HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Subjectless verbs; was: Re: SVO / VSO
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:52:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.074936.3503@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu 
(Leo Connolly) writes:
>By the way: if 3.sg. pronouns are suffixed to the verb, as you say,
>where do they appear?  The 3.sg. ending in most tenses is Null!
 
and in <1992Oct6.130812.3550@memstvx1.memst.edu> adds
>I still dislike morphemes which lack
>phonetic realization under any circumstances, and that is true of the
>proposed Spanish 3.sg. present etc. ending.  (The preterite -o is,
>of course, not the same morpheme.)

I'm not sure I understand the theory under which the null morpheme appears.
The present indicative endings of -ar verbs, say, can be given as 
-o, -as, -a, -amos, -a'is, -an.  No 3.sg. null ending.  To get one you
presumably have to create (say) a present tense morpheme -a-, followed
by endings -??, -s, -, -mos, -'is, -n.  There's an obvious difficulty with 
the 1.sg. ending; the 2.pl. ending with its dangling accent is a bit strange; 
also, for that matter, there's the Argentine form (vos) hable's.  Worse yet, 
these endings don't apply nicely to the other tenses (cf. the future,
preterit, or imperative).  !Que' li'o!  Why would one want to do this?  
What's the advantage over saying that the 3.sg. ending is -a?
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu (Michael Hand)
Subject: IQs, etc.
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:29:47 GMT

Behold, the string "who eats the fastest" occurs as an indirect question 
in (1), a restrictive relative clause in (2), a nonrestrictive relative 
clause in (3), and a free relative clause in (4).

(1)	I know who eats the fastest.
(2)	The man who eats the fastest gets the most.
(3)	Checkling, who eats the fastest, gets the most.
(4)	Who eats the fastest gets the most.

Please help: at S-structure, is the internal structure of these clauses the 
same in all four cases?  If not, how?  What about LF?  Citations welcome.
(I suppose email responses are preferable to postings, unless you think 
the issue has wide appeal.)
Many thanks,
B-o} Michael
_______________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hand                     phone (409)845-5660, fax (409)845-0458
Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ, College Station TX 77843-4237 U.S.A.
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 11:05:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.135833.24368@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
}...
}I haven't studied your construction carefully, so correct me if I missed
}something that you made explicit.  But do you think that calling your
}set of functional application rules "semantics" as opposed to a "tree"
}makes it semantics and not a tree?

I can't figure this question out.  What is my "set of functional application
rules"?  Where did I imply that a semantics tree was not a tree?

}As far as I can see, your semantics has a tree structure as well, which
}contains a VP.

What's my "semantics", and what does it mean to say it "has a tree
structure"?  We're really not on the same wavelength.  Trees are not
part of a grammar, syntax, or semantics.  A grammar consists of rules
in accordance with which sentences are generated and trees constructed.
The grammars I characterized and the one small example grammar I gave
consist of:
	syntax = context free phrase structure rules
	semantics = nothing
The syntax has no reference to VP.  There is no semantics, so there is
no reference to VP there, either.  I showed how to construct trees
from the syntactic rules that have VP-like nodes.  Those trees can
be thought of as displaying the interpretations of sentences and so,
in a sense, semantic.

}The fact that you also define a different structure
}without a VP ...  -- but does not eliminate the
}observation that, like it or not, your "semantics" has a VP.

But it does.  I get the impression you think I characterized a
semantics as a certain set of "functional application rules".  But
I didn't do that at all.

}If all that's at stake is labels, then, of course, there's no substance
}to the discussion. If there is more at stake, then it is the following:
}we both agree on the existence of VP in languages of diverse types ...

I am pretty sure we do not agree on that.  It might depend on exactly
what "existence of VP" means, I suppose.  I introduced VPs (_not_ into
the grammar) by some definition-making.  I could define Greg as having
a million dollars, but I'd be just as poor.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
From: pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:08:25 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct11.110532.10997@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.135833.24368@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
>}...
>}I haven't studied your construction carefully, so correct me if I missed
>}something that you made explicit.  But do you think that calling your
>}set of functional application rules "semantics" as opposed to a "tree"
>}makes it semantics and not a tree?
>
>I can't figure this question out.  What is my "set of functional application
>rules"?  Where did I imply that a semantics tree was not a tree?
>
>}As far as I can see, your semantics has a tree structure as well, which
>}contains a VP.
>
>What's my "semantics", and what does it mean to say it "has a tree
>structure"?  We're really not on the same wavelength.  

So fear I as well.  Granted, in the interests of precision, I should
have written "your semantics *entails* a tree structure" or something of
the sort, but surely the problem does not lie here.

I can't reconcile your current objections with your statement in the
previous posting:

>No, you misunderstand.  The "VP" of the "functional structure" in my
>handout has _only_ semantic underpinnings or consequences.  The
>syntax is a context free phrase structure grammar with no VPs.

-David Pesetsky
From: jrwst8+@pitt.edu (James R Ward)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Any Moliere experts out there?
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:14:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Can anyone tell me which character in which play attributed
the calming effect of opium to its dormative powers. (It was
a doctor).  Any help would be appreciated.
Send mail to: jrwst8@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Thanks
Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.cognitive,comp.ai.philosophy
From: pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler)
Subject: The semantics of 'some'
Followup-To: sci.cognitive
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:37:24 GMT

Is there a simple way of rendering propositions like:

	"John believes someone broke into the bank."

	(John believe E(x):(x break-into bank))

in a form usable by a simple unifier?  Note that this has
a different meaning than:

	"There is a particular someone who John believes
	 broke into the bank."

	E(x):(John believes (x break-into bank))

[Also note I've directed all follow-ups to sci.cognitive, although
email is preferred.]

	-dp-
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: UNINTERUPTED SUSTAINED SILENT READING
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:27:10 GMT
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens

In article <217@elli.une.edu.au> amccullo@elli.une.edu.au (Alistair McCullough) writes:
>My wife is currently undertaking action research into
>UNINTERUPTED SUSTAINED SILENT READING (USSR) with
>Primary (Elementary) school children and is seeking [...]

Ah, now we know what "USSR" will mean in the nineties!  :)
The lexicon abhors a vacuum...



-- 
:- Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu 
:- Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0359
:- The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349
:- Athens, Georgia 30602 U.S.A.          amateur radio N4TMI
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was Cognitive Linguistics...)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:51:29 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

For about a week now, our site has not updated sci.lang.  People did respond to
my last post by email, so I know that I can post to it.  Anyway, I must withdraw
from participation until the problem gets resolved.
-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: reality and appearance (Was: VSO/ SVO)
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:18:50 GMT

In article <peeters.718412280@tasman> peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters) writes:
}lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
}
}>The whole bit was an
}>exercise in distinguishing appearance (semantics) from reality
}>(syntax).
}
}I'm probably missing something here - but why do you say that semantics is
}appearance whereas syntax is reality? Aren't both as real one as the other?

Suppose for the moment that the "functional structures" of my handout are
semantic representations.  I showed how they can be constructed from a
syntactic description merely by introducing suitable notation and
terminology.  Now, semantics is supposed to be somehow different from
syntax, but notational variation is a device for giving different
appearances to the same thing.  So I can claim to have shown that the
apparent semantic nature of functional structures is only an
appearance.

It could be argued that functional structures are not, actually, semantic
representations, since they don't involve reference.  Semantics has to
do with reference, by definition.  My answer to that would be that the
objection is overly formalistic.  We ought to be concerned with the
description of natural languages, so a real objection would concern
something about natural languages that can be described with a real
semantics, but not with a pseudo-semantics of the sort I gave, or by
further notational elaboration along the same line.

The thing that contemporary semantic theories of natural language seem
to be good at is a description of "semantic"/"logical" scope.  Yet
I can give an account of scope without introducing assumptions
about reference or implication by defining the scope of an argument
to be the function that applies to it.  For instance, I can do what is
apparently the equivalent of the quantifier-raising that is supposed
to go on in converting representations of SF to those of "LF":
	S -> some man arrives
from	S -> Q man arrives	applying to  Q -> some
from	S -> NP arrives		applying to  NP -> Q man

I've delayed rewriting "Q" as "some" until later than normal.  But
it's still just a concealed form of context free phrase structure
grammar.  Am I missing something?

The treatment of what is generously called "semantics" as purely
derivative from syntax is already present in GPSG, it could be
argued, since in that theory, the semantic interpretive rules
are supposed to be predictable from the syntactic rules.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
From: randy@text3.psych.umn.edu (Charles R. Fletcher)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Fluent Tagalog Speakers?
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:11:20 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

I am a psycholinguist in the Psychology Department at the University of  
Minnesota.  Together with Mike Maratsos, a developmental psycholinguist  
who is also here at Minnesota, I am planning an experiment on pronoun  
resolution in Tagalog.  We would like to get some pilot data on our  
materials BEFORE we start dipping into our limited population of fluent  
Tagalog speakers here at the U of Minn.  Therefore, this plea!  If you  
speak Tagalog fluently, and have a spare 5 minutes, please send me an  
e-mail message.  I will then e-mail to you a file that contains 19 items  
like the following (only in Tagalog):

     Mary is mean to Joanna because she is stupid.
     Who is stupid?  MARY  JOANNA

You can then send me your responses.  Why should you do this?  Beats me!   
But we would certainly appreciate it if you would.  In return, I'll be  
happy to explain what we are doing and why we are doing it.  Many thanks--

Randy Fletcher
randy@text3.psych.umn.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Subject: Re: Subjectless verbs
Organization: Enea Data AB
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 14:07:19 GMT

Leo Connolly (connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu) writes:
>If there were only one Spanish conjugation, you'd be right.  But there
>are three, and so one can analyze a verb such as _amar_ as having the
>root _ama-_ rather than _am-_.  Similarly, second conjugation verbs
>would have base forms such as _come-_, and third conjugation verbs
>would be _pedi-_.  While allowance must be made for morphophonemic
>changes where an ending and the vowel of the root come together, the
>simplest explanation would be approximately:
>
>        -o      -mos
>        -s      -is
>        -0      -n

I think this analysis is to simple-minded. What says that there is
exactly one morpheme which means third person singular? Permit
me to switch to Italian where we have

     parl-are      cred-ere       part-ire     fin-ire
         -o            -o             -o          -isc-o
         -i            -i             -i          -isc-i
         -a            -e             -e          -isc-e
         -iamo         -iamo          -iamo       -iamo
         -ate          -ete           -ite        -ite
         -ano          -ono           -ono        -isc-ono

If we look at subjunctive present we see a similar difference between
the 1st conjugation and the other two: parl-i, -i, -i, -iamo, -iate,
-ino; cred-a, -a, -a, -iamo, -iate, -ano; part-a, -a, -a, -iamo,
-iate, -ano.

(All hyphenation taken from my Italian grammar.)

Of course all this morpheme business is just a recontruction post
facto; more or less rules for a recreational game we've made up.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
There are many sorts of Macedonians: Greek, Bulgarian, Roumanian, Macedonian...
From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Subjectless verbs
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:21:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct12.093324.19518@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

> >(All hyphenation taken from my Italian grammar.)
> >
> >Of course all this morpheme business is just a recontruction post
> >facto; more or less rules for a recreational game we've made up.
> 
> 	Let us forget about their Latin origin:
> 
> 	-a:re	-e:re	-i:re	-ere	*-re
> 	-o:	-e:o	-i:o:	-o:	*-o:


Oh my. This is certainly getting interesting.

Let's see how the Karachai Language (Turkic) conjugates.For
concreteness let conjugate they verb 'et-gen` (=to do).

1st P   ete -me (meh==mi ?)
2nd P   ete-se  (seh== si?)
3rd P   ete-di  ( ti=di ?)

1st P Pl    ete-biz    (
I`dbiz ==mez ?)
2nd P Pl    ete-siz      (siz==? tes ??)

The hyphens don't really belong there. Also consider this. According
to an article I read sometime ago (if I remember correctly) the
language split from mainstream Turkic around 600 CE.
i.e. etemen, etesen, etc

And finally, in some Eastern Turkic languages me=men, se=sen....

And men=ben = I, sen=you, biz=miz=We, siz==You Pl.


I'd interesting in explanations via handwaving.....





> 	-a:s	-e:s	-i:s	-is	*-s
> 	-a:t	-e:t	-i:t	-it	*-t

> 
> 	[from memory]
> 
> 	It would be interesting to look at other archaic Indo-European
> languages, especially Greek, Sanskrit, and Hittite.
> 
> 	If I remember correctly, the reconstructed IE paradigm looks
> something like:
> 
> 	-o:/-mi
> 	-si
> 	-ti
> 	-mes
> 	-tes
> 	-nti
> 
> 	The ultimate origin is probably from suffixed pronouns.
> 
> 	Someone mentioned the Finnish verb conjugation once as looking
> a lot like Latin. What is it, again?
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu
From: aeb@cwi.nl (Andries Brouwer)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: OverseaS -- plural or genitive S?
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:31:29 GMT

connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

|German has the same phenomenon, but -s is not a plural formative in
|native words.  I suspect it derives from the genitive -- but the
|pertinent German examples have mostly feminine nouns, which precisely
|do *not* have -s in the genitive.  Example: diesseits 'this side of',
|jenseits 'beyond' (cf. die Seite 'side).
This is a relatively recent innovation, no doubt by analogy.

|-s is also used as an
|adverbial formative on simple nominals, agaim without reference to
|gender: abends 'in the evening' (der Abend), nachts 'late at night'
|(die Nacht); strangely, a form with an article is also possible,
|yielding a peculiar _des Nachts_.
This -s already occurs in Old High German.
Usually it is explained as derived by analogy from _des Tages_. 

|So what we seem to have is a genitive ending that's come unsprung
|and turned into an adverbial formative in Germanic languages.
Yes.
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: adc+@cs.cmu.edu (Alan Christiansen)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: two questions
Keywords: gender, word marking
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:59:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bw46vp.EsB.2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

1.  Why do some languages (e.g., French, German) assign gender to the names 
    for inanimate objects, while other languages (e.g., English, Esperanto)
    do not?  Being a native English speaker, I have difficulty understanding
    the value of arbitrary gender assignment, and I have not been successful
    in finding anyone who can give me a plausible answer as to why this 
    practice evolved in some languages.  Anyone willing to try?

2.  Why is it that English marks the third person singular of verbs (with -s),
    while all other forms are not distinguished?  (I love, You love, He/she/it
    loves, we love, you (all) love, they love)
    What is special about third person singular that makes it worthy of 
    marking?

Please forgive me if these are FAQs or blindingly stupid questions.  I'm
just a computer scientist, not a linguist.

Thanks.
Alan Christiansen
adc@cs.cmu.edu
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Subjectless verbs; was: Re: SVO / VSO
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:32:22 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <10984@scott.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.130812.3550@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> <In article <10931@hogg.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
> <> If the inflected verb form in Spanish is treated as a
> <> verb-subject complex, and the person/number ending is a pronominal
> <> element, then this is just a case of an empty pronoun.

[stuff omitted]

> <The first [if] is surely awkward when we consider sentences with an overt
> <subject.  Verb agreement still applies!
> 
> It is not that awkward.  What you call an overt subject I'd call an
> apposition, as in _Il l'a-t-il jamais attrape', le gendarme, son voleur?_
> -- where are the subject and the object here?

But French also possesses (pardon my non-Gallocentrism) "normal" sentence
types where subject and object nouns do not double (or: are not doubled
by) clitic pronouns.  Your proposal would require positing apposition
even there, wouldn't it?  If so, what evidence do we have to support such
an analysis?

> <The second stumbles over exactly the same point.  While
> <I'm aware of such things as French _Moi, je voudrais..._, your proposal
> <would require positing double subjects in sentences which don't have
> <sentences like the French example.
> 
> (Sentences which don't have what?)

I meant: *languages* that don't have ...  Sorry.

>  The French example is instructive:
> I've always been taught that French _je veux_ corresponds to Bulgarian
> _iskam_, while _moi je veux_ corresponds to _az iskam_ (that's Spanish
> _quiero_ and _yo quiero_, respectively).

Functionally it probably does (I can't judge; I don't know Bulgarian,
and my French isn't great).  But it has been suggested that French
is reanalyzing its clitic *pronouns* as *affixes*, though surely the
development could not yet be regarded as completed.  Once such a
reanalysis had been completed, French would again be "normal": the
current appositives would be exactly parallel to English (and pre-
sumably Bulgarian) subjects and objects, such that there would no
longer be any particular reason to call them appositives.  But I
freely concede that French isn't there yet, if indeed that's where
it's going.

--Leo Connolly
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: subjects of pluit & brechei
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:17:07 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Oct5.123402.1@uncavx.unca.edu>, bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu writes:
> Can one find other kinds of subjects with pluere than (1) material that comes
> down, e.g. saxa pluunt 'it's raining rocks' or (2) the source of the rain, e.g.
> caelum pluisse 'that the sky had let go its load'?  Should one not ask, when in
> Greek one can document synchronically with brechei 'it's raining' such godly
> phraseology as ho Zeus brechei 'Jove is wetting [his britches?]'?

I'm not the world's best classicist, but I strongly suspect you're misinter-
preting _ho Zeu`s bre'chei_.  Given than a Roman epithet of Jupiter (the
equivalent of Zeus, in case you've forgotten) was _pluvius_ 'rainy', I
take the Greek to mean 'Zeus is sending down rain'.  My Liddell & Scott
_Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon_ doesn't list the construction,
however.

--Leo Connolly
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Sleeping
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:44:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.93432
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct14.181210.8082@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu>
     dbyrne@ldgo.columbia.edu (deidre byrne) writes:

>The "highest" species for which the claim is made that they never sleep is
>the bottlenose dolphin.  Sorry, dont know the scientific name.

This isn't quite right.  Porpoises (and perhaps many other types of
whales, but I think that the bottlenose is the only one that's been
examined directly) are not sleepless.  They just sleep with half their
brain at a time.  This has been determined with EEG traces from the
porpoise's head, and fanciful as it might seem, the evidence is
quite compelling.

>-- Mike Weale

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)