<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>