From: aquila_grande
Message: 45597
Date: 2006-07-31
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "raonath" <raonath@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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
>