<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=#000099 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>Dear Wolfgang and Marcel,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000> I quite agree that it is
<EM>videt</EM> which governs <EM>amic-us</EM> and <EM>flor-em</EM> in <EM>amicus
florem videt</EM>. I simply wanted to characterize, more precisely, the
relationship between a relator and the noun (phrase) which accompanies it. It is
a case of <U>local government</U>, as is shown, for example, by the fact
that German <EM>von</EM> requires (governs?) the dative, <EM>während</EM> the
genitive, Russian <EM>iz</EM> and <EM>ot</EM> the genitive (and, for that
matter, by Finnish, Turkish (1), etc. postpositions, which require certain cases
of the noun before them).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000> But this was not my main point when
proposing the term <EM>functeme</EM>. I would like to know your position with
respect to this proposal.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>(1) In passing, I would say, as an answer to Marcel
Erdal's query, that what should be treated as the relator is the whole
phrase thus constituted, as in </FONT><FONT color=#000000>Turkish
<EM>okul-<STRONG>dan önce </STRONG></EM>"before school", <EM>dün
aks</EM>,<EM>am-<STRONG>dan beri </STRONG></EM>"since yesterday evening", where
the postpositions <EM>önce</EM> and <EM>beri</EM> both require the ablative
-<EM>dan</EM>/-<EM>den </EM>, or Finnish <EM>muuri-<STRONG>a vasten
</STRONG></EM>"against a wall", where, in the same way,the relator is the whole
phrase <partitive -<EM>a + vasten </EM>(which "governs or "requires"
it)>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Best, Claude (Collège de France,
Paris)</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
href="mailto:W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de">Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=claude-hagege@WANADOO.FR
href="mailto:claude-hagege@WANADOO.FR">claude-hagege</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:02
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: FUNCTEME instead of relator,
case, adposition, flag, etc.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>Dear all, let me briefly comment upon
three postings, one of them on the sister mailing list Funknet
[Östen]<BR>:<BR>(a) Dear Östen, <BR>many thanks for this nice example.
One additional question: Doesn't the Russian phrase you quote
represent an appositional chain [each of the terms kolleg, nashij, and Andrej
Shevchenko have strong referential properties]? <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">In Russian, prepositions can be doubled in a way
that looks like incipient <BR>case agreement. This shows up above all in
genres like folklore, but here is <BR>a beautiful example I just found on
the Internet: <BR><BR>"...u kollegi u nashego u Andreja Shevchenko byla
klassnaja citata..." <BR>at colleague.GEN at our.GEN at Andrej.GEN
Shevchenko.GEN be.PRET.F.SG <BR>first-class quotation <BR>'our colleague
A.S. had a first-class quotation' <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>(b) Dear Marcel, <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">A question: Relational nouns (or auxiliary nouns, as
I have called them), which inflect for person plus case and/or are
themselves governed by adpositions, assume relational functions similar to
case and adpositions in (among others) Turkic and Semitic languages. Which
of the terms discussed are intended to cover them?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>*If* I
understand you correctly, you refer to constuctions like the following Tyvan
example: <BR><BR>ot üstü-n-den <BR>fire
top-*3SG:POSS-ABL <BR>'from the top of the fire' <BR><BR>I have glossed -n- as
*3SG:POSS just because it merely is a diachronic interpretation (hope that I
have got this right!). According to my approach, I would interpret ot üstü-n-
in terms of an appositional structure [unspecific possessive construction or
so, if you like] (fire *its=top), which is then case-marked by ABL -den. The
marker -den (the relational echo) would be motivated by the appropriate verb
(e.g. '[ashes] [fell from] [top of the fire]'. <BR><BR>(c) Dear Claude, <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> I coin FUNCTEME in the following
way: the suffix -eme, in the terminology of linguistics as well as in that
of other sciences, regularly refers to "a unit (often the smallest one) of
what the root says" (cf. phoneme, toneme, sememe, etc.). The root, in
funct-eme, says that the unit in question merely indicates the function of
the element (mostly a noun or noun phrase) that it governs: Engl. for in for
my friend indicates that my friend is the benefactive complement of the
predicate. It is obvious that prepositions like for also have a meaning (and
this is the main reason why case was originally used by Fillmore 1968 in a
semantic acception), but functeme strictly refers to the syntactic role of
relators. Thus, functeme precisely says what relators are actually from the
morphological and syntactic point(s) of view: they are units of function
marking.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>You say: "The 'unit (...) indicates the function of
the element (...) that it governs". Admittedly, I have some problems in
understanding this phrase: Maybe that e.g. prepostions govern their NP/nouns
(personally, I do not think so, rather, I believe that it is the cluster
{verb+preposition} that governs the NP/noun). But let's take an example with
case marking: amic-us flor-em videt 'The friend sees the flower'. Can we
really say, that -us *itself* 'governs' the referent 'friend', and -em the
referent 'flower'? Isn't it the verb videt that governs the distribution of
case markers (> relational echos, in my terms)? Or did I get you wrong?
<BR><BR>Best wishes, <BR>Wolfgang <BR><PRE class=moz-signature cols="72">--
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
Institut fuer Allgemeine und Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
D-80539 Muenchen
Tel.: ++49-(0)89-2180-2486 (Sekr.)
Tel.: ++49-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office)
Fax : ++49-(0)89-2180-5345
E-mail: <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de">W.Schulze@lrz.uni-muenchen.de</A>
Web: <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.ats.lmu.de./index.php">http://www.ats.lmu.de./index.php</A></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>