically the subject is most commonly the
given information. And of course it is a fallacy that you pointed out
earlier re wayyiqtol, Dave, to suggest that the commonest order is somehow
the basic one.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Dave Washburn
> Sent: 29 May 2003 21:40
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] V2 (was VSO vs. SVO)
> 
<snip>
> 
> > 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.
> 
<snip>