[Lexicog] [Fwd: [FLEx]Noun categorization in English (was: ... Bantu)]

[Conor McDonough Quinn]

Dia dhaoibh, a chairde!

This may be a bit too much a matter grammatical than purely lexicographic,
but it seems like a notable aspect of this whole situation is that while
unmarked nominal forms exhibit this incredible range of interactions with
singular/plural and count/mass, while the explicitly marked plurals seem
only able to function as plurals for purposes of verb agreement.  The only
exception to this, Kim has dealt with quite effectively, I think, i.e.
that the Wilds of Buckinghamshire is a (singular) place.  As exemplified
by the verbal agreement of that last sentence itself.

This in turn reminds me of the ideas Hagit Borer has been writing about
recently: that functional grammatical material (like explicit plural
marking) "fixes" a form grammatically---hence the restriction to plural
agreement---while corresponding bare forms can reflect a broader range of
grammatical contexts and properties.  This seems to be what we're looking
at.

Regarding count-mass in particular, I know that Gennaro Chierchia has
recently done much work in this area (I'm cc-ing the thread to him, in the
hopes that he'll find it interesting), but I don't know his exact
references.  I like this kind of discussion: I tend to be a bit of a
butterfly-collector, and it's always nice to have the delightful
weirdnesses of my native language pointed out.

Sla/n,
bhur gcara

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Kim Blewett wrote:

>
> This is not relevant to the Bantu discussion on another newsgroup, but
> here are some comments on John's good discussion about English nouns:
>
> John Roberts wrote:
>       ...
>       So you can have a noun like "dust" which under the
>       singular/plural distinction is a singular noun but under the
>       count/mass distinction is a mass noun. You can have a noun
>       like "sheep" which under the singular/plural distinction is a
>       singular noun but under the count/mass distinction is a count
>       noun, e.g. "three sheep".
>
> Verb agreement here, which appears to follow the count/mass distinction
> rather than the singular/plural form:
>
>     The dust is very bad during dry season.
> vs.
>      The sheep are invading our yard.
>
> Then take the following examples:
> American English:
>     The company is announcing a major reorganization.
>     SIL is studying languages around the world.
>
> British (and Australian, etc.) English:
>     The company are announcing a major reorganisation.
>     SIL are studying languages around the world.
>
> Does this indicate that we Americans depersonalize our corporations &
> organizations, whereas you "original English speakers" think of a company
> more in terms of its individuals? I've been puzzling over this one for a
> while.
>
>       Some nouns have a singular/plural distinction but can be used
>       in certain senses/contexts as though they are a singular
>       noun. E.g. "He is always thinking about his past/*pasts. cf.
>       They are always thinking about their past/pasts." Here I
>       would say "past" is being used as a mass noun as a
>       perspective to view all the events of his past life. Some
>       nouns have a singular/plural distinction but can be used in
>       certain senses/contexts as though they are a plural noun.
>       E.g. 'We go to Cheltenham for the waters/*water.' 'We live in
>       the wilds/*wild of Buckinghamshire.' 'I went to the
>       pictures/*picture last night.' Likewise I would say the
>       plural nouns "waters", "wilds" and "pictures" are being used
>       as mass nouns rather than count nouns in these contexts.
>       ...
>
> However, I *think* (does someone disagree with this?) that  "waters",
> "wilds" and "pictures" take plural verb forms, in contrast to the mass
> nouns "dust" above (along with "rice" and others). So verb agreement for
> these plural+mass nouns agrees with the form rather than the count/mass
> distinction, at least in American English:
>     The movies (Brit:pictures) are a good way to spend an evening.
>     The wilds of Buckinghamshire are fascinating.
>         (I can also say "The wilds of Buckinghamshire is a fascinating
> area."
>         But I think this is actually giving a name to the region, i.e.,
> "the Wilds of Buckinghamshire...)
>     Cheltenham's waters are famous.
>
> What do "y'all Brits" do with these examples?
>
> Kim Blewett
>
>  #############################################################
>
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>
>   the mailing list <FLEx at lists.sil.org>.
>
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <FLEx-off at lists.sil.org>
>
> Send administrative queries to  <flex_devteam at sil.org>
>
>
>
> If you have a message just for the development team or need to report an error in Language Explorer, instead write to:
>
> <FLEx_Devteam at sil.org> with questions/comments/feature requests.
>
> <FLEx_Errors at sil.org> with error reports.
>
> 
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rTZcGA/hOaOAA/79vVAA/HKE4lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/