[Lexicog] part of speech for phrases

[List Facilitator]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Koontz John E" <john.koontz at colorado.edu>
To: <lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 3:13 AM
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] part of speech for phrases


> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 rrhodes at cogsci.berkeley.edu wrote:
> > I'm not sure I agree with the end of your argument. The fact
> > that the English word saw is both noun and verb without any
> > derivational marking doesn't require that you point that out in
> > either of the entries.
>
> I thought I was pointing out that we'base was both a noun and a verb, but,
> of course, you're right that saw is both a noun and a verb, and I
> neglected to point out the verbal aspect of saw.  We'base is both the
> lexicalized reference to "saws" and a verb meaning 'someone specified cuts
> something unspecified with something specified'.  In this sense it is
> opposed to i'base 'someone specified cuts something specified with
> something specified'.  By itself "We'base." means 'he (unseen or acting at
> another's direction) cut something with it'.  More normal is "We'basa=i."
> 'He (seen and acting on his own behalf) cut something with it'.  And you
> can say things like "We'ppase." or 'I cut something with it'.  In a more
> nominal vein you can say "We'base wiN abdhiN'." 'I have a saw'.
>
> Another dimension of the situation is that the wa-form of a verb like
> daN'be 'see' - wadaN'be 'see something unspecified' - isn't a noun.
> The same could be said of we'bise 'cut something unspecified with
> something specified using pressure'.  (As far as I know, anyway.)
>
> > This question touches on the relationship between morphology
> > and syntax. The usual principle is that dictionary entries list the
> > part of speech that is reflective of the EXTERNAL syntax of the cited
> > form. That a particular form happens to have the INTERNAL morphology
> > of different part of speech is irrelevant. That is the assumption
> > behind the answer John Roberts gave Ron Moe in the exchange about
> > part of speech for phrases (quoted below).
>
> This principle of categorization by external syntax is something I was
> ignorant of, I'm afraid.  It would certainly handle forms like we'base in
> a dictionary.  One would have to know that the verbal use existed as well,
> but that would be reasonable.  It seems to me that the form of we'base
> would have to be acounted for in the verbal sections of a grammar,
> however.
>
> > As far as the dictionary goes, one way to do it is to list
> > the most "neutral" nominalization and make a note that sends you to
> > the grammar to see how such deverbal nominals are treated. So
> > I'd argue your version
> >
> > >i'base vt cut with
> > >we'base n saw
> >
> > is a principled way to do it, and not an uncomfortable compromise you
> > were "driven to".
>
> I can see that, if the thing we are marking is "external use" instead of
> "morphosyntactic form," and I see the utility of that.  However, we may
> need to say something about the morphosyntactic and/or syntactic form, as
> that can determine the marking of things like possession, which is also
> useful.  In this case what we might very loosely refer to as "part of
> speech" information is really "paradigmatic class" information, externally
> conceived.
>
> I have to confess that I have never elicited the possessive paradigm of
> we'base, so I don't know whether it is more natural to say we'ppase for
> 'my saw' or we'ppase wiwitta.  However, I do specifically recall that
> Lipkind's Winnebago grammar indicates that use of the verbal first person
> is correct with Winnebago hoc^i' 'house; to live there', i.e., waac^i' 'my
> house; I live there', not hoc^i'=haniN.  However, it is c^ii' 'live;
> house' and c^ii'=haniN 'my house'.
>
> I am afraid that the dimensions of the possession problem are not as well
> understood in Siouan languages in general as they need to be.
>
> In a similar way, to use one of John Roberts' examples, knowing that 'kick
> the bucket' is a V + NP phrase (with the NP being the object of the V) is
> part and parcel of knowing that the V it serves as is intransitive.
> (Granted that including one object doesn't always preclude another, as in
> 'babysitting my children'.)
>
> Thanks for helping me clarify my understanding of this issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>