14.759, Qs: Noun Compounds, Relative Clauses

LINGUIST List linguist at linguistlist.org
Mon Mar 17 15:56:47 UTC 2003


LINGUIST List:  Vol-14-759. Mon Mar 17 2003. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 14.759, Qs: Noun Compounds, Relative Clauses

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Fox <fox at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
FUND DRIVE 2003

Thanks to the generosity of our subscribers we were able to reach the
$10,000 mark in record time. Because of this we were able to secure a
$1,500 donation from John Benjamins Publishing - a big thank you to
all the crew at JBs!

But we still have a long way to go! Please help us reach our total of
$50,000 by making a donation at:

http://linguistlist.org/donation.html

The LINGUIST List depends on the generous contributions from
subscribers like you; we would not be able to operate without your
help.

The moderators, staff, and student editors at LINGUIST would like to
take this opportunity to thank you for your continuous support.

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.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:04:05 +0000
From:  Florian Zellmayer <zellmayer at chello.at>
Subject:  Variable ordering in N+N compounds

2)
Date:  Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:22:09 +0000
From:  Florian Zellmayer <zellmayer at chello.at>
Subject:  Definition of prototypical noun phrase

3)
Date:  Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:48:28 +0100
From:  "Susanne Habla" <susanne-habla at chello.at>
Subject:  Prototypical relative clause

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:04:05 +0000
From:  Florian Zellmayer <zellmayer at chello.at>
Subject:  Variable ordering in N+N compounds

I'm searching for examples of N+N compounds from any language where
the following conditions hold. (1) The compound is a single word, not
a phrasal compound. (2) The compound has two members only (N1 and
N2). (3) The two members may appear in both orders possible
(i.e. N1+N2 and N2+N1) without any SUBSTANTIAL difference in
meaning. An example of such a case would look like /house-car/ or
/car-house/ for instance, both meaning ''garage''.


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:22:09 +0000
From:  Florian Zellmayer <zellmayer at chello.at>
Subject:  Definition of prototypical noun phrase

I'm interested in learning about what you consider a prototypical,
strongly grammaticalized noun phrase. I'd need your opinion to build
up a generally acceptable noun phrase prototype as a measuring and
comparative tool. What structural and distributional features should a
prototypical noun phrase have, in your opinion? What do you think
makes the noun phrase in a particular language strongly or weakly
grammaticalized? How would a language look like, so that you wold say,
it lacks a well differentiated, well grammaticalized noun phrase?

Many thanks in advance to everyone who takes the burden of ansering my
questions. I will post a summary of your answers.


-------------------------------- Message 3 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:48:28 +0100
From:  "Susanne Habla" <susanne-habla at chello.at>
Subject:  Prototypical relative clause


Dear members of LINGUISTLIST,

I'm badly in need of learning about the opinions of as many linguists
as possible on the following topic: What do you consider a defining
characteristic of a prototypical, well grammaticalized relative
clause? Or, to put it the other way round, what features would you
expect the relative clause construction to have in a language, if
relative clauses are strongly grammaticalized in that language? I'd
need your opinions for assembling a generally acceptable relative
clause construction prototype -- that is, a list of features typical
for strongly grammaticalized relative clauses -- for measuring
purposes. For that purpose, I think, it's better to ask linguists
directly than to scan the literature. Please don't forget to add your
name to your response, so that I can cite you as (xxx 2003, pc).

Thank you in advance for your help, I'm looking forward to your answer.

(please respond to: zellmayer at chello.at, or to susanne-habla at chello.at)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-14-759



More information about the Linguist mailing list