Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!ellis!deb5
From: deb5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Korean and Japanese (was Scots and English (was: Re: Flemish and Dutch))
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <D9KDCu.LMo@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Reply-To: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <3nqtn1$b7v@bertha.gssec.bt.co.uk> <johna.59.000BD048@tiny.me.su.oz.au> <D97F3I.Ftz@indirect.com> <3qihuh$lvf@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 21:07:42 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <3qihuh$lvf@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
What-the-Hell <peabody@wam.umd.edu> wrote:

>Latin had the ability to rearrange on the basis of emphasis.  Korean and 
>Japanese are bound languages (like English).  That is, verbs in Korean 
>and Japanese MUST come at the end of a main clause.  Japanese and Korean 
>also make distinction between simple subject and emphasized topic, but 
>both MUST come at the beginning of a main clause, even when used together.  
>Objects (direct and indirect) come in the middle.  In subordinate 
>clauses, verbs also must come at the end of the clause.  Placing the verb 
>initially would produce the effect of "Bites man dog" or "Bites dog 
>man".  It would be both awkward and incorrect, stylically and grammatically.

It's true that both Japanese and Korean are strictly verb-final, but 
Korean (and also possibly Japanese) word order is not as strict as Mr.
Reid makes it out to be.  The subject does *not* have to come at the 
beginning of the sentence (though whichever word takes the topic
particle -(n)un--not necessarily the grammatical subject--should logically
come first), although it generally does.  There is some freedom in 
placement of the object(s) and adverb(s), if any, with those placed
closer to the verb acquiring greater emphasis.  The overall amount of 
freedom is probably comparable to what one finds in modern German.

>It does make a difference whether a language has free variation or not.  
>Latin does.  Korean and Japanese do not.  The point he was making is 
>that Korean and Japanese grammar are so similar, if not identical, that 
>they could be related.

*sigh*

That was emphatically *not* the point I was making!  Will someone please
cheer me up by telling me they actually understood my earlier post at
first glance?  (I think Mr. Atkinson may have, though he doubts both my
knowledge of the languages and their grammatical similarity.)

My point was that topologically very similar languages are still not 
necessarily related.  I chose Korean and Japanese as an example because,
despite their impressive grammatical similarities and the popularity of
the Altaic hypothesis, not all (or even most) linguists consider them
genetically related languages. 

Hashi Daibun/Yang Tae-mun

-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
