Possessives

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Larry and IEists:

My apoligies to the moderator and the list for the accidental posting of a
partial draft of this response to Larry.

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 5:12 PM

[PR previously]

<snip>

>> 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.

[LT]

> Well, this reminds me of Abe Lincoln's little joke.  "How many legs does
> a sheep have if you call the tail a leg?"  "Five?"  "No, four: calling
> the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

> Possessive items, in general, are "comparable" among languages only
> insofar as they are translation equivalents.  Syntactically, they can
> and do exhibit many different kinds of behavior, requiring them to be
> assigned to various parts of speech, or sometimes to no part of speech.

> The English possessives like `my' are determiners because they behave
> like determiners.  They do not behave like pronouns, and so they are not
> pronouns.  And they certainly don't behave like adjectives.

[PR]
It seems to be the rationale of the approach Larry espouses to assign words
to classes based on their ability to occur in certain positions within
grammatically well-formed sentences --- what I would call the slot-theory.

That is certainly one method of analysis; and, in certain cases, I would even
be glad to admit that it may be useful although Larry has, so far, steadfastly
refused to respond to my criticisms of it except with two logically fallacious
arguments:

1) argumentum ad populum: (paraphrased) "all linguists are using it".

I have specifically documented that there are eminent linguists like Beekes
who, apparently, are not using Larry's system of word classification;
strangely, we heard no further comment from Larry when I demonstrated a prima
facie case for Beekes classifying words as 'possessive pronouns'.

But even if Beekes did prefer Larry's method of classification, in fact if God
himself preferred it, it is still, depending on one's beliefs, a fallacy: ad
populum, based on the democratic popular prejudice that the majority's will has
some intrinsic value; ad verecundiam, if one should be awed that "all"
linguists agree with Larry (oops! all but one, of course).

I would have much preferred to know "why" slots are the only game in town
rather than the identity of the slot-fillers.

But, "slots" is not the only useful rationale that may be used, a broad-minded
position that I would hope Larry might espouse in any context.

His preference is a direct outgrowth of the school to which he subscribes, and
the definitions that school generates. Larry, there are other schools, no
matter who underrepresented they may be in your Weltanschauung.

Larry's definition of 'pronoun' (as contained in his dictionary) is: "The
lexical category, or a member of this category, whose members typically
function as noun phrases in isolation, not normally requiring or permitting
the presence of determiners or other adnominals, and whose members typically
have little or no intrinsic meaning or reference."

I guess I may be one of the *few* aspiring-to-be linguists who was surprised to
learn that this definition made *no* reference whatsoever to what I always
thought was *one* characteristic of pronouns: that they "function as
substitutes for nouns or noun phrases", quoting the now worthless (:-))) AHD.

Now, I can entertain the possibility that Larry's definition may be superior,
so let us see if it is.

Now Larry says 'pronouns' "typically have little or no intrinsic meaning or
reference". I consider this totally inaccurate and misguided. The 1st p. sing.
pronoun, "I", means 'the speaker'; the 2nd p. sing. pronoun, "you", means 'the
listener'. Now I know Larry is familiar with enough languages to know that
there are a number of languages where this can be etymologically shown. Now,
maybe Larry will want to regard those terms in those languages as 'nouns'
rather than 'pronouns'. I will fear for the state of his soul if he argues that
((:--:). And let us please not worry about things like German 'Sie' or 'His
Majesty'. There have been enough red herrings on the list already; and most of
us prefer ours, referring to red herrings, white with vinegar and onions.

Now Larry says 'pronouns' are words "not normally requiring or permitting the
the presence of determiners or other adnominals".

I, who would dispute this, think that adnominals ("An adnominal constituent may
be variously . . . a relative clause") are fairly uncommon in the 1st and 2nd
persons but not at all rare in the 3rd person, it being typically less
well-defined than the 1st or 2nd person. Are there they who doubt this?

Am I, who am maintaining this, alone in the non-linguist night?

[LT continued]
> The Basque possessives like <nere> `my' exhibit none of the properties
> of the Basque determiners and they cannot be classified as determiners.
> They are also certainly not adjectives, since they behave nothing like
> adjectives.  They are probably best regarded as case-inflected forms of
> pronouns.

> The Latin possessives like <meus> `my', on the whole, are probably best
> regarded as adjectives, since they behave like adjectives in that
> language.  They are certainly not determiners, and they don't look much
> like pronouns, either.

[PR]
This method of analysis makes no sense to me at all. If I say 'horse hockey',
then 'horse' "behave(s)" like an adjective but, unless I missed something, even
Larrry's dictionary would call it a noun, wouldn't it?

So what if Latin <meus> behaves like an adjective? It is a pronoun, because it
stands for 'the speaker's'. Is there anyone on this list besides Larry who
thinks it means anything different? <meus> is a pronoun in a form designed for
its adjectival employment.

[LT continued]
> Other languages use other strategies.  Some have no distinct possessive
> forms at all, but simply adpose the free forms of pronouns to head
> nouns.  Some use a particle to link a free pronoun to its head.  Some
> use bound markers attached to head nouns, often markers bearing no
> resemblance to free pronouns.  And some languages employ mixed
> strategies with two or more of these in various combinations; examples
> are Turkish and Jacaltec.

> Classing all of these are "possessive pronouns" *tout court* is, at the
> very least, unhelpful.

[PR]
Why, specifically, is it "unhelpful"?  In the first case, we *could* say that
"pronouns form their adjectival forms by direct adposition"; in the second,
"pronouns form their adjectival forms by linking through a particle with the
noun'; or, thrirdly, "pronouns, with a different form from free pronouns, are
employed adjectivally by attachment to head nouns".

Whatever the mechanism, the equivalent to "my" means "the speaker's".

[PR previously]
>> The essential quality of any adjective is that it designates a
>> subcategory of a catgeory of objects.

[LT responded]
> No, not at all.

> This is a prototypical semantic property of adjectives in languages that
> have them, but `adjective' is a syntactic category, not a semantic
> category, and not all adjectives, even in English, have this property.

[PR]
Can Larry name me a "syntactic category" that has *NO* meaning?

[LT continued]
> For example, consider `Susie is a mere child.'  Here the adjective
> `mere' does not define a subclass of the class of children: children are
> not divided into mere and non-mere varieties.

[PR]
Since AHD and OD both are so notoriously "unlinguist"ic, I really have no
certain way to know what Larry understands by <mere>.

I shall stick my neck in the noose and try to explain what I, as a native
speaker of English, understand by it.

I believe the sentence can be re-phrased as 'Susie is nothing more than a
child'. One interpretation might be that, contrary to someone's assertion that
Susie is old (or mature, or trusted, etc) enough to stay out all night long,
the speaker considers her so young that heavy dates are not advised. We might
also say: 'Susie is no non-child', with all the restrictions or privileges that
we put on or accord our offspring of tender years. Perhaps it is a little more
difficult to see 'mere' as an adjective because of its semantics but, as I am
sure the debater Larry knows, we can use the logical circles on this one very
easily.

Therefore, j'accuse! It seems to me that almost everyone will be able to accept
'mere' as an adjective modifying 'child'. Am I wrong, or merely misguided?

[LT continued]
> Or consider this one:
> `Lisa is a heavy smoker'.  This time the adjective `heavy' does not
> perform any subclassification of the set of smokers.  In fact, it
> doesn't even apply semantically to smokers, or to Lisa: instead, it
> applies to Lisa's habit.

[PR]
Well, if there are "heavy smokers" and "non-heavy smokers" ("light smokers"),
it is difficult for me to see that no process of classification has been at
work. Perhaps you could explain that in greater detail, Larry. To me, the set
has been subclassified. I think it is you, who, this time, is confusing the
semantics with the syntax. Is it so strange really that with an agentive
deverbal noun the adjective should have a connection adverbially with the
underlying verb, or does that not occur in Basque (:--/).

[PR previously]
>> '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.

[LT]
> For certain purposes, perhaps.  But this is not an argument that `my' is
> a pronoun: rather, it appears to be a (feeble) argument that `my' is an
> adjective -- which it is not.

[PR]
The "certain purposes" are communication. And yes, when 'my' is shorthand for
'the speaker's', it is a pro-noun. In that circle called X, there are smaller
circles containing 'my', 'your', 'Larry's', 'Pat's', 'etc.'s'.

[PR previously]
>> Of course, this is exactly the same situation as when nouns are used
>> attributively: "newspaper account".

[LT]
> Indeed.  It begins to become clear that semantic tests are not very
> useful for identifying syntactic categories.  But we linguists knew
> that.

[PR]
It has become very clear to me that "semantic tests" are not your forte ({:-o).
And, generally, what synatctic category is it that you think has not "semantic
content"; and, if it has none, whatever would it mean?

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

[LT]
> Well, *one* of us certainly does. ;-)

<snip>

[PR previously]
>> 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.

[LT]
> You mean there's an Arkansas analysis in which `arrival' is a verb?
> Most interesting.

> [on the slot-and-filler approach]

[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,

[LT]
> I would hardly describe the slot-and-filler approach as "grammarless".
> It is in fact a thoroughly grammatical approach.  Not so traditional, of
> course, but certainly grammatical in nature.  Far more so than the
> semantic approach which I dismissed above.

[PR]

Yes, you were dismissive but your dismissal does not dismiss it. And how does
your characterization of the slot-and-filler approach (the original inspiration
for Macs, no doubt), square with your definition of "grammar": "The system by
which the words and morphemes of a language are organized into larger units,
particularly into sentences . . ."?

When we were first presented with the "slots", we were informed that the whole
purpose of the technique was to circumvent "difficult grammar" for less
talented students.

[PR previously]
>> and the terrible language skills of today's youth are
>> directly attributable to this method of instruction, IMHO.

[LT]
> Dear me.  The linguistic shortcomings of our young people are to be laid
> at the door of slot-and-filler grammar?

> That's a new one on me.

[PR]
The relativistic non-prescriptive ideology hepped Mommy too.

[LT]
>I'm
> afraid my baleful influence is getting out of hand.

[PR]
To judge by the threads in progress on this list, you may put your fears to
rest.

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/proto-language/
and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/proto-religion/indexR.html
"Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meiði, nætr allar níu,
geiri undaðr . . . a þeim meiði er mangi veit
hvers hann af rótum renn." (Hávamal 138)