Edward Sapir (1884–1939). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. 1921.
Page 93
Definiteness of reference to second subject of discourse: expressed by second the, which has preposed position Modality:
Declarative: expressed by sequence of “subject” plus verb; and implied by suffixed -s Personal relations:
Subjectivity of farmer: expressed by position of farmer before kills; and by suffixed -s
Objectivity of duckling: expressed by position of duckling after kills Number:
Singularity of first subject of discourse: expressed by lack of plural suffix in farmer; and by suffix -s in following verb
Singularity of second subject of discourse: expressed by lack of plural suffix in duckling Time:
Present: expressed by lack of preterit suffix in verb; and by suffixed -s
In this short sentence of five words there are expressed, therefore, thirteen distinct concepts, of which three are radical and concrete, two derivational, and eight relational. Perhaps the most striking result of the analysis is a renewed realization of the curious lack of accord in our language between function and form. The method of suffixing is used both for derivational and for relational elements; independent words or radical elements express both concrete ideas (objects, activities, qualities) and relational ideas (articles likes the and a; words defining case relations, like of, to, for, with, by; words defining local relations, like in, on, at); the same relational concept may be expressed more than once (thus, the singularity of farmer is both negatively expressed in the noun and positively in the verb); and one element may
