Possessives

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ Moderator's note:
  If Mr. Trask wishes to address any substantive issue raised in the following,
  I will post such a response.  However, since this discussion is degenerating
  quickly, I am calling a halt to further posts on the topic.
  --rma ]

Dear Larry and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 10:22 AM

> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

> [LT]

>>> OK; some facts.  First, Beekes does not use the term `possessive
>>> pronoun' at all in the passage cited by Ryan: he uses only the term
>>> `possessive', which no one can object to.  Hence Ryan's rather snide
>>> comments are pointless.

>> [PR previously]

>> Well, fact: Beekes does not use "determiner";

[LT]
> Indeed, but not relevant.  You were maintaining that Beekes agreed with
> your characterization of items like `my' as possessive pronouns.  But he
> does not.

[PR]
It is obvious to me and to any IEist who has read Beekes that you are
entirely unfamiliar with his work, and are arguing, as you normally do,
purely from your standpoint of your argument.

"The Possessives" in Beekes are in section 15.3.3; Section 15 is "The
Pronoun"; 15.2 is "The Non-Personal Pronouns", including 15.2.1 "The
Demonstratives"; 15.3 is "The personal pronouns"; and preceding "The
Possessives" at 15.3.3 are 15.3.1 "The (Non-Reflexive) Personal Pronouns";
and 15.3.2 "The Reflexive".

Two things should be obvious to everyone from this method of organization:

1) Beekes considers "possessives" a subcategory of personal pronouns, and

2) Beekes uses "possessives" as a shorthand for 'possessive pronouns' in the
same way he uses 'reflexives' as a shorthand for 'reflexive pronouns'.

If Beekes classed "possessives" as 'determiners', he would surely have
discussed them under 15.2!

[PR previously]
>> fact: "possessive" is
>> defined in AHD as: "of, pertaining to, or *designating* a noun or
>> pronoun case that expresses belong or other similar relation".

[LT]
> Like most general-purpose dictionaries of English, the AHD is presenting
> a very old-fashioned view of English grammar.  In fact, the AHD is
> perhaps slightly better at defining grammatical terms than are some
> other desk dictionaries, but its definitions are still, in general, not
> acceptable for linguistic purposes.

[PR]
I believe you sincerely think your views are only "modern" ones whereas I
regard your views as just one view among many different new and many more
old views.

>> [LT]

>>> Second, Beekes is talking about PIE, while I was talking about English.

>> [PR previously]

>> So what?

[LT]
> "So what?"?  Well, Mr. Ryan, it may come as a surprise to you that the
> grammatical facts of all languages are not identical.

> In English, possessives like `my' are clearly determiners, and not
> pronouns.  But the same is not true of all languages.

> In Basque, for example, possessives like <nere> `my' exhibit *none* of
> the properties of determiners and cannot be regarded as determiners.
> Instead, the Basque items are case-marked NPs.

> The grammatical status of possessives varies widely among languages, and
> what is true of PIE need not be true of any other language.

[PR]
Well, Professor Trask, it surely will come as no surprise to you that I
resent strongly being chided for ignorance of facts that would be known to
anyone (including me) who participates on this list --- particularly when
the insult is unrelated to the discussion under hand.

One of the principal benefits of terming this class of words "possessive
pronouns" is that it enables us to identify comparable classes of words in
IE, English, and Basque --- even though the details of their employment may
differ.

And I notice you sidestepped the issue of terminology with Basque. You
certainly cannot call <nere> a possessive pronoun because, according to your
dictionary, possessive pronouns are "determiners'. So if <nere> is not a
determiner, it cannot be a possessive pronoun. And an entry for "possessive"
as a word class (as opposed to a case) does not exist in your dictionary. So
just what is <nere>? I hope you will not tell us that "space considerations"
forced you to omit a category that is necessary to describe the word classes
in the language of your speciality, Basque!

[ moderator snip ]

>> [PR previously]

>> Possessive pronouns (BT = Before Trask)  have two forms: an
>> adjectival use: 'her', etc. and nominal use: 'hers'.

[LT]
> Also wrong, though indeed once widely believed.

> Items like `my' have no adjectival properties and cannot be classed as
> adjectives.  Look at two adjective frames:

> the ___ book
> That book is ___.

> These slots accept adjectives, like `big', `red', `new', `expensive',
> `dirty', `interesting' and `terrible'.  But they don't accept items like
> `my':

> *the my book
> *That book is my.

> Instead, `my' goes into slots like this one:

> ___ new book

> Among the other words that go into this slot are `the', `a', `this' and
> `some': in other words, the class of determiners.  QED.

[PR]
QED? The only thing you have demonstrated is that *you* prefer the play the
"slots" over other methods of analysis!

It must be frustrating to you and Comrie that terms and definitions contrary
to those your prefer are "indeed once widely believed". I think it should be
obvious from our discussions and the linguists I have mentioned that the
"once" is blindly wishful thinking on your part.

The essential quality of any adjective is that it designates a subcategory
of a catgeory of objects. 'Black dog' can be represented logically as a
small circle ('black') within a larger circle ('dog'). Possessive pronouns
can be represented logically in exactly the same way. Of course, this is
exactly the same situation as when nouns are used attributively: "newspaper
account".

Your "slot analysis" is interesting; but we can say, with equal accuracy,
that possessive pronouns are a class of nominals that stand for other
possessive NP's ('my' = 'the speaker's', etc.); and that they have two forms
depending on whether they modify another NP (attribute) or constitute an
independent NP.

I think your basic problem is that you need to take a serious look at your
definition of 'adjective'.

<snip>

[PR previously]
>> Now, if we say 'His was nice', the 'his' stands for a possessive N
>> like 'John's'. The 'his', or 'her(s)', must have a nominal referent;
>> and it stands for ('pro') this nominal referent.

[LT]
> The interpretation is not relevant.  When we are doing grammatical
> classification, we must look at the grammatical behavior.  And `my'
> behaves like a determiner, not like a pronoun.  It is semantically
> *related* to a pronoun, of course, but that's a different matter.
> The noun `arrival' is not a verb because it's related to the verb
> `arrive'.

[PR]
Perhaps not when you're playing the 'slots' but that is not the only game in
town by a long shot!

I sincerely feel sorry for you if you cannot see that.

[PR previously]
>> Now I have no great objection to terming "her" a "possessive
>> determiner" but using this terminology eliminates the interesting
>> connection with pronouns, which I find superfluously
>> disadvantageous.

[LT]
> Well, does applying the label `noun' to deverbal nouns like `arrival',
> `decision' and `creation' also seem to you "superfluously
> disadvantageous"? ;-)

> These things are nouns because they behave like nouns, even though they
> are related to verbs.  And items like `my' are determiners because they
> behave like determiners, even though they are related to pronouns.

 [PR]
I remember the first manifestations of the 'slot system' as opposed to
teaching grammar in the training I received as an aspirant foreign language
instructor.

This 'grammarless' method of teaching language was then extended to English
instruction in the US, and the terrible language skills of today's youth are
directly attributable to this method of instruction, IMHO.

Frankly, I prefer science to gambling.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/index.html and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)