<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Daniel,</p>
<p>Thanks for your very helpful and insightful comments. You're
quite correct that I had ignored aspectual effects, e.g. in (1),
where the (individuating, non-collective) inference would indeed
work much better in the progressive than in the past or perfect.</p>
<p>But here's where I still differ. You write: "<b>I welcome any
counter examples where "co-" indicates "variably"</b> rather
than "together" (or "at the same time")", from which I infer that
you're assuming that the proposed use of "coexpress" embodies such
a "variable" component. But I would question your presupposition
that "coexpress" involves such variability. To go back to the
original example, when one says that "a form M coexpresses source
and agent", this is NOT tantamount to saying that sometimes it
expresses source and other times agent. Rather, what it is
asserting is that the form M HAS (as understood in the atemporal
sense of a description of a linguistic fact) a range of meanings
that encompasses source and agent. Now it may sometimes be the
case that in one sentence M is unambiguously expressing source
while in another sentence M is unambiguously expressing agent.
But by the same token, in (1) "Mary and John are cowriting this
article", there may be points in time when only Mary is writing,
and points in time where only John is writing, but this does not
preclude the collective nature of the overall endeavor.
Similarly, when we use "coexpress" in the way Martin and I are
advocating, we allow for the possibility that it is NOT the case
that sometimes M expresses source and other times agent, but
RATHER that all of the time M expresses a single broad meaning
that includes both source and target. This is precisely why we
need a cover term such as "coexpress" in addition to more specific
terms such as "vague"/"macrofunctional",
"polysemous"/"polyfunctional" and "homonymic".</p>
<p>Another objection to "coexpress" is that it requires a plural
object rather than a plural subject (as is more commonly the case
with "co-"). But there are examples (albeit a bit hard to come
by) where a verb with "co-" does require a plural object. One
obvious albeit frozen case is "collect". Another potentially
better example would be "collocate", though the active transitive
usage seems to be rare; the best cited example I could come up
with was "to marshall and collocate in order his batallions"
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collocate">https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collocate</a>), and that's
characterized as "obsolete". (Though if I had a better internet
connection, I suspect I could find more examples.) So I don't
consider this as a reason to reject "coexpress".<br>
</p>
<p>I realize that for some people this is all a lot of
"hair-splitting". But it's the nature of the scientific
enterprise that one person's hair-splitting is another person's
crucial distinction. Ultimately, nobody's trying (or at least
should be trying) to impose their terminology on anybody else;
rather, what we should be doing is using reasoned argumentation to
convince other people that one's proposed terminology is better,
and to lead by example.</p>
<p>David<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/07/2018 13:25, Daniel Ross wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAm4d-5Nd3Vs=Yy2y2JhjkPgokdfGSD4sbzjo_tb6Lm4gOBHwA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.ling<wbr>uistlist.org</a>>
on behalf of<br>
> "Randy J. LaPolla" <<a
href="mailto:randy.lapolla@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST<wbr>.ORG</a>"<br>
> <<a
href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST<wbr>.ORG</a>><br>
> Cc: weifeng liu <<a
href="mailto:175204935@qq.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
> <a
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a>
<a class="m_8493159320531238491moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a
href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.linguistlist.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-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="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
</body>
</html>