Re Personal pronouns

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Larry and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Trask" <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 4:33 PM

<snip>

[PR wrote previously]

>> It is obvious that "she" can stand for either "(the) woman" or the fuller
>> NP: "(the) woman (that) we are supposed to meet".

[LT]
> Nope.  That 'she' cannot take the place of 'woman', and that is the end
> of it.

[PR]
I think we shall just have to 'agree to disagree' on this question. The
definition of 'pronoun' in your dictionary includes the phrase: "... and
whose members typically have little or no intrinsic meaning or reference."
Your position is obviously consistent. It is hard for me to accept that this
is the consensus position.

[PR previously]
> [on 'possessive']

>> An interesting question for another time. Frankly, I believe that the
>> definition of "possessive" can be rather simply stated.

[LT]
> Well, I'd certainly like to see your effort!  ;-)

[PR]
Well, I may live to regret my audacity, but here goes:

For any class of nominals, A, 'possessive' denotes the relationship between
A and B, any nominal sub-class of A.

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)