HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: ASCII representation of IPA (second draft) and call for examples
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:07:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <10914@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.160854.11592@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>><H> is "murmured", perhaps we could steal that one (/H/ is a pharyngeal).
>
>I wouldn't mind using <H> for them, if it is a pharyngeal -- but in
>that case why is it being used for "murmured"?  Isn't that made with
>the larynx?  (I recall it was the voiced counterpart of aspiration.)

Hmm.  I'm not sure why I did it that way.  Probably because one of the
ways of representing it uses a small raised "h" variant (a hooked
"h").  Since it's not the same variant represented by /H/ (a barred
"h"), this doesn't seem all that compelling.  It would certainly make
more sense to use <H> to represent a pharyngealized rather than a
glottalized sound.

>What I'm unhappy with, though, is the inconsistency that is created --
>the notation becomes too context-sensitive.  Having /~/ for /<nsd>/
>after vowels and /<fsd>/ after consonants _and_ something else for
>/<fsd>/ after vowels (whether or not it also stands for /<mrm>/ or
>something after consonants) looks like asking for trouble.

Sigh.  You're right, of course: this is undoubtedly one of the weakest
points of the proposal.  When trying to cram so many distinctions into
so few characters, however, it seems a shame to use a diacritic in a
way that only applies to a fraction of the segments.  I think that we
will be ok as long as the boundaries are drawn only on a few, easily
identifiable features (vowels vs. consonants, voiced vs. voiceless).
Also, most languages will probably cooperate by only marking one of
the two uses of a given diacritic (how many languages have both
ejectives and implosives?).

As to the issue at hand, when I said "steal" /H/ for {fzd}, I meant
instead of, not in addition to.  <?> probably makes more sense as a
parallel diacritic for {mrm}.  It's probably also not a good idea to
mark {fzd} differently for consonants and vowels if it really is the
same secondary articulation in both cases.  Perhaps we should use "~"
only for velarization on consonants and mark pharyngealization with
<H>.   Why do the two have the same IPA diacritic?  And can you
velarize vowels?

Evan Kirshenbaum
    HP Laboratories
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
    Palo Alto, CA  94304

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: andaling@durras.anu.edu.au (Avery Andrews)
Subject: SVO / VSO --> NP-movement
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  3 Oct 92 03:04:22 GMT

Re: arild@adler.ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Arild Hestvik)
     msg:  <ARILD.92Oct2094313@adler.ims.uni-stuttgart.de>


>This, I think, is a misinterpretation of the data, or a mis-description of
>what's going on. The relevant definiteness effect is nothing other than the
>familiar definiteness effect known since Milsark's work, i.e. just the same
>thing you have in English: ...

I agree with all this.  I don't see how I said anything contradicting it.
In particular, I said nothing about causation.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 12:00:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.111643.10659@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

Why is a transformation a "shenanigan", c-command "stuff" but "defining"
the same things under other names OK?

-David Pesetsky
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Metalleus: More on Moundsbar
Date: 3 Oct 92 09:14:31 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

                        MORE ON MOUNDSBAR

     My title is, despite its melisonance, not quite apt, since my
previous note on this strange language, published in the journal
_Quaestio_, was in error in almost every respect.  Afterthought
prompts the conclusion that this was due to my having obtained most
of the data by telephone.

     In any event it turns out that the many vowel phonemes of
Moundsbar can be wrestled down to seven vowel phonemes: an open
central unrounded, written /a/, two close back rounded, two close
front unrounded, and two central vowels, a higher and a lower,
which can only be described as square.  Examples follow:

     _mi_      'one juju bean'
     _me_      'he flies up'
     _su_      'he flies down; two juju beans'
     _so_      'so?'
     _sa_      'mother (son or daughter speaking)'

     Especially important is the distinction among /o/, /0/, and
/+/:

     _kpo_     'pigs; linguists'
     _kp0_     'he keeps pigs; he is an informant'
     _kp+_     'he has much pudding'

     Apertures for these last three vowels are shown below:

     \     /             \     /             \     /
     O     O             O     O             O     O

        ^                   ^                   ^
        o                   0                   +

     (Though I am not a physical anthropologist it is hard to
overlook the fact that younger Moundsbarians have no ears.  This is
due to the rather severe nature of topicalization; see my earlier
article.)

     In addition to the seven vowel phonemes there is a nasal
syllabic which I write as /N/.  Its two principal allophones are
shown below.

     \     /             \     /        
     O     O             O     O        

        ^                   ^           
        N                  /\/          
                                        

Examples:

     _dNk_          'they (pl) walk'
     _tNk_          'how many string-shaped avocado peelings?'

     My next note on Moundsbar will treat the (controversial)
pulmonic ingressive uvular trill, or "voiced snore."  If, that is,
my funding holds out.


                              - Metalleus
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Ling Ph.D programs??
Date: 3 Oct 92 22:35:05 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <92275.191424JRSCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <JRSCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>    Hello, my boyfriend has just received a listing of Cog.Sci.
> Grad Programs from the Sci.Cog. newsgroup..I'm looking for an equivalent
> listing of Ph.D Programs in Linguistics--preferably good ones, the
> programs, that is--Is there any such list available?  If so, how
> could I get my hands, fingers, eyes, on one?
> Thank you much, muchly,
> ever so much.

_Directory of Programs in Linguistics in the US & Canada: 1993_

Obtainable from publisher:	Linguistic Society of America
				1325 18th Street, N.W.
				Suite 211
				Washington, D. C. 20036
				zzlsa@gallua.bitnet
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- 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   :
********************************** +.............................+
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:38:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Sep30.183843.9793
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep30.124029.19276@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.032313.17834@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
>}...
>}McCawley's quite brilliant article is unrelated to the discussion at
>}hand.  Indeed, his proposal was the opposite of the proposals for VSO
>}languages under discussion, since he precisely predicted no
>}subject/object command asymmetry and no distinguished role for the
>}external argument. ...
>
>Not so.  McCawley moved the subject into clause initial position by
>Chomsky-adjunction, giving a surface structure [Subj[V Obj]], with
>V+Obj being an S, so that the subject commands the object in
>surface structure, but not vice versa.  The characterization of
>the "VP" as an S not dominating a subject is found also in GPSG.

I'd forgotten that part.  OK, so in Celtic McCawley would posit the same
sort of subject adjunction, but only at LF, right?

[If I used smileys, I would insert one here.]

-David Pesetsky
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:23:13 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep28.164633.21550@midway.uchicago.edu> schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu writes:
>Well, not really anglo-centric. After all, Jim McCawley tried to argue for  
>English as a VSO language a couple of decades ago, sparking a big debate,  
>which resulted in some very convincing counterarguments being published. I  
>suppose, however, that the idea had to be "reinvented" in GB terms to be  
>made more modern. I wonder if they have bothered to read all the  
>counterarguments from the Generative Semantics days. <grin>

McCawley's quite brilliant article is unrelated to the discussion at
hand.  Indeed, his proposal was the opposite of the proposals for VSO
languages under discussion, since he precisely predicted no
subject/object command asymmetry and no distinguished role for the
external argument.  So there is no reinvention here at all.  Quite the
opposite.

On the other hand, certain aspects of McCawley's proposal did resurface,
with explicit acknowledgement of parentage, in one version of the
proposal that subjects are generated internal to VP (but still
asymmetrically commanding the object).  In particular, Kitagawa's 1986
UMass dissertation discusses the connection.  I think there is a section
called something like "English as a VOS language".  I do not know
precisely what counterarguments you have in mind, and I would be
interested to hear them.  I suspect they do not bear on Kitagawa's
proposal, but perhaps I am wrong.

-David Pesetsky
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: rcj@engin.umich.edu (R o d Johnson)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 10:45:03 EDT
Organization: Lost Tribes of Gazebo

In article <1992Oct1.190454.21865@midway.uchicago.edu> schiller@sapir.uchicago.edu writes:

>In this context it is interesting to look at languages which show both SVO  
>and VSO order, such as many of the Wa languages of the Northern Shan  
>States. The data can be found in one of the early University of Chicago  
>Working Papers in Linguistics (vol 1 or 2).

In fact, it's very common for soi-disant VSO languages to exhibit an
alternative SVO order.  See an article by John Myhill in Lingua from
about 5 years ago on this.  I think Paul Hopper has done some work on
it as well, and good grammars of "VSO" languages (Mark Durie's grammar
of Acehnese, for example) usually have some discussion.  I think
"pure" VSO languages are pretty rare.

-- 
       Rod Johnson  *  rcj@caen.engin.umich.edu  *  (313) 764-3103
    
                "What I do doesn't happen in a warehouse"
                                          --Jim Dickinson
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: arild@milan.ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Arild Hestvik)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Reply-To: arild@ims.uni-stuttgart.de
Organization: IMS, University of Stuttgart, Germany
	<1992Sep28.105812.3871@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep29.090038.3435@memstvx1.memst.edu>
	<1992Oct1.142411.490@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:18:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.142411.490@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

     The arguments from subcategorization (verbs are supposed not
   to subcategorize with respect to subjects) I think are factually wrong.

What are the data?

-Arild Hestvik
Xref: sparky sci.lang:7429 alt.usage.english:7601
From: clary@xdata.cnrm.meteo.fr (Olivier CLARY)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Journal of the IPA ? (was Re: ASCII representation of IPA)
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:26:18 GMT
Followup-To: sci.lang

In article <nsn.717751261@munagin>, nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Nick Nicholas) writes:
> I don't know how welcome the following piece of news will be, but as
> far as ASCII'sing IPA is concerned... it's been done.
> [...] the reference is
> 
> J.C.Wells, _Computer Coded Phonetic Transcription_, Journal of the IPA,
> 17(2): 94-114, 1987.
> 
> The nearest copy of the journal appears to be 1000km away from me, so
> I suggest some other soul out there look into it, and report accordingly.

In support of that suggestion: if you have that Journal nearby and you are
ready to fax those 20 pages, please tell me by mail. Thank you very much.

And please post if you have an idea of how much this standard is really
used, and how good it is.

Olivier Clary
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: arild@adler.ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Arild Hestvik)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was Cognitive Linguistics...)
Reply-To: arild@ims.uni-stuttgart.de
Organization: IMS, University of Stuttgart, Germany
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:43:41 GMT

   David Pesetsky (DP) writes:

   DP> "Generative theory" tries to determine the structures underlying
   DP> something linguistic that people do...

   Rick Wojcik:
   "Something linguistic that people do" is not quite as specific as I'd
   like you to get, but it does ground the theory in behavior.  I hope we
   can agree that the theory explains principles underlying the psychology
   of linguistic behavior.  Where we get stuck is that I can't seem to get
   a clear description of what the "something linguistic" is.  Also, when
   you talk about "structures,"  you must have some idea of how those
   structures affect the "something linguistic."  [...] There should be
   some kind of psychological model that you could articulate which would
   license your claims about the data.   

OK, how about this:
 
    +------------+         +------------+     |
    | static     |        / parser/    /      |
    | linguistic | <---> / production /  <----|----> world
    | knowledge  |       \  system   /        |
    +------------+        \_________/         |
 
The subject is given the task of judging whether "bnip" is a possible word
in English. [bnip] comes in through the parser/production system. A
representation is constructed. "Something" takes this representation and
consults the static linguistic knowledge. The answer is returned that
[bnip] is not generated by that system. This information is registered
perceptually or perhaps even emotionally. The registered information is
passed on out to the world as behavior (e.g. subject utters "this does not
sound like a possible English word to me").
   This is probably more or less what linguists tacitly assumes about the
judgment task process and the resulting intuitions. Granted, there are
some steps in the process which we're not quite sure how works, which
doesn't mean one cannot live with it.

-Arild Hestvik


Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 11:16:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.160744.24814@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
}In article <1992Oct1.140756.27042@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
}
}...  Does the
}command asymmetry between subject and object converge with other
}evidence (e.g. AUX S V O order) for a VP constituent?

Defining order of functional application relative to grammatical
function (in the RG sense -- 1,2,3...) permits auxiliaries to be
described as fixed in position in relation to other main clause
constituents, but at the same time to have wide scope over the
remainder of the clause: S -> AUX[0] NP[1] <verb> NP[2], or, for
English, S -> NP[1] AUX[0] <verb> NP[2].  No shenanigans with
transformations hopping things from clause to clause.  Does that
count as converging evidence?

}...  Then you claim
}that whay you have "replaces" a VP.  On the contrary, as far as I can
}tell, you've built a VP.  ...

True.  But there's no longer a VP in the grammar.  I thought that was
progress.

} Why one proposal is arbitrary while the other
}"make[s] a certain amount of sense" is quite unclear.  After all, VPs
}have a natural interpretation in terms of function-argument application
}as well ...

I agree that there is no advantage here.  So let's stop with all
this C-command stuff, why don't we.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:39:48 GMT

pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
>>
>>Given the already extremely anglocentric nature of generative grammar, it
>>is a bit suspicious, isn't it?  Given the logical unity of predicate (V-O) and
>>subject (S), isn't it clear why order-happy linguists would want them to
>>be discrete and non-interleaved?  I hate to hear bad stuff said of Richard
>>Sproat, though...
>
>Forgive the rudeness, but please read the literature before passing off
>sociological speculation as fact.

David, most of us here are able to conduct a civil and enjoyable discussion
here without descending into invective.  No one is trying to pass anything
off on you.

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was Cognitive Linguistics...)
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:35:55 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Sep27.172720.7009@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:

[comments on my earlier remarks]

> Ironically, this is *not* true of the real founders of generative grammar.
> Chomsky, Halle, etc. (especially in their early articles) demonstrate a
> good command of all the major international languages

Major international languages, perhaps; but the development of
Chomsky's thought, and that of the MIT school in general, suggests a
lack of familiarity at the beginning with a variety of languages.
Things which a Sapir or a Bloomfield would have seen as rather
run-of-the mill seem to have been belatedly discovered by the Chomskyans,
such as the existence of VSO languages, or languages in which position
classes do not match hierarchical structure.  I am neither
anti-Chomsky nor anti-theory; it was useful for nearly the entire
field to work within the same paradigm for a while.  But I believe
that at the outset Chomsky knew little more than English and Hebrew.
As for English, I think his famous "Remarks on nominalization" paper
revealed a surprising earlier naivete.

Perhaps I'm being unfair; I'd like to hear what others think.  It does
appear, though, that Chomsky, unlike Halle, did not come into
Linguistics the usual way and it shows in his work, genius though he
undoubtedly is.

[...]  

> My favorite early article is that of F. Householder, "On Some Recent
> Claims in Phonology," Journal of Linguistics 1 (1965), p. 13-34.  I don't
> think you have to read this article as an indictment of generative gram-
> mar (in fact, Householder does not oppose it).  It's a colorful record
> of how brilliance and force of personality (as well as fat defense depart-
> ment support) can push plain reason far beyond its native capacity....

Householder (one of my teachers BTW) gave up too soon; and so did
another original mind, Charles Hockett.  But as Newmeyer says: the MIT
school simply stopped answering its critics.  What could the critics
then do?  (Anybody want to talk about tenure and peer review?)
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- 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   :
********************************** +.............................+
From: goer@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was Cognitive Linguistics...)
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:27:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Sep27.172720.7009
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>Note that in many if not most cases of reanalysis, the "data" for the
>new analysis really consists of *the earlier (presumably
>non-psychologistic) analysis*.  This is especially evident in
>phonology, where you constantly find an entire edifice of generativist
>and post-generativist work erected on the basis of an earlier
>structuralist analysis (which may or may not be explicitly mentioned). 

It's worse than this.  Sometimes somebody will read a few (usually English)
grammars of a language, and then go to work.  Subsequent generative work
will then, in large part, be based on this treatment, rather than on the
original sources (which were themselves actually secondary sources).
Absolutely astounding!

Ironically, this is *not* true of the real founders of generative grammar.
Chomsky, Halle, etc. (especially in their early articles) demonstrate a
good command of all the major international languages, and demonstrate a
knowledge of classical linguists like Bloomfield, Trubetzkoy, Sapir, etc.,
and of important individual works (Twaddell etc.).  It's not quite clear
that they understood especially Bloomfield correctly.  But now that seems
immaterial.  Few are interested in understanding these works except for
polemic reasons, anyway :-).

My favorite early article is that of F. Householder, "On Some Recent
Claims in Phonology," Journal of Linguistics 1 (1965), p. 13-34.  I don't
think you have to read this article as an indictment of generative gram-
mar (in fact, Householder does not oppose it).  It's a colorful record
of how brilliance and force of personality (as well as fat defense depart-
ment support) can push plain reason far beyond its native capacity....

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:11:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.105812.3871@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
}In article <peeters.717657429@tasman> peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters) writes:
}>pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
}>
}>>...  What these researchers discovered was evidence that VSO languages
}>>are essentially SVO in structure, ...
}>
}>Does this not show how anglocentric the entire generative enterprise really
}>is? Would Chomsky, had he been a native speaker of a VSO language, not
}>have concluded that SVO languages are essentially VSO in structure, with
}>etc. etc. 
}
}Look, we might be phrasing it differently: "Wow! English is just like
}Welsh except the verb doesn't move", ...

It sure seems anglocentric to me.  Faced with the most direct evidence anyone
could want that the special status of the subject cannot be described in terms
of surface constituent structure, you conclude that the verb moves (just to
make it _seem_ as though you were wrong).  And call this a "discovery"!  Next
you'll be telling us that this verb movement is a phonological change, I
suppose.

However, I do take issue with attributing this kind of reasoning to "the
entire generative enterprise".  Not all of us are so completely immune to
to the facts.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>