implicit/implied (was Re: PSAT Glitch)
Arnold Zwicky
zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
Sun May 25 01:28:26 UTC 2003
let me try to explain my problem in detail, using donna gorrell's
formulation as a take-off point:
The antecedent of a pronoun must be a noun or another pronoun,
not an adjective, a possessive case noun, a clause, or a phrase.
a dialogue between a Grammar Apprentice (A) and a Grammar Master (M):
A: master, is "Norway's" a possessive case noun?
M: yes, of course.
A: what noun is it the possessive case of?
M: the noun "Norway".
A: so, does "Norway's" count as an occurrence of the noun "Norway"?
M: of course not.
A: with apologies, master, but why not?
M: because "Norway's" functions as an adjective.
A: with further apologies, master, but *is* it an adjective?
M: as near as makes no difference. it's just like the adjective
"Norwegian".
A: i confess to a confusion, master, but either it's a noun, or
it's an adjective, or it's both, or it's neither. i was under
the impression, however, that any particular occurrence of a word
belonged to one, and only one, part of speech, and that for the word
"Norway's" the only live options were adjective and noun. am i
confused?
M: for the sake of argument, let's say that "Norway's" is both an
adjective *and* a noun. the world is full of amazing things,
apprentice.
A: ah, i see. but you gave me the rule that pronouns had to have a
noun or pronoun as an antecedent. if "Norway's" is a noun, even
one that is also an adjective, then why can't it serve as the
antecedent of a pronoun?
M: because it is an adjective, and adjectives *can't* serve as
antecedents of pronouns.
A: master, how do i know which rule has priority - the one allowing
nouns to be antecedents, or the one prohibiting adjectives from
being antecedents?
M: i tell you.
A: but, master, you told us that there were only two guidelines to
correct language: what we can reason from first principles, and
what we can observe from the practice of the best writers. neither
seems to apply in this case. you give me only an ex cathedra
pronouncement. (and i must say that the best writers do not seem
to be on your side.)
M: you annoy me, apprentice. but i will humor you. a general
principle, one that should be obvious to you: prohibitions take
precedence over permissions.
A: ah, i see. this is indeed a good principle. perhaps you can clear
up something else for me.
M: ask away.
A: why, master, is it that adjectives like "Norway's" cannot serve as
antecedents for pronouns?
M: because the adjective as a whole is the wrong part of speech; it
could serve as an antecedent for a proadjective, if there any such
things, but of course not for a pronoun. a noun, "Norway", is
certainly *implied* by the adjective "Norway's", but that noun is
not actually mentioned in the adjective "Norway's". just as with
"Norwegian".
A: but, but, master, haven't you said that "Norway's" is *also* a
noun, one that happens to be in the possessive case?
M: i did indeed. at least for the sake of argument.
A: and didn't you tell me that the word "Norway's" counted as an
instance of the word "Norway".
M: certainly.
A: well, then, i might be inexperienced in such reasoning, but doesn't
that mean that the "Norway" in "Norway's" should be able to serve
as an antecedent for a pronoun? there would be no conflict in
principles in such a situation.
M: of course not. proper parts of words cannot serve as antecedents
for anything.
A: ah, i see. again, a good principle, in general, though i might
be able to devise some difficult cases. let me ask you about a
related case that has been troubling me.
M: tell me about it.
A: i've been worried about the word "him". do occurrences of this
word count as occurrences of the pronoun "he"?
M: of course. "him" is the objective case of the pronoun "he".
A: so "him" is the pronoun "he" (with a slightly different
pronunciation) plus a suffix "-m"?
M: i suppose you could say so. where is this leading?
A: can "him" serve as an antecedent for the pronoun "he"?
M: certainly: "Before I met him, he was ignorant."
A: but, master, isn't "he" a proper part of "him"?
M: technically speaking, i suppose. but what's important is that
it's just a case form of the pronoun.
A: so being a case form of some word is more important than having
that word as a proper part? is this another one of those priority
things?
M: you really do annoy me. but yes, i suppose so.
A: but then why doesn't the fact that "Norway's" is a case form of
"Norway" count as more important than the fact that it has "Norway"
as a proper part?
M: because they're just different. pronouns are one thing, nouns
are another.
A: master, this doesn't make sense. aren't they entirely analogous
situations?
M: of course not. each situation stands on its own.
A: i am deeply troubled here, master. could you find some explanation
that is a bit less, well, stipulative? perhaps there is some
frequent pattern in languages, something akin to a linguistic
universal? you know so many languages; tell me how things work
in latin, in turkish, and so on. perhaps it is common that nouns
in a possessive or genitive case (which are, after all, really
adjectives, as you have explained to me) cannot serve as antecedents
for pronouns in other cases. that would be very telling.
M: i am tired, apprentice. go away.
arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list