9.228, Qs: Do/Have, Disabilities, Spanish, Primates
The LINGUIST List
linguist at linguistlist.org
Sat Feb 14 22:13:59 UTC 1998
LINGUIST List: Vol-9-228. Sat Feb 14 1998. ISSN: 1068-4875.
Subject: 9.228, Qs: Do/Have, Disabilities, Spanish, Primates
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Review Editor: Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editors: Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>
Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>
Home Page: http://linguistlist.org/
Editor for this issue: James German <james at linguistlist.org>
==========================================================================
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, 12 Feb 1998 12:51:17 +0100
From: ibirks at pratique.fr (Ivan BIRKS)
Subject: NICE HAVE ?
2)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:27:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Johanna Rubba <jrubba at polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu>
Subject: Re: 9.213, Sum: Foreign Language Learning Disability
3)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:36:40 +0000
From: Victor Prijker <shiket at bigfoot.com>
Subject: About Spanish articles
4)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 03:23:35 +1100
From: pugs <pugs at ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Phonemes amongst other primates
-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:51:17 +0100
From: ibirks at pratique.fr (Ivan BIRKS)
Subject: NICE HAVE ?
Dear Linguists,
The establishment of DO as an auxiliary verb seems to have been a
gradual process in early Modern English. Certain verbs took longer to
fit into the NICE framework, to adopt Palmer's term- verbs such as
COME, SAY, and most notably HAVE (esp. in British English).
The first examples of HAVE used with DO in an interrogative or
negative context would appear to go back to 1800 ca. In every case,
HAVE is not stative eg:
Do have the goodness to hear me my third act - Jane Austen
some people did not have their fill of laughter - Charles Dickens
Given that HAVE in its non-stative uses was widespread before 1800, I
would like to know:
1/ How the negative/ interrogative form was expressed before 1800.
(eg How would Milton have said 'I didn't have the hors d'oeuvre, but
Tabatha did. What did you have, Mel?')
2/ If any of you have bibliographical references to hand on this
subject.
As supplementary questions:
3/ What credence would you give to claims for a functional opposition
between the simple form and the DO-form of HAVE in contemporary
British English?
eg Palmer suggests that the following sentence is acceptable and not
contradictory:
The supermarket hasn't any ice-cream, but it _does_ have
ice-cream.
HAVEN'T is 'now', or individual level, whereas DOES HAVE is 'generally
speaking', ie 'usually stock'...
4/ Has the simple form (eg I haven't a clue) completely died out in
American English?
Thanking you in advance,
Ivan
Ivan Birks
ivan.birks at univ-paris3.fr
ibirks at pratique.fr
Universite Paris III,
Institut du Monde Anglophone,
13, rue Santeuil,
75231 Paris cedex 05
-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:27:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Johanna Rubba <jrubba at polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu>
Subject: Re: 9.213, Sum: Foreign Language Learning Disability
Speaking of disabilities, we have had a problem in our linguistics
courses with students who have learning disabilities in
mathematics-type skill areas _as well as foreign languages_. These
students have enormous difficulty in linguistics courses. While our
department and college have instituted means by which such students
can be waived from FL and math requirements (if their disability is
verified by the appropriate on-campus testing office), there is no
such waiver for linguistics courses. This has caused tremendous
difficulty in the case of one student, and hardship in the case of
some others (although most learning-disabled students are able to
learn linguistics with usual special allowances such as more time to
take tests, etc.). I am wondering if other programs with ling.
requirements have had similar difficulties, and if their institutions
have recognized the similarity between math skills and skills of
linguistic analysis, and made provision for waivers in both areas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184 E-mail: jrubba at polymail.calpoly.edu ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------------------------- Message 3 -------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:36:40 +0000
From: Victor Prijker <shiket at bigfoot.com>
Subject: About Spanish articles
Dear Linguists,
I am working on determiners in Romance languages, and have some
specific questions about Spanish artcles with nouns followed by
genitive PP or adjectives.
More specifically, I try to find some conditions on the distribution
of the two forms of the Spanish definite article 'lo' / 'el'. It seems
that the first one is restricted in some way I would like to be
commented.
Here are some examples I would like Spanish speakers to
comment. Please help me choose the good ones:
(1) el libro de Juan y el de Maria
(2) el libro de Juan y lo de Maria
(3) el libro rojo y el blanco
(4) el libro rojo y lo blanco
It looks to me that examples (2) and (4) are better than (1) and (3),
but I am not a Spanish native speaker. It also looks like 'lo' only is
used when an adjective follows, not a noun (my dictionary says so),
but why?
(5) el libro
(6) * lo libro
(7) * el contrario
(8) lo contrario
Now, the same with relative clauses:
(9) el hombre que duerme y el que habla
(10) el hombre que duerme y lo que hable
In any case, is there a way to distingish both paradigms and justify
their distribution?
Also, is it possible to apply the same conclusions to the Spanish
indefinite article, between 'un' and 'uno' ?
(11) un libro rojo y un blanco
(12) un libro rojo y uno blanco
Any comments are welcome. Thanks a lot in advance.
Victor Prijker
shiket at bigfoot.com
-------------------------------- Message 4 -------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 03:23:35 +1100
From: pugs <pugs at ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Phonemes amongst other primates
How do general human phonemes differ from those of say other
Hominidae? I have noticed the [u] and [i] vokals amongst the
chimpanzees. There are traces of konsonants as would be expected
within the complexities of ever differing phonetic values, but which
human phonemes could be considered to be the closest approximations?
pugs <pugs at ozemail.com.au>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-9-228
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list