7.1124, Qs: Hebrew modals, Grammaticalization, Chance correspondences

The Linguist List linguist at tam2000.tamu.edu
Thu Aug 8 19:46:59 UTC 1996


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-7-1124. Thu Aug 8 1996. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  188
 
Subject: 7.1124, Qs: Hebrew modals, Grammaticalization, Chance correspondences
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu> (On Leave)
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <dseely 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)
 
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then  strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list.   This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
 
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Thu, 08 Aug 1996 14:00:53 +0200
From:  S0680605 at let.rug.nl ("B. Koole")
Subject:        Hebrew modals
 
2)
Date:  Wed, 07 Aug 1996 15:35:02 PDT
From:  fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick Newmeyer)
Subject:  Grammaticalization
 
3)
Date:  Thu, 08 Aug 1996 15:07:23 +1000
From:  ICASULE at ocs1.ocs.mq.edu.au
Subject:        chance correspondences
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Thu, 08 Aug 1996 14:00:53 +0200
From:  S0680605 at let.rug.nl ("B. Koole")
Subject:        Hebrew modals
 
Hello,
 
I am looking for a grammarbook in which I can find the hebrew modals.
Please reply directly to me at bkoole at rug.let.nl
 
Thanks a lot,
 
Greetings Bauke
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:  Wed, 07 Aug 1996 15:35:02 PDT
From:  fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick Newmeyer)
Subject:  Grammaticalization
 
Most of the writings on grammaticalization stress its purported
*unidirectionality* -- lexical categories become functional categories
which become clitics which become affixes, but the reverse is said to
never (or almost never) happen.
 
My impression is that in the history of English, the reverse process has
happened many times. In particular, prepositions have often been
reanalyzed as nouns, verbs, or adjectives. Some examples:
 
P becoming V: 'down three drinks'; 'up the stakes'; 'off the pigs' (1960s
protesters slogan).
 
P becoming N: 'inn' (from P 'in'); 'bye' (from P 'by'); 'out' (in sports
or as in 'I have an out'); 'behind' (i.e. buttocks); 'in' (as in 'I have
an in').
 
P becoming A: predicative 'for' and 'against' ('how many of you are
against?'); 'near'; 'through' (in the sense of 'finished'); 'on' and 'off'
('I'm just not on today'); 'behind' (we've never been so behind').
 
There seem to be cases of prepositions that derive historically from
nouns, which then *reconverted* to nounhood. I think that this is the
case with nouns like 'inside', 'outside', 'front' (in certain usages).
 
I'm not 100% sure of the etymology of some of the above, but if most
of these changes actually happened, it is possible that a majority of
English prepositions have actually 'upgraded', contrary to the claims
in much writing on grammaticalization.
 
Some questions:
 
1. Are there more examples of such changes from the history of English?
 
2. What about other languages? I am not so interested in isolated
examples of upgrading, but in wholesale upgrading, as seems to have
occurred with English prepositions.  (I am aware of discussions by
Brian Joseph and Rich Janda of similar phenomena, but wonder if there
is a more extensive literature.)
 
3. What are the consequences for theories of grammaticalization?
 
Thanks. I'll summarize if there is enough interest.
 
Fritz Newmeyer
fjn at u.washington.edu
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date:  Thu, 08 Aug 1996 15:07:23 +1000
From:  ICASULE at ocs1.ocs.mq.edu.au
Subject:        chance correspondences
 
Some time ago (Linguist List Vol. 6-797) there was a discussion on the
probability of chance correspondences in the comparison of unrelated
languages. I would like to ask for help in evaluating a situation
along similar lines. The scenario follows.
 
Language X is a living language, of which we are using a dictionary
consisting of approx. 3500 words (we have excluded obvious loanwords
from its neighbours). It is believed that this language has long
existed in isolation and is conservative. It has insignificant
dialectal differentiation. Its stories are told in a formulaic
(memorised) way.
 
We are comparing this isolated language with:
 
1. Language A, which is preserved in about 200 inscriptions of which
about 200-250 words can be used for comparison (some of which are
loanwords and personal names.
2. Language B, which is very closely related to Language A, and is
attested in about 60-80 glosses.
Chronologically A and B belong to a period of 15-20 centuries ago.
Both have no "descendants" or "continuants". There are some
extralinguistic phenomena that link the culture of Lang X to the
cultures of Lang A and B.
3. Material from Language C which is over 12 centuries old, with a
complete vocabulary and with a large number of closely related
"continuants".
Languages A, B, C belong to closely related subgroups within a
language family.
 
Allowing for no semantic latitude, avoiding root-etymologies as much
as possible, excluding all onomatopaeic forms and establishing
consistent phonetic correspondences with langauges A, B, C and their
common "ancestor", we obtain these match ups with the isolated
language X:
     33 correspondences with Language A + 7 personal names
     25 correspondences with Language B + 3 personal names
     80 correspondences with Language C
[All correspondences inconsistent with the established phonetic laws
have been excluded.]
Semantically, the correspondences are grouped as follows:
Body parts: 17
Age and Family Relations: 10
Agriculture and Sheep Farming: 7
Clothing and Objects of Special Use: 10
Form and Quality of Matter 3
Foods: 6
Natural Phenomena and Geography: 14
Names of Plants (very specific correspondence in meaning&form): 11
Mythology: 4
Psychological Features: 8
Basic Adjectives: 8
Adverbs: 4
Basic Verbs: 40 etc.
[Forty of these words correspond to the basic 100 word list used in
glotochronological studies.]
 
The question is whether such a large number of correspondences, which
follow consistently phonetic laws, can be ascribed to pure chance,
especially as there are some 16-20 correspondences at the
derivational and grammatical plane that follow the same pattern of
correspondence with phenomena characteristic of Lang A, B and C.
I would appreciate any discussion on the mathematical probabilities
and the linguistic results.
 
A final related question - why is it that we accept that some IE
groups, as eg Slavic underwent a period of stability over 2000 years
(see Shevelov(1964) A Prehistory of Slavic (pp. 606-607) who indicates
a period of stability from ca. 1500-600BC, minor mutations in 6th-5th
centuries BC and a second period of stability from 5th century BC to
5th century AD) in its historical development (and generally did not
undergo major differentiation), but for any modern isolated languages
we are not able to accept a period of stability, thereby never
conceding that their ancient layer(s) of original words or loanwords
may not have changed much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-7-1124.



More information about the Linguist mailing list