Mixing
Is a language without declension a language without subject?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Subject is defined as the argument which agrees with the affixes of the verb. But if a language does not have inflectional affixes, can you state that this particular language does not have syntactic functions ?
grammatical-subject declension
asked 1 hour ago
amegnunsen
563
New contributor
amegnunsen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Subject is defined as the argument which agrees with the affixes of the verb. But if a language does not have inflectional affixes, can you state that this particular language does not have syntactic functions ?
grammatical-subject declension
asked 1 hour ago
amegnunsen
563
New contributor
amegnunsen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The title and body of this question don’t seem to match. Verb inflection is typically called “conjugationâ€Â, not “declensionâ€Â.
– sumelic
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Subject is defined as the argument which agrees with the affixes of the verb. But if a language does not have inflectional affixes, can you state that this particular language does not have syntactic functions ?
grammatical-subject declension
asked 1 hour ago
amegnunsen
563
New contributor
amegnunsen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Subject is defined as the argument which agrees with the affixes of the verb. But if a language does not have inflectional affixes, can you state that this particular language does not have syntactic functions ?
grammatical-subject declension
grammatical-subject declension
asked 1 hour ago
amegnunsen
563
New contributor
amegnunsen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
amegnunsen
563
New contributor
amegnunsen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
amegnunsen
563
New contributor
amegnunsen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
amegnunsen
563
asked 1 hour ago
amegnunsen
563
563
New contributor
amegnunsen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
amegnunsen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
amegnunsen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The title and body of this question don’t seem to match. Verb inflection is typically called “conjugationâ€Â, not “declensionâ€Â.
– sumelic
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
The title and body of this question don’t seem to match. Verb inflection is typically called “conjugationâ€Â, not “declensionâ€Â.
– sumelic
17 mins ago
The title and body of this question don’t seem to match. Verb inflection is typically called “conjugationâ€Â, not “declensionâ€Â.
– sumelic
17 mins ago
The title and body of this question don’t seem to match. Verb inflection is typically called “conjugationâ€Â, not “declensionâ€Â.
– sumelic
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
"Subject" is not defined as the argument which agrees with the affixes of the verb. Sometimes, "subject" is defined as that argument which verbs agree with. In the modern era, you might start with the paper by Ed Keenan, "Towards a universal definition of “subjectâ€Â", in Li (ed) 1975 Subject and topic. Keenan had about 30 properties that he associated with subjecthood, which are not all necessary or sufficient. There is a methodological problem with the concept of "definition" in linguistics, that we don't have a theory of what a "definition" is, so one might present "a fundamental characteristic of a thing" as part of the definition of the thing. Or, one might present identificational diagnostics as part of the "definition" of a thing.
answered 36 mins ago
user6726
29.4k11655
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
"Subject" is not defined as the argument which agrees with the affixes of the verb. Sometimes, "subject" is defined as that argument which verbs agree with. In the modern era, you might start with the paper by Ed Keenan, "Towards a universal definition of “subjectâ€Â", in Li (ed) 1975 Subject and topic. Keenan had about 30 properties that he associated with subjecthood, which are not all necessary or sufficient. There is a methodological problem with the concept of "definition" in linguistics, that we don't have a theory of what a "definition" is, so one might present "a fundamental characteristic of a thing" as part of the definition of the thing. Or, one might present identificational diagnostics as part of the "definition" of a thing.
answered 36 mins ago
user6726
29.4k11655
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
"Subject" is not defined as the argument which agrees with the affixes of the verb. Sometimes, "subject" is defined as that argument which verbs agree with. In the modern era, you might start with the paper by Ed Keenan, "Towards a universal definition of “subjectâ€Â", in Li (ed) 1975 Subject and topic. Keenan had about 30 properties that he associated with subjecthood, which are not all necessary or sufficient. There is a methodological problem with the concept of "definition" in linguistics, that we don't have a theory of what a "definition" is, so one might present "a fundamental characteristic of a thing" as part of the definition of the thing. Or, one might present identificational diagnostics as part of the "definition" of a thing.
answered 36 mins ago
user6726
29.4k11655
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
"Subject" is not defined as the argument which agrees with the affixes of the verb. Sometimes, "subject" is defined as that argument which verbs agree with. In the modern era, you might start with the paper by Ed Keenan, "Towards a universal definition of “subjectâ€Â", in Li (ed) 1975 Subject and topic. Keenan had about 30 properties that he associated with subjecthood, which are not all necessary or sufficient. There is a methodological problem with the concept of "definition" in linguistics, that we don't have a theory of what a "definition" is, so one might present "a fundamental characteristic of a thing" as part of the definition of the thing. Or, one might present identificational diagnostics as part of the "definition" of a thing.
answered 36 mins ago
user6726
29.4k11655
"Subject" is not defined as the argument which agrees with the affixes of the verb. Sometimes, "subject" is defined as that argument which verbs agree with. In the modern era, you might start with the paper by Ed Keenan, "Towards a universal definition of “subjectâ€Â", in Li (ed) 1975 Subject and topic. Keenan had about 30 properties that he associated with subjecthood, which are not all necessary or sufficient. There is a methodological problem with the concept of "definition" in linguistics, that we don't have a theory of what a "definition" is, so one might present "a fundamental characteristic of a thing" as part of the definition of the thing. Or, one might present identificational diagnostics as part of the "definition" of a thing.
answered 36 mins ago
user6726
29.4k11655
answered 36 mins ago
user6726
29.4k11655
answered 36 mins ago
user6726
29.4k11655
answered 36 mins ago
user6726
29.4k11655
29.4k11655
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
amegnunsen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
amegnunsen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
amegnunsen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
amegnunsen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29140%2fis-a-language-without-declension-a-language-without-subject%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
The title and body of this question don’t seem to match. Verb inflection is typically called “conjugationâ€Â, not “declensionâ€Â.
– sumelic
17 mins ago