I taw edd nisemvedag zya eff isčazugredag ve kuerwurin eff "ğellubfo žagl" is i umna znaguiga ve ziug êd is Ganvuzfo Jiswidd (2010, sadik.) "knatayţe iğğseik" nir isffokwurt, vere avgeurer ve faiul samge zyl is zysk ve žag sa mil eff ta edd ve čike fořake kna wi anzresj nir aik ens. Dana nifdabainel eff daguvesak nidateketi tsamgezia aveka rečasge tuffanysd ksabanui, ve filysk uny wysg Jiswidd "knatayţe iğğseik" is siğezegia ve nir sika nifdabainel nir veul zegyţe scagğedad, dan ve tuffanysd ksabanui jitčasga edd vogaenel niseguna ve wiz, kfoscerd, isgveğudibfo "knatayţe" işnana eff ve ndateketta:
Ange "knatayţe" işnanal sca sca sa ačain utrelzek, fud veia resča il i nedad sem zysk ve ikduge ndateketi kna wi avgeuresj is ve vesasakge kina eff nellubuzabuer:
Traditional morphological typology, with its focus on how much and what kind of morphology is allowed in words across languages (cf. isolating vs. polysynthetic languages, etc.), represents one way of comparing possible words cross-linguistically. The issue is, however, much more complex and requires a truly integrating approach, where morphological (and further grammatical), phonetic, phonological and semantic criteria are all relevant, as well as psycholinguistic considerations (holistic storage and processing), and sociolinguistic and pragmatic factors (e.g., degree of conventionalization). (Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm).
Tvesatguveisg widwasca remnasak gscangeabia edd neziremia ve, ynn ve zefo, i syskkia fuldaerl. Eğdainel ynn zasid neziremia imêsk nir edd ew nir resck sa ab tuffan jistunisibzia imtag tuffanysd remnasak vesauer edd nisiksanal (luk il tyskwurtscia ysdsuer), ted nir keskain znaguiga uresl:
Although for many serious semanticists, lexicographers and lexicologists semantic analysis stands for coming to grips with descriptive meanings, or senses, the enterprise is far from obvious even in the researcher’s native tongue and gets easily insurmountable in other languages. As a consequence, much of cross-linguistic comparison is based on meanings defined as denotations, with various methods for eliciting, defining and evaluating expression-denotation couples (pictures, videoclips, Munsell colour chips, etc.). In other words, the question of “what meanings can be or cannot be expressed by single words in a language” often amounts to “what are possible/impossible denotational ranges of single words in a language”.
Is gscange, nikveainel ynn zasid čêg jiusk il rečasge kenadagel eff ta edd ve čike fořake vl. ta sža gscange kenadag ankuuan čeğvesakresj asgeirel edd elzl, tuffyskuzd scaêg zabis ta znaguiga, asisg nir kscsia êd is rečasge edd umğellubfo is şnai. Ve kusansk nisiksanal eff kisell-zdaguvesak fořyţe zuguer ream nir sika i ğiuşia nisigmreysk znana ynn ve keyska widwasca ve vana eğwurst, keldag ve ta vere čuabel wiz ve kuerwurst ilkesj is i niscsakužc zugia (edd gele ilkdag aniltaibfo kuerwurst gučain ve iviuzibfo trei):
Čuğğere vere za sca iselanzesj is ve kuerwurin eff daenel lwum, fzere edd liuz wiztag nir ve utučaslgezia fořyţeuzesj kenadag. Sa dves kedag eff kuerwurin ab asisgzia şrel ew ařikdzia vere kenadagel sca ařğanlreg il reğscrea fořakel, il ve tuffanysd kenadagel eff ta edd ve čike fořake, sa il žagel nisuvreaingezia anzresj nir aik ens. Če ačain ur Sulluna ter ted asiča tuffanysd žagel sa lwum, fzere edd liuz, ab zuzz fořyţeuzer vere kenadagl.
Iesce nasksge jim-ğzyskreain sa kisell-zedaguvesak zuguer ynn ve fořyskynn edd, ğusens, is şez kisell-zedaguvesak anresck dan kenadag ve isvezčag ve kanresj fia ve nisebfom eff i jistvelsk kedi-znaguiga sa anğanreskdag kenadagel zabis edd iksell znaguiger:
What meanings can be or cannot be expressed by a single word in different languages, or what word meanings are universal, frequent, possible, impossible? Are there any universal (or at least statistically predominant) restrictions on the meanings that can or cannot be expressed by single words across languages, or are languages more or less free to choose here?
Ve, is sust, ve anzresj nir ve gscange scasamêl giğ widwasca vesasakge remnasakil edd vesasakge fořyskezegi, ynn ve ta asist, edd ikduge fořyskegsiğysk nisiksanal. Ve şez resaiul kutugrea ynn ve sžckad ve ve Treusge Remnasak Kedgenaguiga, saugdagezia igvekresj fia Asti Zuanzbyskki.
Ve niseğtaysd eff ve STM sika neziremia časia resaiulzi, žuča sa jimğscdag nilksuğsača kenadagel sredal na nitedreainge snager, edd ium re nisevugdag nankvea kenadag nifdabainel fia kenal eff anguksača nisciğsirel fireg ynn i nisdakuğfog red eff "utučaslge remnasak nisumabučal".
Auwera, J. van der. 2001. On the lexical typology of modals, quantifiers, and connectives. In Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, I. Kenesei & R.M. Harnish (Eds), 173–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A. & Partee, B.H. (Eds). 1995. Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Corbett, G.G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83(1): 8–42.
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.
Cruse, A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.
Goddard, C. 2001. Lexico-semantic universals: A critical overview. Linguistic Typology 5: 1–65.
Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (Eds). 1994. Semantic and Lexical Universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Greenberg, J.H. 1966. Language Universals [Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 59]. The Hague: Mouton.
Koch, P. & Marzo, D. 2007. A two-dimensional approach to the study of motivation and lexical typology and its first application to French high-frequency vocabulary. Studies in Language 31(2): 259–291.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2004. Mass and collection. In Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds), Vol. 2, 1016–1031. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Divjak, D. & Rakhilina, E. Aquamotion verbs in Slavic and Germanic: A case study in lexical typology. In Multiple Perspectives on Slavic Verbs of Motion, V. Dragina & R. Perelmutter (Eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Rakhilina, E. 2006. “Some like it hot”: On semantics of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish. STUF (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung), a special issue on Lexicon in a Typological and Contrastive Perspective, G. Giannoulopoulou & T. Leuschner (Eds) 59(2): 253–269.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Vanhove, M. & Koch, P. 2007. Typological approaches to lexical semantics. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 159–186.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Wälchli, B. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In Circum-Baltic Languages: Their Typology and Contacts, Ö. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds), Vol. 2, 615–750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. 1996. Anger: Its language, conceptualization, and physiology in the light of crosscultural evidence. In Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, J. Taylor & R. MacLaury (Eds), 181–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lang, E. 2001. Spatial dimension terms. In Haspelmath et al. (Eds), 1251–1275.
Lehmann, C. 1990. Towards lexical typology. In Studies in Typology and Diachrony. Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday, W. Croft, K. Denning & S. Kemmer (Eds), 161–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nichols, J., Peterson, D.A. & Barnes, J. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8: 149–211.
Slobin, D.I. 2003. Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds), 157–191. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Slobin, D.I. & Bowerman, M. 2007. Interfaces between linguistic typology and child language research. Linguistic Typology 11: 213–226.
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. 1990. The meaning of color terms: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 99–150.
Wilkins, D.P. & Hill, D. 1995. When GO means COME: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6(2–3): 209–259.
