Re Personal pronouns

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Larry (,Ralf-Stefan) and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Trask" <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 4:15 PM

>> [PR previously]

 <snip>
>> Larry's definition of pronoun contains all the classses traditionally
>> considered pronouns *except* possessive pronouns though it seems odd in the
>> extreme that, in  spite of the rejection of possessive pronouns,
>> demonstrative pronouns are included *as well as* being listed under
>> 'determiner' as "demonstrative".

>> Perhaps you could explain to me why you think "demonstrative" may occur in
>> both classifications but "possesive" may not.

[LT]
> OK; I'll have a shot.

<snip>

> So that's that: 'my' is strictly a determiner, while 'mine' is strictly a
> pronoun, and 'this' can be either a pronoun or a determiner.

[PR]
This all seems very reasonable, and I thank you for this civil, patient and
clear exposition of your ideas.

However, under the entry "pronoun" in your _Dictionary of Grammatical Terms
in Linguistics_, pp. 221-222, you list several categories into which
pronouns may be classified: personal ("(I, they)"), reflexive,
demonstrative, indefinite, interrogative, and relative.

You have told us above that a word like 'mine' is "strictly a pronoun".
Which category among those listed in your dictionary encompasses 'mine'?

[LT continued]

> Now to the semantico-functional categories.  We can set up a class of
> 'demonstratives' on the basis of deictic properties, and we find that both
> determiner 'this' and pronoun 'this' must be included in the demonstratives.
> And we can perhaps set up a class of 'possessives' on some basis or other
> (this is not so easy), and find that both determiner 'my' and pronoun 'mine'
> deserve to be included in this possessive class.

[PR]
A gracious concession.

[PR previously]
>> Finally, I think it useful to retain the term "possessive pronoun" because
>> it overtly identifies the fact that the pronoun stands for a noun in the
>> possessive --- in addition to its function of deteremination.

[LT]
> No; I'm afraid I can't agree.

> Whatever the intended meaning of "stands for" might be, a pronoun does not
> "stand for" a noun.  A pronoun doesn't even belong to the category 'noun'.
> Instead, it belongs to the category 'noun phrase', and, in many cases, it
> takes its reference from another noun phrase overtly present in the
> discourse.

> Example:

> Q: "Where's the woman we're supposed to meet?"
> A: "She's over there."

> And *not*:

> * "The she we're supposed to meet is over there."

> A pronoun does *not* "stand for" a noun in any coherent sense.

[PR]
I am frankly rather surprised by your apparent uncertainty regarding the
intended meaning of "stands for".

And your example seems (no offense intended) trivial and the result of a
knee-jerk application of your method.

Your first sentence, of course, omits the relative pronoun that in a more
formal register would have been present.

"Where is the woman that we are supposed to meet?"

Though such a sentence is not commonly seen, it would be perfectly
acceptable to let "she" stand for "woman":

"Where is she that we are supposed to meet?'

Similarly, though rather stilted,

"She that we are supposed to meet is over there."

Obviously, articles do not precede pronouns in English (usually).

It is obvious that "she" can stand for either "(the) woman" or the fuller
NP: "(the) woman (that) we are supposed to meet".

[LT continued]

> Now, of course, 'my' is somehow related to 'I', at least semantically.
> Depending on your theoretical tastes, you might like to state a rule --
> say, a lexical rule -- of the following approximate form:

> [I] + [Poss] --> [my]

> This rule is comparable to other conceivable lexical rules; for example:

> [arrive] + [-al] --> [arrival]

> But 'arrival' is not a verb because 'arrive' is a verb: it's a noun, as shown
> by its grammatical behavior.  Likewise, 'my' is not a pronoun because 'I' is
> a pronoun: it's a determiner, as shown by its grammatical behavior.

[PR]
Perhaps the discussion could be foreshortened. 'My' could perhaps be termed
a "pronominal determiner".

[LT continued]
> Finally, I might add that 'possessive' is a rather elusive category anyway.

[PR]
An interesting question for another time. Frankly, I believe that the
definition of "possessive" can be rather simply stated.

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 meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim meipi er
mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)