11.1953, Disc: Linguistics & Nominalising Languages

[The LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-11-1953. Sat Sep 16 2000. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 11.1953, Disc: Linguistics & Nominalising Languages

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors:  Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U. <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Scott Fults, E. Michigan U. <scott at linguistlist.org>
		    Jody Huellmantel, Wayne State U. <jody at linguistlist.org>
		    Karen Milligan, Wayne State U. <karen at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Lydia Grebenyova, E. Michigan U. <lydia at linguistlist.org>
		    Naomi Ogasawara, E. Michigan U. <naomi at linguistlist.org>
		    James Yuells, Wayne State U. <james at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Sudheendra Adiga, Wayne State U. <sudhi at linguistlist.org>
                      Qian Liao, E. Michigan U. <qian at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded jointly by Eastern Michigan University,
Wayne State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.


Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:37:20 +0900
From:  Larry <be262 at scn.org>
Subject:  Re: Linguistics & Nominalising Languages: territory and maps

2)
Date:  Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:40:33 EDT
From:  Nitti45 at aol.com
Subject:  Disc:  Linguistics & Nominalising Languages

3)
Date:  Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:39:39 +0200
From:  klaus schmirler <KSchmir at z.zgs.de>
Subject:  Re: 11.1947, Disc: Linguistics & Nominalising Languages

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 16 Sep 2000 09:37:20 +0900
From:  Larry <be262 at scn.org>
Subject:  Re: Linguistics & Nominalising Languages: territory and maps

Reference:
Message by Kenneth Allen Hyde <kenny at UDel.Edu>
dated Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:29:59 -0400 (EDT)

[...]
> I think that we are deceived by our metalanguage into thinking that there
> is some abstract and ideal distinction between nouns and verbs (or other
> parts of speech).
[...]
> "Noun" is a metalinguistic term which is useful when talking about
> languages.  This doesn't mean that nouns don't exist, just that we have to
> recognize that their only reality is of our own making (and is arbitrary).

Hi,

it seems to me here is the place and now the time for a little anecdote... :-)

20 years ago, I, a native speaker of an IE language yet unexposed to formal
linguistics, wrote a term paper with the title "Is "god" an adjective?".
That essay is my personal milestone 0 in the process of clarifying the
consequences of the common confusion between territory and map. Not long
after I realised that I was not "pursuing happiness" but instead wanted
(and want) to live happily.

Now I live in Japan and find that termini technicae like "noun", verb" and
"adjective" make less and less sense as my understanding of the language
progresses. Indeed, I am creating a new map as I explore new territory.

*

When reading the arguments put forward by Moonhawk and Larry Trask I see,
without feeling compelled to take sides (how many are there anyway?), a
distinctly different perception, on part of the partner-opponents (Jap.:
"aite"), of what constitutes "territory" and what "map". No wonder that
never the twain are meeting...

If we become firmly mindful of the fact that what we are *usually* talking
about are the maps of our own making, then we could perhaps live with more
(to) play and less (to) fight.

Regards: Larry (another Larry, and just Larry)

-


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:40:33 EDT
From:  Nitti45 at aol.com
Subject:  Disc:  Linguistics & Nominalising Languages

Dear Linguist:
    I have been following what might aptly be called the "nominality pros and
cons" discussion with great interest from its outset.  I do not intend to go
into great detail in this posting; rather, I should like to insert some brief
observations and a question.
    Allow me to preface my remarks by stating that my background predisposes
me to think in terms of nominality, inasmuch as the languages that I have
studied are indeed quite "nouny," so to speak.  That said, I must hasten to
add that I have found Moonhawk's anti-nominality position, and his various
expositions thereof, most fascinating, particularly in the context of the
current discussion; the broadening of perspective that this has afforded me
is, to my mind, most edifying.  This is not to suggest that I am now
abandoning my Western way of viewing the world on the strength of my having
read, and digested, these postings; far from it.  However, I think that I can
now resolve a question regarding such "verby" languages as Moonhawk mentions w
hich has heretofore stumped me.
    For a long time, whenever this anti-nominality issue arose, there was one
point at which I would find myself completely stopped.  (The fact of my not
knowing any of these languages certainly didn't help, either!)  I found
myself asking, "How can a language *not* nominalize?  After all, doesn't
*action* presuppose a thing that *acts*?  Doesn't *being* presuppose a thing
that *exists*?"  But now I think I get the idea, namely that this is a
question of *prioritizing* and not an "all-or-nothing" issue.  In other
words, in these "non-nouny" languages under discussion, the *name* of an
entity is not considered as important as its *attributes,* e.g., what it
does; how it looks, sounds, smells, tastes and/or feels; its relationship to
the rest of nature; these are just a few possibilities that come readily to
my mind.
    I should like to direct my question to Moonhawk in particular, though not
to the exclusion of any and every other individual who may have an answer.
The question is:  Is the idea expressed in the latter half of the preceding
paragraph a reasonably accurate summary of the anti-nominality position being
offered here?
                                                        Cordially yours,


                                                        Richard S. Kaminski
                                                        <Nitti45 at aol.com>


-------------------------------- Message 3 -------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:39:39 +0200
From:  klaus schmirler <KSchmir at z.zgs.de>
Subject:  Re: 11.1947, Disc: Linguistics & Nominalising Languages

Dear Linguists,
I am a lurker on this list who is not professionally involved in
linguistics, and I hope throwing in my 2 cents won't get me thrown off
here.
Focussing on the mere existence of certain parts of speech has not
seemed to be very productive in distinguishing nominalising from
non-nominalising languages, since all languages apparently allow for
transformations of verbs into nouns and vice versa and have some nouns
and verbs that exist without counterparts in the other category: There
is certainly no clear-cut boundary between nominalising and
non-nominalising.
My intuition about my own use of nominalisations or verb-noun
periphrasis as opposed to simple verbs (and the choice between active
and passive, for that matter) is guided mainly by the attempt to
maintain a coherent theme/rheme structure in discourse, and this is
where the -- in my opinion -- more important question of anaphora comes
in. Since pronouns are pro-nouns, I need nominalisations to refer back
to something, even if this some... has been a process, a property, or an
action. In some languages, this needs rather clumsy constructions:

	What you just said ... 	(content)

	The fact that you just said ... (act)

German, where I can omit "the fact", would then be a less nominalising
language than English. However, I can imagine that something like "your
saying/doing" or even a single verb form amounting to "you having
recently said something" are possible (especially in languages that mark
the reality status in more detail than just indicative-conditional [Or
is the distinction between experience and hearsay a different animal
altogether?]).
So, before even thinking about the question of how grammar influences
the mind set, I would like to know if there are any languages that
"pro-verbs" along with or instead of pro-nouns?

Klaus
-
__

Klaus Schmirler		KSchmir at z.zgs.de
Wilhelmst. 6		D-72135 Dettenhausen
ph&f +49 7157 523906

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-11-1953