LINGUIST List 12.3129

Tue Dec 18 2001

Qs: Analogous Proverb, Opionality in Binding

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>


We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

Directory

  1. Johannes Reese, Everything that shines is not gold
  2. Florian Schaefer, optionality in binding

Message 1: Everything that shines is not gold

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:30:50 +0100
From: Johannes Reese <reeselinguist.de>
Subject: Everything that shines is not gold

Hi all,

I am looking for the idioms that might exist for the English
proverb:

Everything that shines is not gold.

It means: Do not trust the appearance of something, the real value
might be less. The proverb seems to exist at least in all Western
European languages. I have got the following other-language-versions
at hand:


German: Es ist nicht alles Gold, was glaenzt.

French: Tout ce qui brille n'est pas or.

Swedish: Allt som glimmer ~ar inte guld.


Now I am looking for all the other versions that might exist. I want
to ask all of you who are not native speakers of English, German,
French, or Swedish to give me their language's versions of the
proverb, if it exists, or the appropriate proverb if there is some
with the same meaning, or a translation of the above proverb, if there
is nothing like it in your language (please mark that you translated
it yourself). I hope I can cope with other encoding systems.

- 
Regards and thanks in advance

Johannes Reese
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: optionality in binding

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:38:48 +0100
From: Florian Schaefer <fschaeferling.uni-potsdam.de>
Subject: optionality in binding

Dear linguists,

My first question is about binding in chinese. As everyone knows,
ziji can be long-distance-bound across the subject of a complement
clause. But is ziji really obligatory in this case ? To make it
clear, is a simple pronoun bad in the following example?

(1) Lisi(i) knows [Zhangsan loves self(i)/ him(i)]

I did not find any answer to this question in the literature. But I
know that an anaphor in the subject-position is only optional, as in
the following sentence.

(2) Lisi(i) knows [self(i)/him(i) is the best]

My second question is, if anyone knows a language, which uses an
anaphor in the subject-position (or embedded in the subject-position),
but which allows an anaphor or a pronoun in long-distance-bound
object-position ? To make it clear, the language would look like
this:

(3) A(i) knows [that self(i)/*he(i) is the best]

(4) A(i) knows that [B loves self(i)/him(i)]

 Thank you very much

Florian Schaefer


Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue