FUNCTEME instead of relator, case, adposition, flag, etc.
paoram at UNIPV.IT
Fri Jul 14 10:40:05 UTC 2006
Hi, I fully agree with Regina's position: linguistics has already too many technical terms (not always used in the same sense: think of phonology/phonematics, etc.) If a transparent term is not at hand (and 'flag' does not seem to be the case) let's use a more transparent periphrasis: 'case role marker' is fine. We can also write CRM which is shorter than 'flag', 'functeme' et al.
Università di Pavia
Dipartimento di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata
tel. ##39 0382 984 484
fax ##39 0382 984 487
----- Original Message -----
From: REGINA PUSTET
To: LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: FUNCTEME instead of relator, case, adposition, flag, etc.
I'd like to approach this issue from a slightly different perspective. I suggest suggesting *no term*. Terminology has a life of its own, and scholarly interference of the kind we are engaging in will probably turn out to be futile. The 'best' term will, sooner or later, end up being used more frequently than the less appropriate ones. It's almost like natural selection in biology, I guess.
For my own purposes, and explicitly non-prescriptively, I'll keep on using the term 'case role marker' and if necessary, I'll specify, at the structural level, whether I'm talking about affixes (i.e. case) or adpositions.
claude-hagege <claude-hagege at WANADOO.FR> wrote:
I have a proposal. I suggest a new term, which would be FUNCTEME.
Trask's flag, used by him with respect to an interesting phenomenon in Basque morphosyntax, is not bad, but besides the reserves expressed by Wolfgang and others, and despite the good arguments presented by Martin, flag does not say anything to linguists, for a simple reason: it is a metaphor. Admittedly, this makes it quite free of any loaden past in linguistic terminology, but it also makes it somewhat surprising (let alone that even if it is true that we write as scientists for scientists, the term flag, if a cultured reader who is not a professional linguist comes across it, might give a strange idea of what we are doing...).
I coin FUNCTEME in the following way: the suffix -eme, in the terminology of linguistics as well as in that of other sciences, regularly refers to "a unit (often the smallest one) of what the root says" (cf. phoneme, toneme, sememe, etc.). The root, in funct-eme, says that the unit in question merely indicates the function of the element (mostly a noun or noun phrase) that it governs: Engl. for in for my friend indicates that my friend is the benefactive complement of the predicate. It is obvious that prepositions like for also have a meaning (and this is the main reason why case was originally used by Fillmore 1968 in a semantic acception), but functeme strictly refers to the syntactic role of relators. Thus, functeme precisely says what relators are actually from the morphological and syntactic point(s) of view: they are units of function marking.
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp