There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: letter for 'th'
From: Tony Harris
1b. Re: letter for 'th'
From: Alex Fink
1c. Re: letter for 'th'
From: Michael Everson
2a. Re: A Portrait of the Conlanger as a Young Man
From: Virginia Keys
3a. Re: Pronoun systems that don't mark person?
From: Alex Fink
3b. Re: Pronoun systems that don't mark person?
From: And Rosta
3c. Re: Pronoun systems that don't mark person?
From: neo gu
4a. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Patrick Dunn
4b. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin
4c. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Patrick Dunn
4d. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Padraic Brown
4e. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: George Corley
4f. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Garth Wallace
4g. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Padraic Brown
4h. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Padraic Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: letter for 'th'
Posted by: "Tony Harris" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:14 pm ((PDT))
Is <z> in use? You could always go with the Castillian option and use C
(before i or e) and Z, or Z alone, to cover [T].
On 09/04/2012 07:31 PM, And Rosta wrote:
> Michael Everson, On 04/09/2012 17:17:
>> On 3 Sep 2012, at 09:24, And Rosta wrote:
>>> Which of the following is the least rebarbative choice of grapheme
>>> for a phoneme whose primary allophone is [T] ('th' in _thin_), that
>>> eternal conlang favourite?
>>
>> I can only recommend the letter þ.
>
> Tony Harris, On 04/09/2012 19:47:
>> Personally I would prefer to use þ (thorn) for [T],
>
> þ would be my preference too, but I cannot think of a historically
> plausible explanation for Livagian using it. (Tho see below.)
>
> Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin [Amazing name! How's it pronounced?]
>> What value does<t> have with or without the under dot?
>
> <t> without dot is a coronal plosive whose default realization is [d];
> <t> with dot is an alveolar click (with [N] accompaniment).
>
>> <d> is certainly the least arbitrary looking of the lot, but it's
>> still not great. Is there any reason you can't use someone a little
>> less odd?
>
> I'm assuming that the available stock of letters is the Latin
> alphabet, augmented, out of necessity, by ash and letters with over-
> and/or under- dots. I haven't been able to find anything less odd. I
> have a rule that an overdot can't occur with a letter whose roman or
> italic minuscule sometimes has an ascender and an underdot can't occur
> with a letter whose roman or italic minuscule sometimes has a
> descender -- not counting fancy swashy italics (so z can have an
> underdot but f and s can't). This rule must, I guess, have developed
> with the maturation of minuscules and Renaissance lettering. If the
> dot diacritics antedate the standardization of ascenders and
> descenders, then perhaps /T/ was originally T-overdot, but this in
> time came to fall foul of the "no overdot when there's an ascender"
> rule (& indeed, Livagian does not allow <t>-overdot, even tho most
> permitted combos of letters and over- and under- dot are assigned some
> orthographic function), which led to the search for
> a replacement letter, in which case by this time (Renaissance) thorn,
> altho no longer used, would be available to be borrowed. But I think
> Livagians would have been perfectly happy to use C; it's only the rest
> of us that feel uncomfortable with C and want thorn instead.
>
> --And.
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: letter for 'th'
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:35 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 00:31:10 +0100, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm assuming that the available stock of letters is the Latin alphabet,
>augmented, out of necessity, by ash and letters with over- and/or under- dots.
>I haven't been able to find anything less odd. I have a rule that an overdot
>can't occur with a letter whose roman or italic minuscule sometimes has an
>ascender and an underdot can't occur with a letter whose roman or italic
>minuscule sometimes has a descender -- not counting fancy swashy italics (so z
>can have an underdot but f and s can't). This rule must, I guess, have
>developed with the maturation of minuscules and Renaissance lettering.
Do over- and under-dot contrast, or is there just a single diacritic dot which
is placed where it fits? The latter has precedent: the IPA recommends it for
things like [N_0], Latvian uses G with over-comma in a series with KLN(R) with
under-comma, etc. The former I myself wouldn't be content with, as an
unjustifiable anachronism, if it's meant to continue a system from before the
lowercase letters developed.
(I don't suppose the Livagians are swayed by the Irish use of overdots
everywhere. Actually, didn't the old Irish use of overdot here develop from
the _punctus delens_, overdot as a deletion mark? Another thing which the
Livagians must not have adopted.)
Alex
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: letter for 'th'
Posted by: "Michael Everson" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 7:48 pm ((PDT))
On 4 Sep 2012, at 16:31, And Rosta wrote:
> þ would be my preference too, but I cannot think of a historically plausible
> explanation for Livagian using it.
Missionaries from the west?
In Áloþk's Adventures in Goatland the story is told of how Mormon missionaries
from Iceland helped to devise the orthography of Zumorigénflit.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: A Portrait of the Conlanger as a Young Man
Posted by: "Virginia Keys" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:15 pm ((PDT))
While I don't have a date on my earliest surviving ciphers, I estimate that
around age 12 is when I started making them. After a couple years of making up
symbols and altered alphabets, I have, at age 14, my very first attempt at
making something less like a cipher and more like a language. It was still
mostly a cipher, but I started to add symbols for words, gave the numbers new
names, invented a new punctuation system, added a few loanwords, and wrote it
right to left.
I don't have documentation of further efforts for the next several years. At
age 15 I took Spanish, and at 16 and 17 I took Biblical Hebrew, so by the time
I graduated high school I was aware of differences in grammer and vocabulary,
if not of the entire range of possibilities. At age 18 I picked up a few Korean
words from a roomate.
Sometime after turning 20 my interest was renewed, I discovered the online
conlanging community, and I began more serious efforts toward making a
language. Since then, it's been pretty trial-and-error, but I do think that
each attempt has been more developed, and more distinct as a language, to the
point that I've been able to offer some examples and translations on the list.
--Virginia K.
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Pronoun systems that don't mark person?
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:17 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:09:40 -0400, Daniel Burgener <[email protected]>
wrote:
>So, I was thinking over the weekend about scrapping my current pronoun
>system and having one that doesn't mark person [...]
>So are there other nat-/con- lang examples that I'm missing?
Asha'ille has something like that Ebisedian system cranked up further:
http://www.arthaey.com/conlang/ashaille/grammar/description.html#person
As well, there are a few conlang examples of cutting up the first/second person
distinction differently. Jeff Jones has done a few languages with what he
calls a K-L system, where K ("knower") is first person in declaratives but
second in question, and L (did that stand for anything?) is the other term.
http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/klop/KLOP.htm
In the gripping language, which is only usable by two people at once, Sai and I
have gotten away with a realignment arguably simpler than the normal one: the
two personal pronouns are "conversant with thumb on top" and "conversant with
thumb on bottom". They therefore have the same referent regardless who uses
them.
http://000024.org/conlang/gripping.html s.v. "Basic pronouns"; see also under
"Clasping hands", near the top
I suppose a social-hierarchy system might shake out similarly in this last
regard.
Oh yes, Rosenfelder has a fleshed-out rank system like this:
http://zompist.com/munkhashi.htm#Rank
I'm a little skeptical of the stability of a thing like this -- at least in a
human society, where folks don't all retain in mind a consistent total order of
who beats who.
Alex
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Pronoun systems that don't mark person?
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:51 pm ((PDT))
Alex Fink, On 05/09/2012 01:17:
> As well, there are a few conlang examples of cutting up the
> first/second person distinction differently. Jeff Jones has done a
> few languages with what he calls a K-L system, where K ("knower") is
> first person in declaratives but second in question, and L (did that
> stand for anything?) is the other term.
Neat idea! If K = Knower, I guess L = Learner? Did Jeff get it from a natlang
or was it his idea? If it's his idea it then has that rare combination of being
original yet functionally and cognitively (= 'ergonomically') plausible and
effectual. (As opposed to, say, the originality of thinking up some old bag of
shite of such silliness and pointlessness nobody else would ever have come up
with it.)
--And.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Pronoun systems that don't mark person?
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 8:03 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:51:53 +0100, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
>Alex Fink, On 05/09/2012 01:17:
>> As well, there are a few conlang examples of cutting up the
>> first/second person distinction differently. Jeff Jones has done a
>> few languages with what he calls a K-L system, where K ("knower") is
>> first person in declaratives but second in question, and L (did that
>> stand for anything?) is the other term.
>
> Neat idea! If K = Knower, I guess L = Learner?
correct!
> Did Jeff get it from a natlang or was it his idea?
I can't think of a natlang that has it.
> If it's his idea it then has that rare combination of being original yet
> functionally and cognitively (= 'ergonomically') plausible and effectual. (As
> opposed to, say, the originality of thinking up some old bag of shite of such
> silliness and pointlessness nobody else would ever have come up with it.)
>
>--And.
Thank you!
--
Jeff
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:21 pm ((PDT))
Cristophe,
In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun phrases. For example:
[The man]NP is my friend.
[He]NP is my friend.
*[The [he]]NP is my friend.
Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a pronoun does not replace
a noun.
It sounds like this is indeed not the case with Japanese.
--Patrick
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4 September 2012 17:34, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Huh. Are pronouns in Japanese entire noun phrases, as they are in
> English?
> >
> >
> > That might indicate a difference between, say, boku used as a noun and
> boku
> > used as a pronoun.
> >
> >
> >
> What do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by
> "pronouns in English are entire noun phrases".
>
> In Japanese, there is not syntactic difference between nouns and pronouns:
> they take exactly the same postpositions, in exactly the same way. Pronouns
> can be completed by adjectives, noun phrases, or even by relative
> subclauses, just like other nouns. I can think of only a single feature
> where Japanese nouns and pronouns behave somewhat differently: the use of
> the plural suffix "-tachi". With common nouns it's always optional. With
> pronouns it's mandatory. *However*, the use of "-tachi" with pronouns is
> very similar to how it is used with people's names, where it's also
> mandatory (basically, "-tachi" isn't a true plural suffix. Rather, it means
> "and others, and company". So "bokutachi" means "we" because it actually
> means "I and others", in the same way that "Tanakatachi" means "Tanaka and
> co."). It's also similar to how other terms of address are used (which can
> be basically any noun that can refer to a person): for those as well,
> "-tachi" is mandatory when someone addresses more than one person at once.
>
> So the difference in the use of the plural marker doesn't seem to be a mark
> of a separate category of pronouns, but rather a consequence of the use of
> pronouns as terms of address.
>
> Basically, it seems that common nouns in Japanese can take an "identifier"
> function, similar to that of proper names, in which case they become
> similar to what we call "pronouns". But that's simply a possible function
> of nouns, not a separate grammatical category.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:29 pm ((PDT))
On the other hand, you do occasionally get NPs like 'a more beautiful you' (to
take an example from some advertising), which is perfectly fine English, even
if it's not exactly common and largely restricted to a subset of pronouns.
Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>Cristophe,
>
>In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun phrases. For example:
>
>[The man]NP is my friend.
>[He]NP is my friend.
>*[The [he]]NP is my friend.
>
>Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a pronoun does not replace
>a noun.
>
>It sounds like this is indeed not the case with Japanese.
>
>--Patrick
>
>On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
>[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4 September 2012 17:34, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Huh. Are pronouns in Japanese entire noun phrases, as they are in
>> English?
>> >
>> >
>> > That might indicate a difference between, say, boku used as a noun and
>> boku
>> > used as a pronoun.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> What do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by
>> "pronouns in English are entire noun phrases".
>>
>> In Japanese, there is not syntactic difference between nouns and pronouns:
>> they take exactly the same postpositions, in exactly the same way. Pronouns
>> can be completed by adjectives, noun phrases, or even by relative
>> subclauses, just like other nouns. I can think of only a single feature
>> where Japanese nouns and pronouns behave somewhat differently: the use of
>> the plural suffix "-tachi". With common nouns it's always optional. With
>> pronouns it's mandatory. *However*, the use of "-tachi" with pronouns is
>> very similar to how it is used with people's names, where it's also
>> mandatory (basically, "-tachi" isn't a true plural suffix. Rather, it means
>> "and others, and company". So "bokutachi" means "we" because it actually
>> means "I and others", in the same way that "Tanakatachi" means "Tanaka and
>> co."). It's also similar to how other terms of address are used (which can
>> be basically any noun that can refer to a person): for those as well,
>> "-tachi" is mandatory when someone addresses more than one person at once.
>>
>> So the difference in the use of the plural marker doesn't seem to be a mark
>> of a separate category of pronouns, but rather a consequence of the use of
>> pronouns as terms of address.
>>
>> Basically, it seems that common nouns in Japanese can take an "identifier"
>> function, similar to that of proper names, in which case they become
>> similar to what we call "pronouns". But that's simply a possible function
>> of nouns, not a separate grammatical category.
>> --
>> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>>
>> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
>order from Finishing Line
>Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
>and
>Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:33 pm ((PDT))
I would argue that the "you" there isn't a pronoun but a noun. My evidence
would be that a pronoun is an entire noun phrase.
So . . . yeah, ignore that circularity.
::waves hands in the air to distract you::
--Patrick
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On the other hand, you do occasionally get NPs like 'a more beautiful you'
> (to take an example from some advertising), which is perfectly fine
> English, even if it's not exactly common and largely restricted to a subset
> of pronouns.
>
> Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Cristophe,
> >
> >In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun phrases. For example:
> >
> >[The man]NP is my friend.
> >[He]NP is my friend.
> >*[The [he]]NP is my friend.
> >
> >Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a pronoun does not replace
> >a noun.
> >
> >It sounds like this is indeed not the case with Japanese.
> >
> >--Patrick
> >
> >On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
> >[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4 September 2012 17:34, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Huh. Are pronouns in Japanese entire noun phrases, as they are in
> >> English?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That might indicate a difference between, say, boku used as a noun and
> >> boku
> >> > used as a pronoun.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> What do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by
> >> "pronouns in English are entire noun phrases".
> >>
> >> In Japanese, there is not syntactic difference between nouns and
> pronouns:
> >> they take exactly the same postpositions, in exactly the same way.
> Pronouns
> >> can be completed by adjectives, noun phrases, or even by relative
> >> subclauses, just like other nouns. I can think of only a single feature
> >> where Japanese nouns and pronouns behave somewhat differently: the use
> of
> >> the plural suffix "-tachi". With common nouns it's always optional. With
> >> pronouns it's mandatory. *However*, the use of "-tachi" with pronouns is
> >> very similar to how it is used with people's names, where it's also
> >> mandatory (basically, "-tachi" isn't a true plural suffix. Rather, it
> means
> >> "and others, and company". So "bokutachi" means "we" because it actually
> >> means "I and others", in the same way that "Tanakatachi" means "Tanaka
> and
> >> co."). It's also similar to how other terms of address are used (which
> can
> >> be basically any noun that can refer to a person): for those as well,
> >> "-tachi" is mandatory when someone addresses more than one person at
> once.
> >>
> >> So the difference in the use of the plural marker doesn't seem to be a
> mark
> >> of a separate category of pronouns, but rather a consequence of the use
> of
> >> pronouns as terms of address.
> >>
> >> Basically, it seems that common nouns in Japanese can take an
> "identifier"
> >> function, similar to that of proper names, in which case they become
> >> similar to what we call "pronouns". But that's simply a possible
> function
> >> of nouns, not a separate grammatical category.
> >> --
> >> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
> >>
> >> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> >> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> >order from Finishing Line
> >Press<
> http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> >and
> >Amazon<
> http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2
> >.
>
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:56 pm ((PDT))
--- On Tue, 9/4/12, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun
> phrases. For example:
>
> [The man]NP is my friend.
> [He]NP is my friend.
> *[The [he]]NP is my friend.
>
> Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a pronoun
> does not replace a noun.
[That man] is my friend.
[That one] is my friend.
[The girl] on my mind is cute.
[The somebody] on my mind is cute.
I like [the person] I see in the mirror.
I like [the me] I see in the mirror.
[The he] I'm talking about is my friend.
[Cats] have nine lives.
[They] have nine lives.
[The you] that I knew... (a song)
[The We] and [The I] (a movie)
And it comes full circle with turning a pronoun into a noun again:
The They Co.
So, a pronoun cán replace a noun phrase.
Or, it can replace only the noun.
Padraic
> --Patrick
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christophe
> Grandsire-Koevoets <
> [email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 4 September 2012 17:34, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Huh. Are pronouns in Japanese entire noun
> phrases, as they are in
> > English?
> > >
> > >
> > > That might indicate a difference between, say,
> boku used as a noun and
> > boku
> > > used as a pronoun.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > What do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I understand
> what you mean by
> > "pronouns in English are entire noun phrases".
> >
> > In Japanese, there is not syntactic difference between
> nouns and pronouns:
> > they take exactly the same postpositions, in exactly
> the same way. Pronouns
> > can be completed by adjectives, noun phrases, or even
> by relative
> > subclauses, just like other nouns. I can think of only
> a single feature
> > where Japanese nouns and pronouns behave somewhat
> differently: the use of
> > the plural suffix "-tachi". With common nouns it's
> always optional. With
> > pronouns it's mandatory. *However*, the use of "-tachi"
> with pronouns is
> > very similar to how it is used with people's names,
> where it's also
> > mandatory (basically, "-tachi" isn't a true plural
> suffix. Rather, it means
> > "and others, and company". So "bokutachi" means "we"
> because it actually
> > means "I and others", in the same way that
> "Tanakatachi" means "Tanaka and
> > co."). It's also similar to how other terms of address
> are used (which can
> > be basically any noun that can refer to a person): for
> those as well,
> > "-tachi" is mandatory when someone addresses more than
> one person at once.
> >
> > So the difference in the use of the plural marker
> doesn't seem to be a mark
> > of a separate category of pronouns, but rather a
> consequence of the use of
> > pronouns as terms of address.
> >
> > Basically, it seems that common nouns in Japanese can
> take an "identifier"
> > function, similar to that of proper names, in which
> case they become
> > similar to what we call "pronouns". But that's simply a
> possible function
> > of nouns, not a separate grammatical category.
> > --
> > Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
> >
> > http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> > http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now
> available for
> order from Finishing Line
> Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> and
> Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
>
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 6:04 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 9/4/12, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun
> > phrases. For example:
> >
> > [The man]NP is my friend.
> > [He]NP is my friend.
> > *[The [he]]NP is my friend.
> >
> > Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a pronoun
> > does not replace a noun.
>
> [The he] I'm talking about is my friend.
>
This structure might just be nominalizing a pronoun.
>
> [Cats] have nine lives.
> [They] have nine lives.
>
That shows absolutely nothing -- "Cats" is the entire noun phrase anyway.
>
> [The you] that I knew... (a song)
>
> [The We] and [The I] (a movie)
>
Again, possibly nominalization. "The you" is not really the same as "you"
-- it carries the meaning of a metaphorical person that the interlocutor
represents, similar to "the <personal name>". Also, titles can play fast
and loose with grammar for poetic purposes if they like (cf. Stephen
Colbert's *I Am America (And So Can You!)*)
>
> And it comes full circle with turning a pronoun into a noun again:
>
> The They Co.
>
> So, a pronoun cán replace a noun phrase.
>
> Or, it can replace only the noun.
>
> Padraic
Again, I think it's all nominalizing. You're talking about cases where the
pronoun doesn't seem to be a simple anaphoric reference, but has a meaning
of its own.
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
4f. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 6:30 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:04 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> --- On Tue, 9/4/12, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun
>> > phrases. For example:
>> >
>> > [The man]NP is my friend.
>> > [He]NP is my friend.
>> > *[The [he]]NP is my friend.
>> >
>> > Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a pronoun
>> > does not replace a noun.
>>
>> [The he] I'm talking about is my friend.
>>
>
> This structure might just be nominalizing a pronoun.
I think it's quotation. I know I would enclose "he" in quotes there in
writing, and separate it with pitch when speaking:
"The "he" I'm talking about is my friend."
You're referring specifically to the use of a particular word.
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
4g. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 6:57 pm ((PDT))
--- On Tue, 9/4/12, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: George Corley <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2012, 9:04 PM
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:56 PM,
> Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > --- On Tue, 9/4/12, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun
> > > phrases. For example:
> > >
> > > [The man]NP is my friend.
> > > [He]NP is my friend.
> > > *[The [he]]NP is my friend.
> > >
> > > Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a
> pronoun
> > > does not replace a noun.
> >
> > [The he] I'm talking about is my friend.
> >
>
> This structure might just be nominalizing a pronoun.
I thought about that. I think you could argue the point, though I don't
really see it as nominalization. Certainly English verbs nouns and nouns
verbs at the drop of a hat, so why not noun a pronoun?
I don't think that's what really happening here. I think the pronouns
in these cases simply remain pronouns.
> > [Cats] have nine lives.
> > [They] have nine lives.
>
> That shows absolutely nothing -- "Cats" is the entire noun
> phrase anyway.
Sure, but the noun phrase consists solely of a noun, with no other
apparatus (articles and so forth) to clutter things. Thus, the pronoun
is indeed substituting for a lonely noun.
> > [The you] that I knew... (a song)
> >
> > [The We] and [The I] (a movie)
> >
>
> Again, possibly nominalization. "The you" is not
> really the same as "you"
> -- it carries the meaning of a metaphorical person that the
> interlocutor
> represents, similar to "the <personal name>".
Who are the we and I in question? I don't know. Therefore, they still
have their pronominal force about them, even if they're being used where
we might expect a noun.
I see it as really nothing more than singling out or specifying or
emphasizing a "certain" subset of individuals from the broader set of all
individuals that could be "we" or "he".
> Also, titles can play fast
> and loose with grammar for poetic purposes if they like (cf.
> Stephen
> Colbert's *I Am America (And So Can You!)*)
Yes. Where I was heading with "The They Co."
But this is just something that English is particularly good at.
> Again, I think it's all nominalizing. You're talking
> about cases where the
> pronoun doesn't seem to be a simple anaphoric reference, but
> has a meaning of its own.
Maybe it's cataphoric. The he I'm thinking about is my friend, John.
A: I saw your friend today. He's cute.
B: Huh? You think my friend is cute?
A: Yeah. A hottie.
B: Are you sure? What's his name?
A: Craig.
B: Oh! The he I'm thinking of is my friend, John. Craig is my brother!
"He" is not being used as a noun, because it still refers to some unstated
person. It is simply an emphatic pronoun referring to the friend who is
later named. At least, that's how I understand the examples I gave! YMMV!
Think of it as a pronominal phrase, rather than a noun phrase?
Padraic
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
4h. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Sep 4, 2012 7:08 pm ((PDT))
--- On Tue, 9/4/12, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Garth Wallace <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2012, 9:30 PM
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:04 PM,
> George Corley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> --- On Tue, 9/4/12, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In English, pronouns are functionally entire
> noun
> >> > phrases. For example:
> >> >
> >> > [The man]NP is my friend.
> >> > [He]NP is my friend.
> >> > *[The [he]]NP is my friend.
> >> >
> >> > Contrary to what is taught to people in
> school, a pronoun
> >> > does not replace a noun.
> >>
> >> [The he] I'm talking about is my friend.
> >>
> >
> > This structure might just be nominalizing a pronoun.
>
> I think it's quotation. I know I would enclose "he" in
> quotes there in writing, and separate it with pitch when speaking:
>
> "The "he" I'm talking about is my friend."
>
> You're referring specifically to the use of a particular word.
Interesting! I can see how "he" might be used quotationally in that
position in writing. For example, one person is complaining about
something someone else did and without wishing to explicitly name the
person, very strongly emphasizes the pronoun, and maybe make quote signs
with their fingers to emphasize the point. I'd write thát as:
Well, the "someone" I'm talking about, and I'm not naming any names, came
after me again today and we got in a big argument.
Both people know exactly who the "somebody" is, but for whatever reason
the speaker feels ill at ease in directly naming the person. For me, this
quotation is not emphatic, but is almost a kind of tabu replacement of
a known quantity, shrouding it with the mystery of a pronominal shape.
For me, that's quite a different feeling from the simple emphasis that
"the he" or "the someone" marks for me.
So, that's three different ways of looking at the same construction. One
thing is clear: we don't have consensus on this one! Or perhaps it's an
example of a single construction that can be validly understood in several
different ways depending on context, body language, initiation within the
conversation, etc.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (22)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
