🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <memo.846118@cix.compulink.co.uk>, petex@cix.compulink.co.uk (Peter Christian) writes:
|> > |> one of the striking features of English is its lack of conjugations
|> > |> and declensions. 
|> > 
|> > Actually, English still contains conjugations, though the personal inflection
|> > of most verbs is very simplified....
|> 
|> I don't think Eric meant absolute lack, but relative lack,
|> considering its origins in a highly inflected language, and compared
|> with its nearest cognates. ...

Sorry, this wasn't my point.  I wasn't talking about the extent of
inflection at all.  What defines the notion of conjugation and
declension in the classical languages is not the presence of
extensive inflection, but the ability to classify what inflectional
behavior there is into patterns, the various patterns being called
conjugations (for verbs) or declensions (for nouns).  I think what
Eric meant was not "lack of conjugations and declensions," but
"(relative) lack of inflection," or not quite so well put,
"(relative) lack of conjugation and declension."  English has much
less inflection that standard German, but about the same number of
verb conjugations (or paradigms).  

On the other hand, Omaha-Ponca (a Siouan language) has about the same
number of inflected forms for each verb as Mandan (another Siouan
language), but Omaha-Ponca has significantly more conjugations (or
verb paradigms) than Mandan.  In Mandan, simplification has taken
the form of regularizing most verbs on the model of a single
paradigm.

----
John E. Koontz (koontz@bldr.nist.gov)

Disclaimer:  Views and recommendations, express or implied, are my own, and
do not reflect the opinion or policy of my employers.