Competence vs. performance

Caveats:

(1) “-mo” can also be interpreted as NP coordination.

(2) AdjP coordination may be “-kute” rather than “-te”, though my intuition “kute” feels like a morphological complex.

(3) Both “-te” and “-kute” have non-coordination meaning so not clear if they should be labeled as coordinator.

Clausal coordination is also “te”

Japanese has “to” (と) for coordinating NPs and “te” (て) for adjP and VPs/Vs. Neither can be used for adverb phrases.

At this rate he will ask me why movement has to be successive cyclic by the age of 12.

Well we will write one soon!

It’s okay to admit that you are jealous of case markers and scrambling.

You get thicker white matter track between left temporal lobe and frontal lobe if you speak Japanese though

"With admirable consistency he goes on to conclude... English is appropriate for the sciences, whereas Japanese "sont plus avantageuses pour les lettres"

"...French is unique... in the degree to which the order of words corresponds to the natural order of thoughts (Diderot, 1751)" (Chomsky 1965)

Matchin concludes that English is superior in the degree to which the order of words corresponds to how we scan a visual scene (Matchin, 2025, p.c.).

7 positions on language? Sounds like your school accounts for 90% of the jobs in language

If I were to design a language, I wouldn't use very subtle noise (-s) to have a large consequence for interpretation.

For parsing, yes. But language is not designed for communication.

I’d be surprised if head directionality has anything to do with it once cultural confounds are taken care of. Hiromu Sakai used to do a lot of eye-tracking while speaking studies in Japanese, so you might find something relevant (though their work is mostly conference presentations/thesis)

You mean left branching? (English is a right branching language?). If so, I speak Japanese and I am 95% certain I had the same left to right bias just like English speakers even before I had significant exposure to English.

Well it’s a specific type of causative containing passive-like thing so I guess it’s fine to classify as a passive - I am just being a pedant. Constructions are epiphenomena anyway ;)

Not that it matters to your main point, but now I can’t stop thinking about what counts as passive (I thought “get X V-ed was a causative distinct from the get-passive but I guess the embedded clause is in a sense passive!)