HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikulska@crux.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:21:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.080413.13815@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Margaret Mikulska (mikulska@astro.Princeton.EDU) writes:
>
>Erland writes:
>>
>>>Yes, recasting to all plural is often a good idea. However, consider
>>>an instruction: "When the operator sees the red light blink he must
>>>press the blue button." We can probably make some good recasting,
>>>but not to "all".
>>
>>"When the red light blinks, press the blue button."  Is there any
>>information lost in this rephrasing?  I find the longer sentence almost
>>awkward; without "the operator sees" and "he must", this simple
>>instruction seems easier to follow.
>
>Of course, as I said the sentence can probably be recast. Particularly
>it is very easy when we don't have the context. 

Absolutely true.

>(The instruction may
>not necessarily be directed directly to the operator, but say his
>manager.)

"When the red light blinks, the operator should press the blue button."

I know, in general one has to know the context.  I'm just playing with
the sentence :-)

>Such sentences occur quite often, and I used one as an example. But
>you are very right, if one is sensitive for such usage it is better
>to recast the sentence  -or if necessary the entire text - to get 
>rid of it all together, than putting in "they" instead of "he".

As for "they" as singular, I agree that as long as this usage is not
taught (especially to foreigners), it may lead to misuderstandings and
therefore should be avoided in many texts aimed at foreign audience.
And the fact is that it is _not_ taught, whether some people like this
situation or not.  Grammar and usage are still taught in a pre- and
proscriptive way rather than descriptively.

-Margaret
mikulska@astro.princeton.edu
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: inclusive/exclusive
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:40:38 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <Aug.21.01.38.23.1992.3016@pilot.njin.net> hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) writes:
<In article <1992Aug20.204242.5942@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
<
<> Can any linguists out there tell me which languages (if any) make the
<> distinction between:
<> 
<> 		the inclusive and exclusive "we"
<
<Turkic, with a little cheating :-).

Yok.  Cheating won't help here.

<In Turkish/Turkic phrases like 'all of us' or 'some of us' are one word e.g.
<
<Hepimiz, [all of us/we] or Baribiz [ditto], Bazimiz [some of us/we] 
<
<This is prety close although they're not probably considered 
<pronouns in languages like English where they are whole phrases.

Sorry, Mark, it is not close at all.  The term "inclusive/exclusive
`we'" means a "we" which includes/excludes the hearer, aka `I, you,
and maybe he/they' vs `I and he/they, but not you'.  I'm afraid this
kind of thing doesn't exist in Turkic - _hepimiz_, _bar1m1z_,
_baz1m1z_ all may include as well as exclude the second person.

<> 		the inclusive and exclusive "or"
<
<Turkish.  'Ve' is AND. 'Yahut' is OR. It's permissible to say
<'veyahut' maybe 've yahut' which comes out to AND/OR. To me it
<implies an inclusive OR. So 'yahut' means XOR.  I think.

Very interesting.  Do speakers really make this distinction?  Can you
give a few sample sentences?  I thought Latin was the only language
with separate words for `or' and `xor'.

-- 
 `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
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6725 sci.cognitive:372
Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.cognitive
From: mstede@cs.toronto.edu (Manfred Stede)
Subject: Re: Cognitive linguistics [was Re: Prototypes]
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:00:49 GMT

peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters) writes:

>I'd like to hear from those who could tell me the difference between
>"linguistics" and "cognitive linguistics", if there is a difference.

In 'The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image schemas?',
Cognitive Linguistics Vol 1 No 1, p. 40, George Lakoff defines cognitive 
linguistics as being motivated by two 'primary commitments':

* The generalization commitment: the task is to ``characterize the general
principles governing all aspects of human language.''
* The cognitive commitment: ``make one's account of human language accord
with what is generally known about the mind and the brain, from other
disciplines as well as our own.''

The first commitment I presume is uncontroversial.
The second one emphasizes the CogSci-affinity of this branch of linguistics:
we shouldn't build models of language processing without taking other results
about human cognitive behavior into account.  Lakoff discusses various 
examples like prototype theory, conventional metaphor, mental images.
He furthermore contrasts the cognitive commitment with those underlying
classical linguistics (which he himself used to adhere to some time ago):

* Symbol manipulation: Language must be explained within the generative
symbol-manipulation paradigm.
* The Fregean commitment: Meaning must be explained in terms of truth and
reference.

When one's thinking is grounded in principles like these, Lakoff says,
clashes with cognitive observations are inevitable, which lead him to 
abandon them and adopt the cognitive linguistics perspective.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Manfred Stede                                 mstede@cs.toronto.edu				
Dept. of Computer Science                      o              
University of Toronto                         <\ 
Toronto M5S 1A4, Canada                       />   
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: [pronouns] Re: Other properties of pronoun usage
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:13:18 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug28.160024.19136@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>How universal are these trends:

Minor remark.  We might want to distinguish between "X replaces Y
whilst retaining its original function" and "X replaces Y, yielding
its original function to Z".

>	formal replacing familiar (ustedes/vosotros, you/thou)?

Add Portuguese to the list.  Also Japanese, where many currently
familiar pronouns have started off as formal.

The opposite would amount to dropping a formal form, which is said to
have happened in Swedish and Irish not so long ago, but in general is
not very common (why would the language have acquired the polite form
in the first place).

>	plural replacing singular (you/thou, they/he)?

Isn't that `plural -> formal singular -> familiar singular' in the
case of "you"/"thou" (and the parallel cases of Dutch and Basque)?
This takes us back to Trend One.  There is Scots "us" for "me" and
Hindi _ham_ `we' for _maiN_ `I'.  I don't know how much this latter
one has to do with self-respect.  :-)

>	objective replacing nominative (you/ye, thee/thou)?

Hasn't this taken place in those Indo-European languages where the
_m-_-form of the first person singular pronoun is not only oblique
(Gaelic, Indo-Iranian (some of))?

>	plural replacing dual (?)?

Loss of the dual is quite common (Slavic, Semitic, etc.)  Plural
becoming dual with something else becoming three-or-more plural?  That
would be more interesting.

I think in Icelandic the dual has become two-or-more plural, squeezing
the original three-or-more plural into the function of a formal pronoun.
(Or was it the other way around?)

>Are there any I missed?

Well, there can be

        exclusive or inclusive `we' becoming generic `we'

Mongolian is an example of both (both old forms are in use, but the
distinction between them is no longer made).

If the opposite happens (uncommon but possible - NB Pidgin English),
I'd expect the generic form to become exclusive.

        masculine replacing feminine

Semitic and Slavic plural.

There should be many cases of masculine replacing neuter, neuter
replacing masculine and feminine, and so on.

        inanimate replacing animate

Modern Finnish.

I don't expect this to be universal, though.

-- 
 `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: lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY)
Subject: Re: Prototypes
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 04:41:41 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep3.190049.8694@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.143452.6705@news.columbia.edu> blz1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Betsy L Zucker) writes:
>>Neither Lakoff nor Rosch argue that prototypes are direct mental
>>representations, as the quotes below make abundantly clear (my
>>emphasis added):
>>
>>       "Such [prototype] effects are superficial.  THEY SHOW
>>	NOTHING DIRECT ABOUT THE NATURE OF CATEGORIZATION."
>>		-- Lakoff,1987:136
>>
>>       "to speak of a prototype at all is simply a convenient
>>       grammatical fiction; what is really referred to are
>>       judgments of degree of prototypicality...PROTOTYPES DO NOT
>>       CONSTITUTE A THEORY OF REPRESENTATION FOR CATEGORIES."
>>		-- Rosch,1978, quoted in Lakoff, ibid
>
>Striking quotations, but does Lakoff take his own advice to heart?  If
>so, whence all the fuss about "cognitive linguistics" and all his
>conclusions about language?

Because, as several others and I have said several times in this thread
cognitive linguistics is about a lot more than just prototypes.  In fact,
I don't know any cognitive linguists who spend their days chatting 
about prototypes.  Karen van Hoek's recent post hinted at some of what
at least some of the work is about.  A browse of Langacker 1991 (the
book I mentioned recently) will give some idea.  

In my view, cognitive linguistics can be reasonably considered an
exploration of the hypothesis that insight into linguistic structure
can be gained by thinking of grammar as "knowledge of language" (a view
you and your intellectual mentors presumably share :-) ) and trying to
see how much what we believe about knowledge generally applies in the
special case of language.  Along with this, of course, goes a particular
orientation to cognitive psychology (small "c"), exemplified not just
by Rosch, but by a large number of people with connectionist or 
spreading activation network views.  This orientation seems to me
diametrically opposed at its foundation -- though not in all
conclusions -- to your own, which seems to assume that language is
unique and is highly skeptical of any suggestion that anything general
is instantiated in grammar.  That's a caricature to be sure, but it
captures part of the difference for me.  And to head off one strain of
herring, cognitive grammar does not deny at all that there are 
language specific elements in grammar.  Any more than it denies that
there are vision-specific elements in the visual system.  It does adopt
the strategy of not assuming total uniqueness.  

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters)
Subject: Re: Latin 'x'
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:50:35 GMT

Sven Hauptfeld (hau4@midway.uchicago.edu) writes:

>Also note that the Latin 'x' became 'ss' in Italian
>and is (almost?) never pronounced /ks/ in French

It depends on the context. [ks] is the norm in front of another consonant,
e.g. extravagant and all words in extra-, ex (as a prefix), and in final
position (pre'fixe, suffixe, infixe). Also, words derived from these
are pronounced with [ks], even between vowels (e.g. pre'fixer). When
you come to think of it, perhaps [gz] is the exception... (l'e[ks]eption)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bert Peeters                         Tel: +61 02 202344
Department of Modern Languages               002 202344
University of Tasmania at Hobart        Fax: 002 207813
GPO Box 252C                            Bert.Peeters@modlang.utas.edu.au
Hobart TAS 7001
Australia
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: samson@netcom.com (Peter Samson)
Subject: Re: X and Y
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 03:15:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In article <1992Aug29.222814.3146@memstvx1.memst.edu> Leo Connolly says:

>Hardly!  But here's one to consider.  In World War I the British soldiers
>pronounced the name of the Belgian (?) town Ypres [waip@z], where <y>
>is indeed pronounced with its name.

And in northern California is the town of Yreka [wairi:k@].  They had
meant to name it Wyreka (as it is pronounced) but the clerk wrote the
name down wrong.  The most photographed sign on the main street is
that of the Yreka Bakery.

  --Peter Samson.
From: dchung@efi.com (Daniel Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: [English] Re: English SPELLING is NOT easy to learn
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:31:54 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.


     There are books on spelling reforms, if one cares to look into
them in university or city libraries.  "Moest of them look for kloez
koresponda/ensiz bitween dhe sound and dhe speling".

						*Zhong* Qi-Iao, U.S.A.
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Ships and countries
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:19:54 GMT

In article <564@alden.UUCP> sgr@alden.UUCP (Stan Ryckman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.172740.722@mala.bc.ca> epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
> >
> >The impression I have is that countries are almost always feminine in 
> >formal English.  British writers are more likely to use the feminine
> >than Americans are.  In informal English, countries are usually neuter.
>
>Americans use the feminine plenty.  From the song:
>
>        "God bless America, land that I love;
>        Stand beside her, and guide her, ..."
>   		      ^^^            ^^^

Again, this is not informal.  When was the song written, btw?

Regards,
Janis C.
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Rechtschreibereform
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:11:37 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <10532@spark.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> Also sprach connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu:
> <In article <1992Aug26.124356.17419@coli.uni-sb.de>, simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon) writes:
> <> Was soll denn uebrigens das "unnuetze v" sein? Ist damit gemeint, dass man
> <> in Zukunft da, wo f gesprochen wird, auch f schreiben soll, <...>
> <
> <In der Tat.  Daher: fater, aber uniwersitaet.  Und moeglicherweise
> <(aber hoffentlich nicht): roemisch I, I, III, IW, W, ...
> 
> Oder vielleicht "I, II, III, IF, F, ..."?  In "V" wird ja immer /f/
> gesprochen ("f-au" als Buchstabe, "f-uenf" als Zahlzeichen).
> 
> Eigentlich sollte "W" 10 bedeuten, nicht wahr?  ("W" <- "VV".)

Da hast Du recht.  Es lebe der hoehere Bloedsinn.

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: compounds
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:24:58 GMT

In article <9208312053.AA15331@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> lucas@WATSON.IBM.COM ("Bruce Lucas") writes:
>From: lucas@WATSON.IBM.COM ("Bruce Lucas")
>Subject: compounds
>Date: 31 Aug 92 20:46:41 GMT
>> Shudder. It makes me think of some of the trends in current
>> Swedish which I don't like. For instance dividing compounds
>> in two when they should be one word. Often it is harmless
>
>Interesting.  In English, the opposite seems to be happening:
>for example, "alot" seems on the verge of becoming a word, at least
>in the Netland dialect of English.  But then English seems to have
>a long history of forming new compounds, and I suppose this is
>fairly analogous to for example "another".
>
>Bruce Lucas

And don't forget _alright_.  I've actually had students who tell me
their English teacher told them there were two forms of the word,
_all right_, as in "These answers are all right," and _alright_,
for "Hey, I'm alright!"  Many dictionaries comment on the one word
alright, though none accepts it.  _Webster's Dictionary of English 
Usage_ traces alright back to Old English, but cautions that its use
--while sometimes acceptable--is rarely literary.

But to my mind, printing it sold doesn't help unless you really
try to spell it as pronounced, in which case it should be awright,
or even aright, as in aright areddy.

__

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                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Xref: sparky sci.lang:6763 alt.usage.english:6971
From: JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: Cognitive Linguistics & History
    <81464@bcsaic.boeing.com> <1992Aug30.090523.42662@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 
    <1992Aug30.145801.20964@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:49:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.145801.20964@athena.mit.edu>
pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
 
>
>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:
>>
>>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).
>
>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
 
Let us not forget Mr. Trump:  The Donald.
 
I think this is not uncommon, as I have also found this usage in both
Ireland and Scotland.
 
It is not necessary to mention "the O'Brien's" with variable apostrophes.
 
I have put a bit of bait here for further comments.
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Rechtschreibereform
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:43:26 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Aug26.124356.17419@coli.uni-sb.de>, simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon) writes:
> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>> 
>> 	Das unnuetze "V" wird abgeschafft.
>> 
> 
> Was soll denn uebrigens das "unnuetze v" sein? Ist damit gemeint, dass man in
> Zukunft da, wo f gesprochen wird, auch f schreiben soll, auch wenn man mal
> gelernt hat, dass da ein v hinkommt (mit w analog)?

In der Tat.  Daher: fater, aber uniwersitaet.  Und moeglicherweise
(aber hoffentlich nicht): roemisch I, I, III, IW, W, ...

Das mit den aelteren "wissenschaftlichen" Veroeffentlichungen (oft laengst
nach Herrn Dudens seligem Ende) habe ich auch nie verstehen koennen.
Noch in den 20er Jahren *dieses* Jahrhunderts wurden in der beruehmten
_Zeitschrift fuer deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur_ nicht nur
saemtliche Hauptwoerter, sondern auch die meisten Satzanfaenge klein
geschrieben.  (Nur das erste Wort eines Absatzes wurde noch gross
geschrieben, wie auch die Eigennamen).  Daher musste ich bei jedem
Punkt ueberlegen, ob hier ein Satz zu Ende geht, oder vielleicht nur
eine Abkuerzung steht.  Ich habe mich zwar allmaehlich daran gewoehnt,
konnte aber das Gefuehl nicht loswerden, dass die Herren nur ein
"statement" machen wollten.

--Leo Connolly
(Auslaender.  Bin ich daher in der ehemaligen DDR unerwuenscht?)
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Pls help me understand a section of the Welfare and Institutions Code in California's ballot pamphlet
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:43:52 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In case anyone doubts Mr. Erland Sommerskog's word that the "singular
they" usage can be confusing, just look at this newly-posted article
from misc.legal:

In article <30AUG199202391755@oregon.uoregon.edu> nihong@oregon.uoregon.edu 
(Hong Ni) writes:

>Greetings!

>Could someone out there help me understand a section of the Welfare and
>Institutions Code in California's ballot pamphlet?  It goes like this:

>>As a condition of eligibility for aid paid under this chapter, each 
>>applicant or recipient shall:
>>(1) [Assign to the county any rights to support from any other person such 
>>applicant may have in their own behalf or in behalf of any other family 
>>member for whom the applicant is applying or receiving aid, and which have 
>>accrued at the time such assignment is made.]  ...

>Should "such applicant" be "such applicants" to correspond to "their own 
>behalf", and "such assignment" be "such an assignment"?  [Hong Ni]

Sorry, Hong Ni.  Californians voted to amend their State constitution
to abolish the kind of clear language you would have had no trouble
understanding, like "any other person such applicant may have in his
own behalf or in behalf of any other family member for whom he is
applying or receiving aid."  In other words, "prescriptivists" with
an axe to grind are making things tough for you.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY