<div dir="ltr"><div>All I intended to contribute here (in my earlier message) was that
English "co-" seems relevant for comparison. The rest is probably
tangential, as may be my reply below.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But I'm puzzled by a few points in your response, David:</div><div><br></div><div>First, (1) > (1') is a valid inference, if we interpret "write" in the sense that "cowrite" is interpreted-- as part of the writing process. This is especially easy as an inference with the progressive (as in your example), although I can see why "Mary wrote the article" is strange, but still may be valid depending on how loosely we interpret "write" in academia ("Mary can say she has now written something in [the journal] <i>Language</i>?"), so I think some of the quirkiness here comes from how we use the term "cowrite" in academia in contrast to "write" although that is not strictly necessary. The distinction is probably a pragmatic one, where "cowrite" somehow has supplied an expectation of "not by oneself", whereas likewise "coexist" does not have an inference of "exist by itself" in your (3), etc. In summary, there are some tricky details related to lexical aspect, grammatical aspect, and other factors, but I think, broadly speaking, those examples behave similarly. (Oddly, I'm actually arguing 'against myself' here because you suggest that cowrite is the strongest in support of my argument, but I'll address that in the point below.)</div><div><br></div><div>Second, you're correct that my phrasing may have been misleading: remove the word "exactly" if you wish, or more relevantly reinterpret what I said as referring to a cluster of related meanings. It's broadly the same as the other examples from other languages, and I'd like to emphasize how much variability (e.g., reflexive, reciprocal) there is in the examples given for other languages just in the emails in the current conversation. I don't think English is more variable than others. That's what I meant by English "co-" being the same-- it functions similarly. Most importantly, what I meant to point out is that this isn't some exotic function only found in unfamiliar languages. Randy didn't give any examples from Kyrgyz in the first email, but I imagine some of them would translate into English relatively naturally with "co-".<br></div><div><br></div><div>Third, no one has directly responded to what I said about the semantics of "coexpress", and <b>I welcome any counter examples where "co-" indicates "variably"</b> rather than "together" (or "at the same time"). I'm not aware of any. If there are some, then "coexpression" could fit that model. None in your message, nor given by others, have the "alternatively" interpretation. "Corefer" does not refer to ambiguous interpretations; "coexist" does not refer to an electron being a wave and a particle; "costar" does not refer to a single actor playing multiple roles. And so forth. (Your opaque examples also mean "together" etymologically, not "alternatively".) Martin's closest parallel suggestion was "coapply" but that still means "together", not "alternatively"-- to coapply glue and tape does not mean choosing one or the other in a particular context, but to do both. [Another example might be "coteach" which could mean either (most often) share teaching of a course together with someone, or (less obviously) teach two topics in a single course, but never to teach two different topics in different or alternating semesters.] "Coexpress" can literally never actually express both things at the same time, whereas all other "co-" words I can think of entail doing something "together"-- which likewise is a "collective" interpretation (yes, vaguely with slight variation, as noted above).</div><div><br></div><div>Additionally, some of the differences you suggest may be related to the fact that English collectives with "co-" do not require a plural subject, a point of cross-linguistic variation I mentioned in my previous message but haven't explored (e.g., if plural subjects were required, would your inferences apply or not?). I would also guess that as I hinted, the derivational/lexicalized nature of "co-" explains some of the quirkiness in particular verbs like "cowrite" (also "corefer"), whereas in some other languages it may be more regular/productive (possibly also 'inflectional', although that perhaps gets into unnecessary theoretical/terminological issues).<br></div><div><br></div><div>The ways in which we agree include (at least):</div><div>1. Terms like "collectivity" are often used vaguely (though given the multi-functionality/"<wbr>coexpression"! of the same morphemes marking a variety of functions, perhaps that is appropriate).</div><div>2. Looking at the semantics narrowly is important, and your contributions are helpful.<br></div><div>3. My phrasing may have been misleading.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for your comments-- I agree with your suggestions for understanding these constructions better. My reply here (and I hope your previous reply) should not be read as indicating that we mostly disagree about this topic, because I don't feel that we do.</div><div><br></div><div>Daniel<br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:01 AM, David Gil <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Daniel and others,<br>
<br>
In a 1996 article (reference below) I point out that the term
"collective" is used with a bewildering array of meanings. While
the article deals exclusively with collectivity as marked on
nominal expressions, the same point is clearly relevant for the
cases of "verbal collectivity" being discussed in this thread. In
particular, I would beg to differ with Daniel Ross' claim that "In
English, the (derivational) prefix 'co-' seems to have exactly
this function".<br>
<br>
Consider the following four examples:<br>
<br>
(1) Mary and John are cowriting this article<br>
(2) These two noun-phrases corefer to each other<br>
(3) These two species coexist in this region<br>
(4) Mary and John costarred in the new movie<br>
<br>
Each of these four sentences differs logically from the others in
ways that have to do with collectivity, as evidenced by the
following potential inferences:<br>
<br>
(1') Mary is writing this article<br>
(2') This noun-phrase refers<br>
(3') This species exists in this region<br>
(4') Mary starred in the new movie <br>
<br>
(1) > (1') is not a valid inference.<br>
(2) > (2') is a valid inference, but is weird (in ways that I
don't have time to go into).<br>
(3) > (3') is a valid inference.<br>
(4) > (4') is a valid inference.<br>
<br>
The most common understanding of the term "collective" is that it
blocks inferences from a plural set to its individual members.
Thus, under this understanding, "co-" is marking collectivity in
(1), perhaps also in (2), but certainly not in (3) and (4). Now
it may be the case that all of the above usages of "co-" share a
common semantic core, but simply applying the label "collective"
to such a putative common meaning doesn't help much in trying to
figure out its nature.<br>
<br>
And to return briefly to the "coexpression" thread: given the
diversity of meanings of the "co-" prefix (which is hardly
exhausted by the above four examples — and this is even before we
take into consideration its opaque uses in "collect", "collate",
etc.), I don't see any problem with using it in the word
"coexpression" in the sense intended by Martin and others.<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p class="m_8493159320531238491ReferencesT"><span lang="EN-US">Gil, David (1996) "Maltese
'Collective Nouns':<span> </span>A
Typological Perspective", <i>Rivista
di Linguistica </i>8:53-87<i>.</i></span></p><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<div class="m_8493159320531238491moz-cite-prefix"><br>
<br>
On 24/07/2018 23:59, Daniel Ross wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>In English, the (derivational) prefix "co-" seems to have
exactly this function, as I pointed out in the previous
discussion on this list regarding why I found the proposed
term "coexpress(ion)" to be odd because it refers to
alternatives rather than collective action. I'm not sure where
this has been written about (but probably someone has, maybe
for Latin?), and it is derivational, perhaps not fully
productive, but it does seem to be able to form new verbs, so
it seems to fit here.</div>
<div>(It is interesting to note that at least in more
established verbs like "cowrite", they do not strictly require
a plural subject-- "I cowrote an article", as long as the
context allows for a reasonable interpretation. If you're
looking at the typology cross-linguistically that might be an
interesting point of variation to consider.)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Daniel<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:11 AM,
"Ekkehard König" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:koenig@zedat.fu-berlin.de" target="_blank">koenig@zedat.fu-berlin.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Randy,<br>
<br>
rich information on the reciprocal - sociative/collective
polysemy can be<br>
found in all of the Nedjalkov volumes. A condensed overview
is given in<br>
Chapter 5 of the first volume. (I did a review of the 5
volumes for<br>
Language, 2011).<br>
<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Ekkehard<br>
<div>
<div class="m_8493159320531238491h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Randy,<br>
> There is a similar category in Wandala (Frajzyngier
2012),<br>
> All best,<br>
> Zygmunt<br>
><br>
> From: Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.ling<wbr>uistlist.org</a>>
on behalf of<br>
> "Randy J. LaPolla" <<a href="mailto:randy.lapolla@gmail.com" target="_blank">randy.lapolla@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 1:33 AM<br>
> To: "<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" target="_blank">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST<wbr>.ORG</a>"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" target="_blank">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST<wbr>.ORG</a>><br>
> Cc: weifeng liu <<a href="mailto:175204935@qq.com" target="_blank">175204935@qq.com</a>><br>
> Subject: [Lingtyp] collective action marking<br>
><br>
> Hi All,<br>
> A student in China (Liu Weifeng) working on Kyrgyz
asked me for references<br>
> about collective marking on the verb. This marking
in Kyrgyz (-ish-) is<br>
> distinct from plural marking, and used together
with plural marking, and<br>
> implies the action was done by two or more people
together rather than<br>
> individually.<br>
><br>
> I am aware of the following article, though do not
have access to it, and<br>
> don’t even know know for sure whether it documents
this phenomenon:<br>
><br>
> Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007. Reciprocals,
assistives and plural in<br>
> Kirghiz. In Nedjalkov, Vladimir (with the
assistance of Emma Geniusiene<br>
> and Zlatka Guentcheva) (eds.), Typology of
reciprocal constructions,<br>
> 1231-1280. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br>
><br>
> I don't know of any other works on this type of
category in any language.<br>
> Has this been looked into in any languages?<br>
><br>
> Thanks!<br>
><br>
> Randy<br>
> -----<br>
> Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA （羅仁地）<br>
> Professor of Linguistics and Chinese, School of
Humanities<br>
> Nanyang Technological University<br>
> HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive | Singapore 637332<br>
</div>
</div>
> <a href="http://randylapolla.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://randylapolla.net/</a><<a href="http://secure-web.cisco.com/1r49xGHjDHpvduhLxc8xcFdeDWaQRDmx6JT631_HJ88j0WzNbUSSBJKa_anFZBkB1cSFVPmw9ikThvWoEF7RIEZwRrF41ZmOg8Q1r5KEyCUxZC5wuC28aG_DlUMVjf4vKly6Ga5U846AFU_8ciIgNuIsCxBZP90e2AXadGa_EaJF3qeI0PsXURTP7UIoNYFZSnz_SDDdFEuzk165x1qlfrXFPZWqpG2ZvIir6ai7vfmDn9hv5v1Fqfoz2YKBK325exE--qzqARuhIetwE_l8o-x0t3UnQiilemsqt4EqZfAOQo_BRlSyjjeIKhlCgtch0P5B9ppouqgFfeYSKqDwzhmlzNUAom_lTGiK5TO2YlOC2K2nbRFX-7nK89BmKSZm_brUS2-KjnVVKJrnPK9sM1XE5PPbNO8ggB4SPl9zw7DdqEaqZ_qgihNd8wV-Nb4yfRy2XIMtSrFC_G9CbVWKe-Q/http%3A%2F%2Frandylapolla.net%2F" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http:<wbr>//secure-web.cisco.com/1r49xGH<wbr>jDHpvduhLxc8xcFdeDWaQRDmx6JT63<wbr>1_HJ88j0WzNbUSSBJKa_anFZBkB1cS<wbr>FVPmw9ikThvWoEF7RIEZwRrF41ZmOg<wbr>8Q1r5KEyCUxZC5wuC28aG_<wbr>DlUMVjf4vKly6Ga5U846AFU_8ciIgN<wbr>uIsCxBZP90e2AXadGa_EaJF3qeI0Ps<wbr>XURTP7UIoNYFZSnz_SDDdFEuzk165x<wbr>1qlfrXFPZWqpG2ZvIir6ai7vfmDn9h<wbr>v5v1Fqfoz2YKBK325exE--<wbr>qzqARuhIetwE_l8o-x0t3UnQiilems<wbr>qt4EqZfAOQo_BRlSyjjeIKhlCgtch0<wbr>P5B9ppouqgFfeYSKqDwzhmlzNUAom_<wbr>lTGiK5TO2YlOC2K2nbRFX-7nK89BmK<wbr>SZm_brUS2-KjnVVKJrnPK9sM1XE5PP<wbr>bNO8ggB4SPl9zw7DdqEaqZ_<wbr>qgihNd8wV-Nb4yfRy2XIMtSrFC_<wbr>G9CbVWKe-Q/http%3A%2F%<wbr>2Frandylapolla.net%2F</a>><br>
<span class="m_8493159320531238491im m_8493159320531238491HOEnZb">> Most recent book:<br>
> <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.routledge.com/The-<wbr>Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edi<wbr>tion/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/<wbr>9781138783324</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span>
<div class="m_8493159320531238491HOEnZb">
<div class="m_8493159320531238491h5">> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.o<wbr>rg/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.o<wbr>rg/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_8493159320531238491mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="m_8493159320531238491moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a>
<a class="m_8493159320531238491moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><pre class="m_8493159320531238491moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a class="m_8493159320531238491moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>