6.1422, Misc: Delimiters, Ling&Prescriptivism, Double Positives

[The Linguist List]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-6-1422. Fri Oct 13 1995. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  118
 
Subject: 6.1422, Misc: Delimiters, Ling&Prescriptivism, Double Positives
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Associate Editor:  Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Assistant Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
                   Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
                   Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Editor for this issue: lveselin at emunix.emich.edu (Ljuba Veselinova)
 
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:41:00 PDT
From:  IBENAWJ at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (benji wald)
Subject:  Re: 6.1395, Disc: Between-word Delimiters
 
2)
Date:  Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:58:05 EDT
From:  amr at CS.Wayne.EDU (Alexis Manaster Ramer)
Subject:  Re:  6.1369, Sum: Creeping reflexives
 
3)
Date:  Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:42:55 EDT
From:  JCDAVIS at UKCC.uky.edu (Joseph Davis)
Subject:       Yeah, yeah
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:41:00 PDT
From:  IBENAWJ at MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (benji wald)
Subject:  Re: 6.1395, Disc: Between-word Delimiters
 
Let's not overlook that numerals with their place systems do not separate
into words, while the same numbers spelled out do, e.g., 75 = seventy five,
not *seventyfive.  There are other interesting aspects of writing numerals
vs. spelling out numbers.  EG order of reading for say German is 5 and seventy,
and so on.  Then, there is the obvious historical development of single
words out of separate (?) words, e.g., seven-ty < seven-ten(s), etc.  I
don't recall offhand whether the place system, which I believe is Indian
developed at a time when words were not separated by spaces in Sanskrit.
Spacing is a separate consideration from placing, since whether there is a
space or not, the order of numberals could be used to indicate place, and thus
the intended value (place in the 10/n column) of a particular number.
 
Apart from the above, there is vacillation in writing conventions for
Bantu languages as to whether monosyllabic words of some types are considered
part of the (usually) following word or not.  EG Swahili separates na
(and/with) from a following noun, e.g., na mtu (with somebody) but not from
a monosyllabic pronoun, naye = na-ye (with-him/her).  Because of the prosody,
there was the attempt on the part of some Bantuists to write namtu instead
of separating the words, but the already established convention was too
resistant.  I believe there are some other Bantu languages where the writing
conventions do join transparent cognate constructions in such cases, but
offhand I don't remember which ones.  Also, Swahili written in Arabic
script does tend to join such constructions, maybe because it makes writing
faster.  As those who know Arabic script realise, Arabic letters in final
position have additional flourishes (extended curves) that take longer to
write.  Linguistically, there is an issue in these different writing
conventions about when we have a sequence of words and when we have a
cliticised construction, cf. seven-ty above, or is-n't, and the unique
English spelling "cannot" for "can not" (on the way to "can't"?)
 
In sum, there are quite a few issues in the development of word delimiters
and that aspect of spelling systems in various languages.   Benji
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:  Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:58:05 EDT
From:  amr at CS.Wayne.EDU (Alexis Manaster Ramer)
Subject:  Re:  6.1369, Sum: Creeping reflexives
 
Just one tangential observation on an issue raised in this
summary: it surely is not correct to assume that "Real Linguists"
are not prescriptivists.  For many if not most of the world's
written languages, the folks who are writing prescrriprive
grammars and dictionaries are in fact linguists.  This used to
be the case even more generally, even if today there is a bit of
a dissociation between linguists and grammarians/lexicograaphers
of languages such as English and a few others today.  And even
so, if you look at the lists of contributors to the various
prescriptive dictinaories of English, you will find the names
of some very well known linguists.
 
It is I think correct to say that the opposition to prescriptivism
in language originated with some linguists around the turn of the
century, but I do not think it is true that all or even most
linguists ever adopted this stance.  Nor is it clear to me whether
the anti-prescriptivists were/are really any closer to the truth
of the matters than the prescriptivists.  While much of the
prescriptivist "theory" is drivel, I tend to feel that the response
to it has not really been very compelling either, the problem being
that the notion of CORRECTNESS is obviously a very widespread
and a very difficult part of many (all?) cultures and it will not
do to dismiss it the way that anti-prescriptivist linguists have
tended to.
 
Alexis Manaster Ramer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date:  Wed, 11 Oct 1995 11:42:55 EDT
From:  JCDAVIS at UKCC.uky.edu (Joseph Davis)
Subject:       Yeah, yeah
 
 
Wasn't there mention recently on the List of this famous response to the
claim that no language has a double positive that results in a negative?
The New York Times Magazine of October 1 credits the response "Yeah,
yeah" to Sidney Morgenbesser of Columbia University, attending a lecture
by Stuart Hampshire (who reportedly made the claim).  Perhaps the
anecdote is still in the realm of history, not yet in mythology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-6-1422.