[Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation

Fri Aug 16 14:40:53 UTC 2024

I wonder if there is any difference, however, between "flammable" and
"inflammable", both defined as "easily set on fire". Maybe that's a
different in-?

I'm not sure about the relation between the verbs "thaw" and "unthaw"? For
me they are synonymous when used transitively ('we have to (un)thaw this
meat for dinner"), although I would often say "thaw out', especially
intransitively ('the meat has finally thawed (out)'; ?unthawed... hm, maybe
it OK). In looking up the words there seem to be some potential
differences. I'm not familiar with "unthawing a frozen tank valve" :-)!

thaw verb (BECOME NOT FROZEN)to (cause to) change from a solid, frozen
state to a liquid or soft one, because of an increase in temperature: Allow
the meat to thaw completely before cooking it. The sun came out and thawed
the ice.

"Unthaw" is a verb that means to cause something to become soft or liquid,
or to become soft or liquid itself. For example, you can unthaw a frozen
tank valve or a frozen sewage line. Some synonyms of "unthaw" include: Dthaw
[?], Dissolve, Melt, Thaw, and Unfreeze

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 5:18 AM ROBERT Stephane via Lingtyp <
lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:

> I fully agree with Bastian which perhaps expresses more clearly what I
> meant by “high degree”: subjective evaluation pointing to an extreme degree
> (indescribable, inexpressible), positive or negative depending on the
> notion involved.
> To take on this meaning, lexical negation must be combined with a gradable
> (or scalar) notion. In the case of nouns, this typically involves mass
> nouns, such as Menge (crowd), Tiefe (depth) vs. Freiheit (freedom).
>
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *De :* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> de la part de
> Zingler, Tim via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 16 août 2024 14:15
> *À :* Bastian Persohn
> *Cc :* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Objet :* Re: [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation
>
>
> Well, the point is that these words contain what synchronically looks like
> a negator affix even though that affix does not negate the stem. So, they
> seem to qualify for the phenomenon the original post was about.
>
>
> But I like the idea that the function has shifted as part of
> a subjectification (?) process. Does that happen with negators
> cross-linguistically?
>
> Best,
>
> Tim
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* Bastian Persohn <persohn.linguistics at gmail.com>
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. August 2024 13:55
> *An:* Zingler, Tim
> *Cc:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation
>
> I’m not sure that *Untiefe* is synonymous with *Tiefe*, or *Unmenge* with
> *Menge*. In my intuition *Un-menge* has an evaluative ring to it (‚an
> undesirably large or over-the-top amount‘), and DWDS translates it as ’sehr
> große, übergroße Menge’ [very big, unnecessary big amount]’. Similarly,
> *Un-tiefe* usually refers to an extreme depth (cf. DWDS: ‚abgrundartige,
> sehr große Tiefe in einem Gewässer [abysm-like, very large depth in a body
> of water]‘.
>
> Their closest relatives are probably found in instances like *Un-fall* ‚accident‘
> < *Fall* ‚case‘, i.e. ‚the undesirable case‘ or *Un-tier* ‚monster‘, lit
> ‚un-animal‘. What all these have in common is a negative element, albeit in
> the subjective rather than the material domain.
>
> Best,
> Bastian
>
>
>
>
> Am 16.08.2024 um 13:10 schrieb Zingler, Tim via Lingtyp <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>:
>
> German has *Un-tiefe*, which essentially means the same as *Tiefe* 'depth'.
> Or *Un-menge*, largely synonymous with *Menge* 'mass, crowd, great
> amount.' These seem perfectly analogous to *valuable-invaluable*.
>
> I'm sure there's more, but I don't know if that prefix is cognate with the
> negator found in, for instance, *Un-freiheit* 'unfreedom.' So, there are
> probably complications involved if one were to analyze that more seriously.
>
> Best,
>
> Tim
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> im Auftrag von
> ROBERT Stephane via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. August 2024 11:48
> *An:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation
>
> Dear Joe,
>
> Personally, I do not regard these uses of lexical negation as expletive
> but rather as contributing a construction with a high-degree value that can
> be paraphrased as follows: 'this object is (valuable) to a degree that I
> (speaker) cannot (even) express', or '*no* matter how hard I try to
> estimate how much X is P, I* can't* express it'(P for predicate).
>
> Note that in the examples I can analyse (Germanic, English and also French
> '*in-estim-able*'), this lexical negation is combined with a suffix (cf.
> Germ. -*bar*, Eng. < Fr. -*able*) which contributes to the meaning of the
> construction because it expresses evaluation about capacity ‘which can be
> P’ .
>
> Best
>
> Stéphane ROBERT
>
> https://llacan.cnrs.fr
>
> ------------------------------
> *De :* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> de la part de
> Hannu Tommola via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 16 août 2024 11:03
> *À :* <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>; Pun Ho Lui
> *Objet :* Re: [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation
>
> Hi,
>
> there seems to be a tendency to lexicalize 'invaluable' in an intensifying
> non-negative meaning (cf. Russian *bes-cennyj* 'invaluable, priceless',
> which has an obsolete meaning 'valueless' = *ne-cennyj*). This tendency
> goes back to the verb 'value' that has, in various languages, both the
> meanings 1) 'estimate', 2) 'regard/estimate highly'. Cf. also German
> *un-schätzbar* 'invaluable' < *schätzen* 1. 'to regard highly, respect',
> 2. 'value, estimate'; the same applies to  Swedish*o-skattbar* <
> *(upp)skatta*.
>
> Best wishes,
> Hannu Tommola
> ------------------------------
> *Lähettäjä:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> käyttäjän Pun Ho Lui via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> puolesta
> *Lähetetty:* perjantai 16. elokuuta 2024 3.22
> *Vastaanottaja:* <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG> <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Aihe:* [Lingtyp] Expletive derivational negation
>
> Dear linguists,
>
> I am recently interested in lexical items that consist of a derivational
> negative affix which may not contribute a negative meaning (i.e. being
> expletive).
>
> For instance, *in-valuable* ~ *valuable*. Other possible examples would
> be 無價 ‘invaluable [lit. NEG value’ in Mandarin, and *sewashi-nai* ‘restless’
> ~ *sewashii* ‘busy’ in Japanese.
>
> I have looked into a number of (decent) grammar descriptions but have no
> luck.
>
> I am wondering if you know of any language with similar items.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Warmest,
> Pun Ho Lui Joe
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>

-- 
Larry M. Hyman, Distinguished Professor of the Graduate School
& Director, France-Berkeley Fund, University of California, Berkeley
https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~hyman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240816/34b5efba/attachment.htm>