HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: knappen@obelix.kph.uni-mainz.de (Joerg Knappen)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Zusammenfassung: Rechtschreibereform
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:48:03 GMT
Reply-To: knappen@obelix.kph.Uni-Mainz.DE
Organization: Institute for Nuclear Physics, Uni Mainz, FRG
Zusammenfassung: Rechtschreibereform

Leider konnte ich nicht viel konkretes "uber die geplante Reform in Erfahrung
bringen. Folgende Punkte scheinen dem heutigen Stand der Debatte zu
entsprechen:

* Die vor etwa 2 Jahren diskutierten Vorschl"age wie "`Keiser"' und "`Meis"'
  (statt Kaiser und Mais) sind verworfen worden.
* ss/\3 soll regularisiert werden, und zwar soll nach kurzem Vokal immer ss
  stehen, nach langem Vokal \3 (Beispiele m"ussen, muss, musste; Fu\3, F"u\3e).
* Trennung von st soll erlaubt werden (Beispiel: Wes-te statt We-ste).
* In den meisten Zweifelsf"allen (siehe das Diktat) soll sowohl Gro\3- als
  auch Kleinschreibung erlaubt sein.
* Die Regeln zur Kommasetzung sollen ge"andert werden.

Die Vorschl"age beruhen auf Forschungen zur Fehlerh"aufigkeit, die in der DDR
gemacht worden sind. Allgemeine Kleinschreibung soll nicht vorgeschlagen
werden, da  -- so der Bericht in der taz -- dieses Thema zu emotional und
kontrovers sei und dadurch der Erfolg der Reform als ganzes gef"ahrdet sei.

Ob das ganze Projekt noch den Namen "`Rechtschreibereform"' verdient, m"oge 
jeder selbst entscheiden. F"ur meinen Geschmack fehlt etliches:

* Die unsinnige Regel, die drei gleiche Konsonanten verbietet, sollte
  abgeschafft werden. (Wie trennt man "`Stilleben"'?)
* /f/ kann f, v oder ph geschrieben werden. Wenigstens ph sollte zu f werden.
* "`Montage"' kann auf zweierlei Weise ausgesprochen werden, die auch im 
  Schriftbild unterschieden werden sollten. Meine Idee: Einf"uhrung von zh
  (Also dann: Zhurnal, Garazhe, Montazhe, Dzhungel).
* Phonetische Schreibung von Fremdw"ortern (wie im Niederl"andischen).

J"org Knappen.

P. S. F"ur Kleinschreibungsfanatiker:
,,er hat in moskau liebe genossen.''
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: mikulska@bessel.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Subject: Re: "Neuman style" (was: Russian dative + infinitive)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: mikulska@astro.princeton.edu (Margaret Mikulska)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:15:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.113238.3085@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
> And consider the following:
>
>	Heinrich, mich graust vor dir!
>
>Damit ist wohl Deine Erklaerung gerichtet, meine gerettet? :-)

Her zu mir!  :-)

Warum "mich graust" und nicht "mir graut's" ?


-Margaret Mikulska
mikulska@astro.princeton.edu

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: language families (was: typology of Esperanto)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:44:31 GMT

In article <1684F12599.JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU> JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.202419.9164@spss.com>
>markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug23.190212.107@leland.Stanford.EDU> alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson) writes:
>>>To take a classic example, do you consider English to be a Germanic language,
>>>vocabulary of English is derived from Latin (via Norman French or not) and
>>>Greek than from Proto-Germanic.
>>
>>I think the prototype approach works very well here.  The prototypical
>>example of a Germanic language would surely be German, not English.
>>Both are Germanic, but German is a better example of Germanic.
> 
>There are several problems involved with this approach to language classi-
>fication. First, we seem to be confusing typology with affiliation.  The
>term Germanic is one applied to certain languages based on their historical
>origin and development, not surface resemblance.  

I would think that language families are initially posited due to surface
resemblance, and this leads to an investigation of their historical origin
and development, which of course is more satisfactory.

>Second, of the 'parts'
>of a language that one might consider in deciding whether language x is or
>is not a member of language family q, vocabulary is the least safe, and
>the least relied on by historical linguists (Swadesh having been an anthro-
>pologist, and Greenberg is not widely accepted by historical linguists.)

Vocabulary is the least safe compared to what?  Syntax?  I thought 
reconstruction was based on the comparision of lexical items.

If you're saying that surface similarities or differences of lexical items
may turn out to be meaningless once the history of the language is known,
or that comparisons of basic word lists can't hold a candle to rigorous
reconstruction of protolanguages, I quite agree.

>By the by, an argument
>can be made that in some ways English is a more typical Germanic language
>than is German.  One characteristic that helps define the Germanic languages
>is that referred to as the first consonant shift, or Grimm's law (regard-
>less of the details we attribute to Indo-European consonants).  English,
>like Danish and Dutch, Gothic and Swedish, has for the most part preserved
>the Germanic consonant system, while German through its second consonant
>shift has not, making it more difficult to recognize as Germanic.

Good point; I'd forgotten the second consonant shift in making the statement
quoted above.  Still, it's interesting that you can speak of the concept of 
"a more typical Germanic language".  That's precisely the kind of prototype
effect I was talking about.
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Cognitive Linguistics & History
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:18:40 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

A reason for doubting the claims of so-called cognitive linguistics
that the insightful David Pesetsky hasn't mentioned: the elementary
fact that languages develop through time.

A language at any point is a palimpsest; you can find layer upon
layer of structural and "cognitive" debris from many generations of
speakers.  It doesn't reflect anything mental about *any* single
generation, let alone the present one.
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: Baron's Fourth Law of Linguistic Thermodynamics
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:18:46 GMT

Haven't we gotten across the message that "shuddering"
isn't a very practical attitude for a linguist to
take :-) ?!

-Richard
-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:19:59 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug31.152803.17752@ils.nwu.edu> pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler) writes:
>In article <10559@spark.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>> From a zoo"logist's point of view,
>> nothing can be more or less a bird, sort of a bird, or anything like
>> that, and an ostrich is as good a bird as a robin or a raven.  It is
>> true that a layman may use some other definition, or even several of
>> them at once, and may wind up excluding ostriches or calling a bat a
>> bird, but this is not interesting to the professional.
>
>1) "Bird" is a folk concept borrowed by zoologists.  I don't think
>the "layman's" version should be so easily dismissed, since it largely
>determines the expert version.

Many if not most zoo"logical concepts are originally folk concepts,
but all of them have had their meanings redefined.  The layman may
wish to call a whale a fish, or a spider an insect, or refuse to call
himself an animal, and he won't exactly be wrong, but he will find
that the expert version of these concepts ("fish", "insect", "animal"),
while largely determined by his, is not the same as his.

>2) Even experts disagree on the meaning of "bird", e.g. the Archaeopteryx.

I knew that this was coming.  It is partly a reptile and partly a bird,
as one of the extinct species that constitute the evolutionary link
between the two classes.  There shouldn't be any problem with granting
associate birdhood to the Archaeopteryx, but no less than full birdhood
to the ostrich, and none to the bat.

>I'd be very surprised to find out there are no syntactic categories that
>play the role of the Archaeopteryx.

Would we have to go back in time, though, to listen to the language of
our very distant ancestors who still hadn't started to differentiate
between nouns and verbs, say?  The Archaeopteryx is as dead as dodo
(actually much *deader than that).

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: mrmu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Marianne Mueller)
Subject: die  Palatschinke
Keywords: it's from the Romanian
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:42:43 GMT

According to the Wahrig Deutsches Woerterbuch, 

Palatschinke (feminine) (Oesterreichisch) 
                        (auf Deutsch, gefuellter Eierkuchen)

   comes from the Romanian: placinta


----------------------------

this is in reference to some debate that was going on a hundred
million years ago about the origins of Palatschinke.  Which by
the way are totally great to eat!  And recommended!
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: What for?
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:30:05 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Bu07oA.87H@netnews.jhuapl.edu>, avlb@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (A V Louis Biggie) writes:
> I think it has something to do with the fact that "why" is used in two 
> different ways.  Sometimes it means "for what reason" and sometimes is means 
> "for what purpose."
> 
> For example: 
> 
> Why did you go to the supermarket?
> (This means what was your purpose in going to the supermarket.)
> 
> Why does hot air rise?
> (Provide an explanation for hot air rising.)
> 
> The first can be paraphrased as:
> 
> What did you go to the supermarket for?
> 
> But,
> 
> * What does hot air rise for?
> 
> is (at least to me) not a paraphrase of "Why does hot air rise?"
> 
> I concede that sometimes reasons and purposes are sometimes pretty close

I think you have the right explanation, but it might be clearer if
paraphrased.  How about this formulation?

	_Why_ always asks for an explanation, but there is much
	to be explained.  _Why_ is therefore a fairly general
	interrogative.

	_What...for_ specifically asks the goal that was (to be)
	achieved by the action in question.  It seems to occur
	only with agentive verbs, and then only with voluntary
	ones (hence the strangeness of _What did you hiccough for?_).

Examples:

	What did you watch the sunset for?  (agentive)
	*What did you see the sunset for?  (non-agentive)
	Why did you see the sunset?
	Why did you watch the sunset?

On second thought some non-agentive predicates do permit _what...
for_, as long as a purpose/goal is clearly intended.  Examples:

	Why did he die?  (He had pneumonia.)
	What did he die for?  (for his country, a cause, etc.)
	What did he have to die for?  (How did this fit the 
		divine plan of things?)
	What is he here for?  (Either he wants to achieve something,
		or someone invited him for a purpose.)
	Why is he here?  (There is probably no such purpose;
		typically, 'he shouldn't have come but here he is').
	Why is the sky blue?  (normal)
	What is the sky blue for?  (a teleological question)

By the way, German makes a parallel distinction between _warum_ 'why'
and _wozu_ 'for what purpose, what for'.

	Warum lernt man Deutsch?  (Because it's required.)
	Wozu lernt man Deutsch?   (to read Goethe, Beilstein, whatever).

Surely other languages do too.  I seem to remember Latin _quare_ 'why'
and postclassical _ut quid_ 'what for'.

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: poser@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser)
Subject: Re: Agglutinative languages
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:11:29 GMT


Bruce Gilson is correct that it is controversial whether Korean is
an Altaic language. There are two aspects to the controversy. The first
is whether the core Altaic subgroups, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic,
are actually related to each other. Work by G. Clauson and more recently
M. Doerfer, among others, has cast considerable doubt on the existence
of Altaic. Their argument is that the lexical similarities are the result
of diffusion, not genetic affiliation. Second, there is the question of
whether Korean is related to any or all of the subgroups of Altaic.
This isn't settled either. Probably the most interesting work in
this area is that of Lee Ki-Mun on the relationship of Korean to Tungusic.
So, Korean may be Altaic, but the question is very much unsettled.

							Bill
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6788 soc.culture.celtic:5665
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: [pronouns] Re: Other properties of pronoun usage
From: ace@kryton.UUCP (Catherine Beckstead)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 11:42:17 PDT
Organization: Paradox Alley F&SF BBS 805-492-8789

evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:

> In article <1992Aug25.173141.6185@ctr.columbia.edu> pjn@phsun.ph.kcl.ac.uk (P
> 
> >	"you" is plural.  "thee" is singular, and as such is still
> >used frequently in the west of England.  In fact you can still find
> >some of the denizens of Bristol using the Anglo-Saxon "thee bist" in
> >place of "you are".
> 
> "thee bist", not "thou bist"?  I thought that the (American) Quakers
> (and related groups) were the only ones who used "thee" in subject
> position.  (And I believe they use "thee art".)

I believe the use of "thee" among Quakers is the fact that "thee" is the
familiar form.  "You" is the formal form.  Therefore, using "thee"  for
these religions is accepting everyone as an equal and a humble servent
of God.  It is interesting that English, for the most part, dropped the
familiar in favor of calling everyone "you", the formal address.  So, as
the feudal system went by the wayside, the common folk, wanting more respect,
went with the more noble address of "you".


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Beckstead                    ace@kryton.uucp
"Do you want to argue with a can of deodorant that registers
NINE on the Richter scale?"        --Ace, in "Dragonfire"
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:48:59 GMT

In article <BtIBDA.9y2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v106lr4h@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric T Sasse) writes:
>From: v106lr4h@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric T Sasse)
>Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
>Date: 24 Aug 92 22:22:00 GMT
>In article <baron.30.714685399@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron) writes...
>>>English doesn't *have* linguistic genders, except for a grand total of
>>>six (6) words.  And it lacks a generic singular other than "they."  
>
>  OK, I'll bite. What were the ones you were thinking of? I came up with 11,
>but I will admit to possibly 9. They are:
>          Mas.     Fem.    Neut.                Mas./Fem.     Neut.
>Nom.      he       she     it                      who        what
>Gen.      his      her(s)             and        
>Acc.      him      her                             whom 
>
> I am thinking of the fem. gen. as possibly 2 different words, as well as a
>distinction between the fem gen. and acc. to account for the 11, but "her"
>gen. and "her" acc. could be just one word. And, am I just completely wrong
>with thw who/what relation? Seems correct to me.
>
>                                               Whatever,
>                                                    -Eric
Eric,
This is my second reply.  I didn't claim 6 pronouns, it was the person I
was responding to who did.  My comment was about legal interpretations
of generic masculine/nongeneric masculine.  Sorry about the confusion.

Dennis


debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cognitive Linguistics & History
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:58:01 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug30.090523.42662@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <81464@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>> In article 42585@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu () writes:
>>>A reason for doubting the claims of so-called cognitive linguistics
>>>that the insightful David Pesetsky hasn't mentioned: the elementary
>>>fact that languages develop through time.
>>>
>>>A language at any point is a palimpsest; you can find layer upon
>>>layer of structural and "cognitive" debris from many generations of
>>>speakers.  It doesn't reflect anything mental about *any* single
>>>generation, let alone the present one.
>> 
>> Is there any other kind of David Pesetsky?  Does the demotion of the
>> proper noun to common status affect the category we place him in, or 
>> just way we categorize him?  Sorry for the digression.  :-)
>
>I was about to kill the above with a "[horsing around deleted :)]" but
>it's worth calling attn to again--I don't think I've ever seen a
>linguistic study of it (a number of lgs regularly use definite article
>with proper names but apparently Eng can do it only when the name is modified).

There is recent work by G. Longobardi (longobardi@uveuncc.bitnet?) about
articles and proper nouns that might be relevant here.  I don't know
whether I should be blushing or scowling, so I'll do neither, except to
note a curiosum.  Carlotta Smith somewhere in the dark ages (1960s)
noted the same sort of fact concerning relative clause modification of
proper nouns:

	*the Paris
	the Paris that I love

Yet it seems to me that these relative clauses can only be restrictive,
not appositive.  Certainly "the Paris, which I love, was just destroyed"
is impossible, vs. "the Paris that I love was practically destroyed by
Hausman".  The adjective "The insightful John Smith" can be appositive
or restrictive but "the John Smith that I know" does not have an
appositive counterpart "the John Smith, who I know".  I wonder why.

-the not in this case insightful David Pesetsky
From: v187ef4y@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Patrick J Crowe)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was: Cognitive linguistics...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:10:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: acsu.BtyKxo.LI
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <81637@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes...
> 
>I've done so before, Richard, and I thought that you were familiar with my 
>support for the statement.  Early generative phonology made no bones about
>the role of intuition in phonology, and it isn't at all clear what modern
>generativists believe.  The waters have muddied considerably over the past
>20 years.  To take the early example, consider the oft-cited intuitions about
>ill-formed phonological sequences like */bnIk/.  The classical position is
>that native speakers know that initial /bn/ clusters are ill-formed.  Why?
>The grammar tells them so.  Precisely what the grammatical constraints are that
>do this are unimportant, although one could refer to various ways of expressing
>phonotactic generalizations.  Generative theory does not explain why initial
>/bn/ clusters are difficult to articulate, but various linguists hold various
>opinions about what causes difficult articulations. 
>  [other stuff deleted]
>    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

This got me playing with pronounciation.  While thinking of how /bn/ sounded,
I thought of /bn-na-na/ for banana, where the hyphens separate syllables.  This
is similar to an example someone gave in an earlier thread, of /cn/ for can.

Just thought I'd add that.
Pat Crowe
	_Spreading Evil: Pat Crowe's Autobiography_  New York, 1927
From: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Subject: Altaic (Re: Agglutinative languages)
Originator: alderson@leland.Stanford.EDU
Reply-To: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Organization: Stanford University Academic Information Resources
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:23:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.011129.9386@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, poser@Csli (Bill Poser) writes:
>Bruce Gilson is correct that it is controversial whether Korean is
>an Altaic language. There are two aspects to the controversy. The first
>is whether the core Altaic subgroups, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic,
>are actually related to each other. Work by G. Clauson and more recently
>M. Doerfer, among others, has cast considerable doubt on the existence
>of Altaic. Their argument is that the lexical similarities are the result
>of diffusion, not genetic affiliation.

I've only seen a report of this work in the recent _Sprung from Some Common
Source_.  (Unfortunately, I packed this book up yesterday, and can't check to
see who wrote the report in question.  Miller, perhaps?)

Unless the article in question is entirely a work of fiction, it does seem that
Clauson and Doerfer are willing to go to almost any lengths rather than accept
a genetic hypothesis.

I had seen Poppe's work years ago; it looked unexceptionable to me from the
standpoint of theory, but then I'm probably suspect, being an heir of the
Junggrammatiker.

>					Second, there is the question of
>whether Korean is related to any or all of the subgroups of Altaic.
>This isn't settled either. Probably the most interesting work in
>this area is that of Lee Ki-Mun on the relationship of Korean to Tungusic.
>So, Korean may be Altaic, but the question is very much unsettled.

Of course, if Japanese and Korean are related (Samuel Martin), and Japanese is
an Altaic language (Roy Andrew Miller), then Korean is Altaic.  :)
-- 
Rich Alderson   'I wish life was not so short,' he thought.  'Languages take
                such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
                                                        --J. R. R. Tolkien,
alderson@leland.stanford.edu                              _The Lost Road_
From: pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:10:28 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

[me:]
> I'd be very surprised to find out there are no syntactic categories that
> play the role of the Archaeopteryx.

That should have been "syntactic phenomena", not "syntactic categories",
of course.

	-dp-
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english