Editor for this issue: <>
To everybody who replied to my request concerning grammar and style checkers: thank you very much for the information. Quite a bit was unknown to us. When we have compiled the information and added some more from other sources, I will post it. --ArieMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Towards doohickey population control (for Bob Ingria and anyone else interested): There IS a word for the whatchamacallit on the end of shoelaces: it's AGLET, a word that's been around--albeit perhaps on the margins--since the 16th century (derived from Fr. aiguillette). Unfortunately, "I broke the doohickey on the end of my shoelace" is doubtless more efficient as a contribution to most conversations than "I broke my aglet". Larry HornMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
RE: `PERSON' In reference to Ellen Prince's query about `person': my friend Andre Lepage just mentioned to me in another context that French anthropologists have been discussing, in a Durkheimian and Levi-Straussian way, the concept of `person.' It all goes back to Mauss' "A category of the human mind:The concept of person, the concept of `ego'" (first published in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 68, in 1938 - I believe its in English). If you can buttonhole a Francophone, check out "La notion de personne en Afrique noire" (Paris: CNRS, 1973). Sorry for de personne en Afrique noire." Charles Laughlin Charles Laughlin <CHARLESLMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueCARLETON.CA>
A brand new piece of data, collected last night, for you double modal collectors: There's one large loan that I might not could totally clean up. The "could" here has very little stress, vowel is very reduced. Speaker is a 40-something educated but remarkable linguistically unaware (i.e., this is no tongue-in-cheek offering) speaker from east of Houston. ckkMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
In response to the posting concerning my examples of ways of introducing direct quotes (belmoreMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuevax2.concordia.ca), I believe that not all of the examples are correctly attributable to me. In my posting about the use of _like_ I discussed only _like_ and _go_ as quote introducers. It is interesting that these approximately 30 year old graduate students all said that _like_ does not REALLY introduce direct quotes but instead indicates something about the speaker's (or subject's) attitude. While that may also be true, I assure you that the examples that I was referring to, used by speakers 22 years old and younger, ARE direct quotes! For example, in my data, there is a moment when a speaker says something that turns out to be mistaken and a minute later, laughing at herself, she says about herself, " And I was like,`----'!" where she quotes exactly the words that she has uttered the minute before. I have heard this used repeatedly. This is, as I said before, the form of choice for quoting among the students whose speech I have studying.