Rejected posting to LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG (fwd)

Sun Apr 1 13:16:07 UTC 2001

>Delivered-To: LINGTYP-request at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:02:45 -0400
>From: Paul Hopper <ph1u at andrew.cmu.edu>
>To: LINGTYP-request at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>Subject: Rejected posting to LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG (fwd)
>Originator-Info:
>login-token=Mulberry:015LzPnVQkABL2KlcjKz3/+nccSspv8EhRMf0CGjw=;
>                 token_authority=postmaster at andrew.cmu.edu
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>Please forward this message to LINGTYP.
>Also please correct whatever error is making it impossible for me to post
>messages to LINGTYP.
>Thank you,
>
>Paul Hopper
>
>---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>Date: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:14 AM -0400
>From: "L-Soft list server at The LINGUIST List. (1.8d)"
><LISTSERV at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
>To: ph1u at ANDREW.CMU.EDU
>Subject: Rejected posting to LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>
>> You  are  not   authorized  to  send  mail  to  the   LINGTYP  list  from
>> your ph1u at ANDREW.CMU.EDU account. You  might be authorized to send to
>> the list from another of  your accounts,  or perhaps  when using  another
>> mail  program which generates slightly  different addresses, but
>> LISTSERV has no way  to associate this other account or address with
>> yours. If you need assistance or if you have any question regarding the
>> policy of  the LINGTYP list, please contact the list owners:
>> LINGTYP-request at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG.
>>
>> ------------------------ Rejected message (111 lines)
>> ------------------------- Return-Path: <ph1u at andrew.cmu.edu>
>> Delivered-To: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
>> Received: (qmail 6150 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2001 11:14:39 -0000
>> Received: from smtp1.andrew.cmu.edu (128.2.10.81)
>>   by listserv.linguistlist.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2001 11:14:39 -0000
>> Received: from GROATS-116-91.PPP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU
>> (GROATS-116-91.PPP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.116.91]) by smtp1.andrew.cmu.edu
>>	 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00641;
>>	 Sun, 1 Apr 2001 07:14:49 -0400 (EDT)
>> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 07:13:19 -0400
>> From: Paul Hopper <ph1u at andrew.cmu.edu>
>> To: Discussion List for ALT <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
>> cc: ph1u at andrew.cmu.edu
>> Subject: Re: Languages without pronouns?
>> Message-ID: <2561688686.986109199 at GROATS-116-91.PPP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
>> In-Reply-To: <002d01c0ba84$c4f2cdb0$094bcec1 at cairoli>
>> Originator-Info:
>> login-token=Mulberry:01YKaQmdAOwQ5yFBgfpyfA9vMGC8br2gnNG77+liY=;
>>  token_authority=postmaster at andrew.cmu.edu
>> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.3 (Win32)
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>
>> To Paolo's other examples from Romance of "nouns" that are functionally
>> pronouns, we can add Spanish usted/ustedes "you" < vuestra(s) merced(es),
>> now a pronoun of course, but with 3rd person verb agreement.
>> Another fuzzy border involving pronouns is that of pronoun/proper name.
>> In  Malay, proper names compete functionally with pronouns:
>> (1) They are often used in contexts translatable as "you",
>> (2) They behave syntactically more like pronouns than lexical nouns, and
>> (3) They may be used anaphorically like third person pronouns. Here's an
>> example from the 17th century Malay narrative Hikayat Sultan Ibrahim:
>>
>> 'When Shaikh Ismail heard the voice of someone asking for the door to be
>> opened, Shaikh Ismail at once got up and went to the door. Then Shaikh
>> Ismail said, "Is that Sultan Ibrahim?"'
>> (Setelah di-dengar Shaikh Ismail bunyi orang minta buka pintu itu maka
>> Shaikh Ismail pun segerah berbangkit lalu berjalan kepada pintu itu.
>> Maka  kata Shaikh Ismail 'Sultan Ibrahim kah itu?')
>>
>> Malay is a language where over the years various nouns (such as "friend",
>> "servant", "brother") have come and gone to replace pronouns in all but
>> the  most informal registers, consistently enough to suggest something
>> cultural  at work. Perhaps pronouns in general are sensed as too direct.
>>
>> Paul Hopper
>>
>> ====================================
>>
>> Thomas S. Baker Professor of English and Linguistics
>> Department of English
>> Carnegie Mellon University
>> Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
>> Phone: (USA)(412) 268-7174
>> Fax: (USA)(412) 268-7989
>>
>>
>> --On Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:20 AM +0200 Paolo Ramat <paoram at UNIPV.IT>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Concerning Scott's reply to Elizabeth's question:
>>> The real problem is, also in the che present case, to exactly define what
>>> we mean by the categorial term 'PROnoun'. Do Port. "o senhor" + 3Sg/Pl.
>>> or Sicil. "vossia/voscenza" belong to <<a closed set of  paradigmatically
>>> related anaphoric forms>> ? If "o senhor" would completely substitute
>>> "ele" and "eles" -as it seems to be the trend in Bras.Portug.- I wouldn't
>>> hesitate to label "o senhor" as PRO. No doubt, however, that "o senhor"
>>> functionally behaves as a full PRO: it <<serves the anaphoric and
>>> vocative functions usually filled by pronouns>> (Scott). Such a form
>>> demonstrates that also the categorial border between PROs and other word
>>> categories is a fuzzy area and not a sharp line.
>>>
>>> Paolo Ramat
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Scott DeLancey" <delancey at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU>
>>> To: <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 22:16
>>> Subject: Re: Languages without pronouns?
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Elizabeth Ritter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I've been told that there are languages with NO pronouns.  Does anyone
>>>> > know of any...and what does the language do instead?   Could such a
>>>> > language have subject agreement for person and/or number and/or
>>>> > gender?
>>>>
>>>> This is often said about Southeast Asian languages (and sometimes about
>>>> Japanese) with highly-elaborated systems of honorific reference.  These
>>>> typically have an elaborate set of forms, all derived (some pretty
>>>> transparently) from nouns, which serve the anaphoric and vocative
>>>> functions usually filled by pronouns.  In Thai, for example, there are
>>>> 25-30 or so of these.  And then kinship terms and various occupational
>>>> titles (e.g. 'teacher') are also used in exactly the same ways.  So one
>>>> can argue (I would, myself) that such languages don't have pronouns per
>>>> se, i.e. a closed set of paradigmatically related anaphoric forms.
>>>>
>>>> None of the examples that I'm familiar with have any kind of verb
>>>> agreement.
>>>>
>>>> Scott DeLancey
>>>> Department of Linguistics
>>>> 1290 University of Oregon
>>>> Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA
>>>>
>>>> delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
>>>> http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
>