Re Personal pronouns

Patrick C. Ryan proto-language at email.msn.com
Sun Dec 12 07:36:54 UTC 1999


Dear Lloyd and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <ECOLING at aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 5:44 PM

<snip>

[LA wrote]

> It is not a valid counterargument
> to say that "possessive pronouns" must be "pronouns" in every respect.
> That depends on the assumption that the composite is transparent,
> and would lead to the conclusion that "White House" must be a white
> house, even if it were another color, patently an error of reasoning.
> Rather, "possessive" may already signal a member of the class
> of determiners, or whatever one considers "possessive pronouns"
> to be closest to, distributionally.

[PR]

I essentially agree with what you have written here but I honestly do not
understand the application of the paragraph cited above.

Could you expand or clarify it?

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ek,
at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim meipi er
mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)



More information about the Indo-european mailing list