<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Concerning the difference between <EM>bütün</EM> and <EM>hepsi</EM>, and,
more generally, between “all” and “every” (Span. <EM>todos <U>los</U>
hombres</EM> “all <U>the</U> men”vs. <EM>todo hombre</EM> “every man”)
see I.Putzu & P. Ramat, ’Articles and quantifiers in the Mediterr.
languages’,in W.Bisang (ed.), <EM>Aspects of Typology and Universals,
</EM>Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2001:99-132.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Prof.Paolo
Ramat<BR>Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS )<BR>Direttore del
Centro "Lingue d'Europa: tipologia, storia e sociolinguistica" (LETiSS)<BR>Viale
Lungo Ticino Sforza 56<BR>27100 Pavia<BR>tel. ++390382375811<BR>fax
++390382375899</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=DEVERETT@BENTLEY.EDU
href="mailto:DEVERETT@BENTLEY.EDU">Everett, Daniel</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 26, 2011 4:49 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Quantifiers</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">Siva,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But that IS all that most languages have, one that can be both unrestricted
and restricted. And, because we tend to talk about what we know best, it will
indeed be restricted by domain in most uses. However, not in all.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If a child says to their parent "But, Mom, *everyone* is going to the
party!" and the mom replies "That is false, because you're not" , the parent has
reminded the child of the main use (or alternative use if one prefers) of the
quantifier. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If it isn't possible for a parent to use the quantifier in this way and the
child's use is the only one possible, then the language, ceteris paribus, lacks
unrestricted quantifiers. But this seems unlikely. And I suspect that this if
for the reasons that David Gil outlined.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-- Dan</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Siva Kalyan wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>I’m a bit confused. Surely in everyday conversation, we use the
“domain-restricted” sense of <I>all</I> far more often than the “unrestricted”
sense (because we usually talk about a bounded domain rather than the set of
all things in the universe). I would have thought that this is the default
interpretation of the universal quantifier in most languages, and that if a
language is missing one of the senses, it would nearly always be the
unrestricted one, which seems less useful. It seems like it would be more
noteworthy if there were a language which has only the <I>unrestricted</I>
quantifier.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps I’m missing something.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siva</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR>-- <BR>Siva Kalyan<BR>Sent with <A
href="http://bit.ly/sigsprw">Sparrow</A><BR></DIV>
<P style="COLOR: #a0a0a0">On Sunday, 24 July 2011 at 12:15 PM, Everett, Daniel
wrote:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 1px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 1px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 1px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px"
type="cite"><SPAN>
<DIV>
<DIV>Extremely useful, David!<BR><BR>Sent from my iPhone<BR><BR>On Jul 24,
2011, at 12:10 PM, "David Gil" <<A
href="mailto:gil@eva.mpg.de">gil@eva.mpg.de</A>> wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>Not quite what you're asking for, Dan, but Turkish has two universal
<BR>quantifiers, "bütün" and "hepsi", whose usage corresponds roughly to
<BR>what you're calling "unrestricted" and "domain-restricted"
respectively.<BR><BR>In fact, if you add the feature of distributivity
into the mix, you get <BR>a similar (though perhaps not identical)
semantic contrast in English, <BR>between "every" and "each".<BR><BR>One
might predict the absence of languages with "domain-restricted" but <BR>no
"unrestricted" universal quantifiers on the basis of general
<BR>principles of markedness: if "domain-restricted" quantifiers involve
<BR>the presence of an additional feature, then one would expect them to
<BR>occur only in the presence of their unmarked counterparts lacking said
<BR>feature.<BR><BR>I wrote about this some time back, in<BR><BR>Gil,
David (1991) "Universal Quantifiers: A Typological Study", EUROTYP
<BR>Working Papers, Series 7, Number 12, The European Science Foundation,
<BR>EUROTYP Programme, Berlin.<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>Imagine two quantifiers. One can be used to mean "all" in the sense
of <BR>"all men (that anyone could ever imagine)." The other can only be
used <BR>in the sense of "all (those we recognize in our culture/those
in the <BR>next village over/those in the immediate context of
discourse/etc)." <BR><BR>Call the first one "unrestricted." Call the
second one <BR>"domain-restricted." <BR><BR>Is any language known that
has only the latter? For semanticists, <BR>would there be any principle
barring the existence of only the <BR>restricted type (whose domain is a
subset of the former's) in the <BR>absence of the
unrestricted?<BR><BR>Dan<BR><BR><BR>**********************<BR>Daniel L.
Everett<BR><BR><A
href="http://daneverettbooks.com/">http://daneverettbooks.com</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>--
<BR>David Gil<BR><BR>Department of Linguistics<BR>Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology<BR>Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig,
Germany<BR><BR>Telephone: 49-341-3550321 Fax: 49-341-3550119<BR>Email: <A
href="mailto:gil@eva.mpg.de">gil@eva.mpg.de</A><BR>Webpage: <A
href="http://www.eva.mpg.de/~gil/">http://www.eva.mpg.de/~gil/</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>