Re Personal pronouns

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear John and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. John E. McLaughlin" <mclasutt at brigham.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 7:14 PM

>> [Pat Ryan 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".

>> [Larry Trask previously]

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

>> [PR previously]
>> 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.

[JM wrote]
> It is.  Larry's quite clear in his explanation why it is so.

[PR]
I think you are coming into this discussion a bit late to be able to intuit
the point I am trying to make, whether correctly or not.

But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt; and ask, before I answer,
"why it is so" refers to what point Larry is making?

 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)