--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- raonath <raonath@...> wrote:
>
> > Second, grammaticalization theory suggests that the past is
> > never umarked (see Bybee et al, "The evolution of grammar").
>
> Many theories predict things that are false. Let's
> imagine a language with the present marked with -i and
> the past with -a; if later a>0 word-finally then the
> past will look unmarked.
I can imagine all sorts of things, but to falsify a theory, I need
to give an actual counterexample.
I would really love to see a real example:
If we can find an actual human language where something like
the suggested process occurred, that would be a real test of the
theory: If that language added additional material (like for example,
a time denoting word/phrase to the start of each story) to the
not explicitely marked form, that would be strong positive
evidence. Otherwise, we have a counter-example. Either way, we
would know something new. Otherwise, it is just an armchair
exercise.
Nath Rao