LINGUIST List 3.277

Sat 21 Mar 1992

Disc: Discourse, Cojoined, Idioms

Editor for this issue: <>


Directory

  1. "Michael Kac", Re: 3.256 Linguistic Discourse
  2. Geoffrey Russom, Re: 3.256 Linguistic Discourse
  3. Martti Arnold Nyman, V and V
  4. Melody Sutton, Re: 3.264 V and V
  5. , Re: 3.264 V and V

Message 1: Re: 3.256 Linguistic Discourse

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 12:59:28 -0Re: 3.256 Linguistic Discourse
From: "Michael Kac" <kaccs.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: 3.256 Linguistic Discourse

Phil Gaines's posting says something I sympathize with, though I worry
that if we have too much fun those of us at public institutions may find
ourselves the object of questions like 'Why should these guys be having
fun at the taxpayers' expense?' So maybe a little snarling and gnashing
of teeth should be encouraged just for show.

One is also reminded of the statement by (I think) John Kenneth Galbraith
to the effect that academic disputes are as bitter as they are because so
little is at stake.

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

Message 2: Re: 3.256 Linguistic Discourse

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 09:03:37 ESRe: 3.256 Linguistic Discourse
From: Geoffrey Russom <EL403015brownvm.brown.edu>
Subject: Re: 3.256 Linguistic Discourse

On childhood interest in linguistics: one of my earliest memories
is "translating" the speech of my younger twin siblings for adults.
My parents tell me that they tested my translations against the
siblings' responses. It was usually obvious that I had got it
right, which seemed surprising, since adults usually had no
idea what Mike and Sue were babbling about. In retrospect it seems
possible that I had learned a form of twin-speech without realizing
that it differed so much from English. My memory of this is much dimmer
than my parents', and may include elements from discussion
after the fact (I must have been about four at the time).
What is clear is that I got early praise for a "linguistic"
accomplishment.

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

Message 3: V and V

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 23:00 EETV and V
From: Martti Arnold Nyman <MANYMANFINUHA.bitnet>
Subject: V and V

> From: "FRANK R. BRANDON" <BRANDONgamma.is.tcu.edu>
> Subject: Re: 3.247 V and V
>
> Re: Prof. Nyman's assertion that if one becomes a formal linguist, one will
> understand the problems with these conjoined sentences. I still fail to see
> why there is a problem. Perhaps I am unaware of this particular brand of
> 'formal' linguistics or perhaps I am an off-the-cuff linguist, but why is it
> a problem if the "underlying" tenses of the conjuncts are different? [..]

Let me point out that I tried to be ironical: "Become a formal linguist
and you'll be surprised at phenomena no one else would be. :-)". What
I also tried was to reconstruct why Martin Wynne, the initiator of the
V-and-V discussion, felt sentences like "Laugh and the world laughs
with you" are problematic. I did my reconstruction on the basis of
Bruce Nevis's TG solution.
 -- Martti Nyman
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 4: Re: 3.264 V and V

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 14:44 PST
From: Melody Sutton <IZZYHA2MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: 3.264 V and V

There has been lots of discussion of "root hog or die." What does that
mean???????????
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 5: Re: 3.264 V and V

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 18:52 MSTRe: 3.264 V and V
From: <CAROLGCC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: 3.264 V and V


Re: 'Feed a cold and starve a fever'
A (linguist) friend insists that the true version of this is
'Feed a cold and starve of fever'.
That is, the saying really means the opposite of what I, at any rate,
always thought it meant: if it contains the 'of', it's telling you
NOT to eat while you have a cold, or you'll die ('starve') of fever.

So, LINGUIST-net enthusiasts, which is it?

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