Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
I am posting the following request for a colleague in economics and have already discussed with him the difficulties inherent in this. As I understand it, the question he and his colleagues are *most* interested in is a measure of second language learnability. I can discuss lexicostatistical measures with him myself though suspect that some measure of typological distance may be more useful given what he is interested in. I'd be interested in any references to studies which have sought to develop such measures. Please send responses to me at: adenchMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuearts.uwa.edu.au or at the address above. Many thanks, Alan Dench Department of Linguistics University of Western Australia ************************************************** We are interested in learning of any measures developed by linguists or others that reflect the "distance" between one language and a set of other languages or among a range of languages. The distance among countries can be measured by miles, air travel time, telephone rates or several other dimensions. What we are interested in is measures among languages. These measures may reflect the difficulty of learning other languages for native speakers of one language, or reflect the development of languages, dimensions of the structure of languages or other measures. For example, intuitively we feel that French is "closer" to English than is Chinese. Are there qualitative or quantitative measures of these relationships? Paul Miller Professor, Department of Economics University of Western Australia
My eight year old son and his friends use the word "verse" as in "who are we versing today?", "who did you verse?", "we're versing the Cheetahs," and "the Giants verse the Bills." This word has, of course, come from "versus", as in "the Bills versus the Giants." Until recently, I had never heard the verbal form of "versus". I find this new word fun and interesting in itself, and I use it every chance I get. But even more interesting is that these kids (or some other kids) have back-formed "verse" from "versus", which they apparently thought was "verses", even though most of the evidence they would have received would not support the required hypothesis that "versus" is a third-person singular form. For example: 1) "Who's playing?" "The Giants versus the Bills." 2) "It's us versus them." With these sentences, the kids could not say to themselves that "versus" is a third person singular verb, because they would know that a third person singular verb does not go there. Even a sentence like (3) should not give the kids evidence that "versus" is actually "verses": 3) "Who's playing? [...this game we are watching]" "John McEnroe versus Bjorn Borg." If "verse" were a verb, we would expect the answer "John is versing Bjorn,", analogous to "John is playing Bjorn," and not "John verses Bjorn" analogous to "John plays Bjorn." Besides, they've never heard of Bjorn Borg. Is this unusual for a word to be reanalyzed like this, when the required hypothesis is clearly unsupported. While there may be cases of "versus" which would support the kids' hypothesis that it's "verses", many or most cases of "versus" will not support it. There is one uninteresting possibility: that the word "versus" [vRsIz] was reduced to [vRs] for ease of pronunciation, and THEN was reanalyzed. Let it not be this. Any comments, for or againsing, would be welcome. Marek Przezdziecki - --------------------------------------------------------- Marek Przezdziecki [MAH-rek prez-JET-ski] Graduate Student Department of Linguistics Cornell University 214 Morrill Hall Ithaca NY 14853-4701 map18Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecornell.edu