LL-L: "Grammar" LOWLANDS-L, 26.JAN.2001 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 26.JAN.2001 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
 =======================================================================

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Grammar

Re Vennemann's theory of cyclic processes in language and Ian's comments:

Apparently Proto-Indo-European had no prefixes, though all the descendant
languages have them. The merging of prefix with stem in G. "glauben",
"bleiben" and Swedish "bli" (from MLS. "beliben") is thus one example (in my
mind, perhaps not V's) of a cyclic process. If this is the typical length of
the process there isn't likely to be much clear evidence of it around.

Scaglione does mention in his book (but somewhere else) the replacement in
the Romance languages of Latin future verb endings by the new ones derived
from the present tense of "habeo", but I'm not sure what happened in
between.

If "into" is disappearing in favour of "in", is the same true of "onto" and
"on"? "Onto" seems quite common, but that may be because I was taught that
it was "wrong" (orthographically) and hence it may leap off the page at me.

Two small thoughts about morphology vs. syntax.

1. Foreign influences distort syntax, in particular. Thus the effect of
Latin grammar on many of the Germanic languages at certain times and the
effects of the German Kanzleisprache and Luther's Bible on the Scandinavian
languages.

2. Leads and lags. Morphological and syntactical developments of language
need not be in step. Old speech habits die hard. If we want to indicate a
habitual practice we can say we do something "on Tuesday/on
Tuesdays/Tuesday/Tuesdays/of a Tuesday/every Tuesday", all meaning - to
someone - precisely the same thing. The "s" of "Tuesdays" is presumably an
old genitive ending, possibly preserved because it looks like a plural
marker.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Grammar

Ron wrote:

>Two nouns combined, where the first noun modifies the second, constitute a
compound noun.  The fact that you can substitute the first, modifying noun
with a similarly modifying adjective does not, at least as far as I know,
change the fact that the noun+noun construction is a compound.  etc <

Ron develops his argument with reference to stress, but it seems to me that
it depends on an error of fact.

It is true that in a compound noun the main stress falls on the first
element even when that is not being emphasised. It therefore seems
reasonable to say that noun phrases which are made up of a combination of
nouns and which are stressed on the first element are compound nouns. With
this criterion it follows that if such a combination of nouns is not
stressed on the first element then the noun phrase is not a compound noun.

Corollary 1: If the combination adjective+noun has the same stress pattern
as a noun+noun combination and the latter is a compound noun then so is the
former.

Corollary 2: If the stress pattern is the same as that of an ordinary
adjective+noun phrase then the combination is not a compound noun.

For the sake of clarity, a compound noun is a noun composed of elements with
a separate lexical identity, ie which can be used as words on their own.
Noun+noun is just one sub-category.

In words like "glasshouse", "fireman", "fire-stick" the stress is on the
first element so these are properly compound nouns. So are "greenhouse" and
"blackbird". In "fire station", "wood floor", etc, the additional stress on
the first element is in my view much less pronounced and may even be zero.
These are therefore not compound nouns according to the criterion.

"Fresh water" and "salt water" are pronounced with identical stress.
According to Corollary 1, if "salt water " is a compound noun then "fresh
water" is a compound noun. But "fresh water" is a straightforward
combination of adjective plus noun, and so if it is a compound noun then so
is every combination of adjective+noun. We have then simply redefined all
noun+noun and noun+adjective combinations as compound nouns.

I can't persuade myself that there is any difference in the stress in pairs
such as "red dress" and "silk dress".

It seems to me that there are cases of noun+noun combination where there is
a slight excess stress on the second element. Thus in "silver birch",
"bridge roll" (a sandwich made in something like what Americans call a
"bun"), "Iron Curtain".

The "error of fact" is thus the assumption that in noun+noun phrases the
first element always receives (heavy) stress. This is not true, at least in
BE.

Furthermore, more generally,
1. If we accept that English is very adept at employing one part of speech
as another, why this reluctance to accept noun => adjective?
2. Textbooks and dictionaries in general (I have found no exceptions) are
happy to say that a noun can be used as an adjective.

As to whether one can say that water is "very salt", I think one can. But
even if one couldn't it might simply be that since the adjective "salty"
exists we prefer to use that.

If an object is made out of a synthetic polymer one can say "it feels like
plastic" or "it has a plastic feel to it" or even "it has a very plastic
feel to it".

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================