Editor for this issue: <>
Query from Rochel Gelman (RochelMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecognet.ucla.edu) of the Psych Dept, UCLA. Reference needed re languages which do not differentiate between comparative and superlative forms of adjectives in either morphologically complex forms, like BIG/BIGGER/BIGGEST or in phrases like INSANE,MORE INSANE, MOST INSANE. This would be of interest since in lg acquisition there are young children who do not distinguish between these. There are of course many but she would like some specific references if possible. You can send your replies through LINGUIST and I will send them on to her or directly to her e-mail address above.
I will be attending the ICLA conference during the LSA Institute, July 28/29 thru Aug 2/3. If you would like to share an apartment or a motel room during this period, please let me know.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
I'd like to contact people who are working, or have worked, on Wolof or Modern Western Armenian.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
re: Women in Linguistics -- information can be obtained from LSA (e-mail: zzlsaMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuegallua.bitnet) VAF
Rebecca Burns Hoffman asks about the panel on Women in Linguistics at the 1982 LSA meeting in San Diego. I still have the handbook and could send you copies of the abstracts, but there were no proceedings that I know of. Here is the list of the six women linguists honored during that session, with the names of the speakers. . Marguerite Durand (John Ohala) . Eli Fisher-Jo/rgensen (Arthur S. Abramsom) . Kerstin Hadding (Mona Lindau) . Ruth Hirsch Weir (Jean Berko Gleason) . Adelaide Hahn (Robin Tolmach Lakoff) . Mary R. Haas (Sally McLendon) Dominique Estival ISSCO, 54 rte des Acacias CH-1227 Geneve tel: +41-22-705-7116 fax: +41-22-300-1086 <estivalMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuedivsun.unige.ch>
Manaster-Ramer's point that "formal" has (at least) two distinct uses is well taken. I would just like to point out that there is good reason for this "ambiguity". If an algorithm is formal in Manaster-Ramer's "form" sense (in the sense that its operations are defined over shapes), then the algorithm is also formal in the "rigorous" sense: there is much less room for disagreement about the SHAPE of an object than there is about the INTERPRETATION of an object.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
With regard to the debate on whether PSE is a natural language or not, I would claim that it *is* natural, but that perhaps it is not a language. There *are* artificial systems used in schools, but PSE is a natural system that incorporates elements of both ASL and English. It is used by deaf people, even native signers (who often use it very well) as well as hearing people, though the "deaf dialect" may be closer to ASL than the "hearing dialect." It develops very naturally, and can contain some fairly sophisticated grammar. Since there's no documentatin of anyone learning it natively (it turns into ASL), it is probably not a language. Susan Fischer [End Linguist List, Vol. 2, No. 181]Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue