Editor for this issue: <>
Bert Peeters asks: > My impression may be the wrong one, but it seems to me that people usually > discuss either Fillmore's case for case model or his scene-and-frames semantics > but never both at once. Are they totally unrelated? It's true that people who cite Fillmore in reference to case theory often limit their discussion to the model described in "The Case For Case". This is unfortunate, IMHO, since other and later work by Fillmore presents significant improvements on that model. For example, no one should ever casually invoke a notion like "Patient" (which isn't in the CFC model, though people tend to assume it is in some disguise) without citing Fillmore's "The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking", which does a lot to clarify what might or might not be involved in such a category. As for "scene and frames semantics", one link between this and the CFC model is "The Case For Case Reopened". The two models are entirely consistent; while it might be argued that a frame semantics theory doesn't necessarily have to involve a case grammar per se (though this may be a debatable point), any case grammar theory with any semantic content is automatically an example of frame semantics. I don't have ready to hand an apt citation from Fillmore's many papers on the subject(s), but I'm sure that he has explicitly stated more than once that he sees these two lines of research as directly related. Scott DeLanceyMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Since Don Webb has brought in >Star Trek<, I will mention Larry Niven's science-fiction novels >The Integral Trees< and >The Smoke Ring<, set in a future several millennia hence. The language used there appears to be English, but voice-controlled computers are addressed as "Prikazyvat <command>", said to be a borrowing from Russian. Typical examples: Prikazyvat Menu Prikazyvat Erase Prikazyvat Record Seemingly the idea is that the computers ignore everything until they hear the non-English signal word, and then start parsing. -- John Cowan cowanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuesnark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
Recent discussion in the List of such etymologically redundant strings as 'the La Brea Tar Pits' and 'The Los Angeles Angels' reminds me of a fellow i knew in college back in the mid-70's. His name was (still is, as far as i know) Michael, and he was a charismatic/evangelical with a huge chip on his shoulder against organized religion (which created some tension between us, since while he was raised Episcopalian i was in the process of converting to Episcopalia- nism) ; he was also very bright with a good liberal education (he majored in Spanish). He once told me he objected to a song that was currently popular in Roman Catholic circles, whose refrain began: 'Alle, Alle, Alleluia' on the grounds that, contrary to the implication of the song, the first two syllables of '(h)alleluyah' do not form a constituent. (To the extent one can represent the 'correct' morphological analysis of this Hebrew word in linear form, it would be something like hallel + u + yah. The first element, of course, can be further analysed as h-l-l + CaCCeC.) It did no good explaining to him that 'halleluyah' is often used as a quasi-incantatory sequence of 'nonsense' syllables heavily laden with religious connotations, i.e., as a mantra. To Michael, this was merely symptomatic of the sort of covert paganism with which Catholocism, in his opinion, is riddled. Michael's religion has very little room for right-brain functions. Which is especially odd given his participation in glossalalia. ------ Dr. Steven Schaufele University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4088 Foreign Language Building 707 South Mathews Street Urbana, IL 61801 217-344-8240 fcoswsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueux1.cso.uiuc.edu