LINGUIST List 4.828

Tue 12 Oct 1993

Disc: Can/Can't, Come With

Editor for this issue: <>


Directory

  1. Leslie Barrett, 4.800 Can't
  2. Megumi Sasaki, CAN and CAN'T
  3. Bernadette Plunkett, British versus American morphology
  4. , come with
  5. , 'come with'
  6. Beard Robert E, Re: 4.776 Varia: Null object, OK, Nouns

Message 1: 4.800 Can't

Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1993 12:14:10 4.800 Can't
From: Leslie Barrett <barrettZELIG.CS.NYU.EDU>
Subject: 4.800 Can't

There are several issues here. First, there is the issue of the relationship
between s-structure position and LF interpretation. Then there is the issue
of contraction facts as an argument for string-adjacency, and the relationship
between string-adjacency and s-structure. I assume your focus is on the former
for the purposes of your thesis. There is quite a bit of literature dealing
with differences between sentential and constituent negation. I'm sure you
have looked at the classic stuff like May, Higginbottham, Huang, and the like.
You probably also know about the new Auon and Lee LI monograph that just came
out. Also, Mark Baltin here at NYU has a great interest in this issue and gave a
talk on issues pertaining to Negatives and Scope at the last NELS conference.

You could contact him directly at baltinacf4.nyu.edu.

 I wish you the best of luck with your thesis.

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

Message 2: CAN and CAN'T

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 00:03:37 CAN and CAN'T
From: Megumi Sasaki <m-sasakihoffman.cc.sophia.ac.jp>
Subject: CAN and CAN'T

 I am the original poser of 'CAN-CAN'T' distinction.
I got a flood of e-mails from people,and I am so happy to get them. Thank
you very much!!
 But sorry, I CAN'T sum up all of them and show you the summary,
as for Now. I am now making a questionnaire, taking people's suggestions
and ideas into considaration.(or stole them?) Sorry for having not send
personal responses to people who e-mailed me. Megumi Sasaki
(P.S. to those who wrote Mr./Mrs megumi:Megumi is a feminine name and Sasaki
is one of the most common name in Japan, as Kim in Korean.)
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 3: British versus American morphology

Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 16:00:13 +00British versus American morphology
From: Bernadette Plunkett <bp4tower.york.ac.uk>
Subject: British versus American morphology

This is my first try so I hope I'm sending it to the right place.
A while ago there was a query about British/American differences of the type
purported to exist in the help/helper case. I'm a British speaker and I agreed
largely that"help" on it's own rather than in a compound like "home help" does
sound strange. However, that's not the end of the story, I knew there were
cases of such a difference and I've just remembered one which I've often been
bugged by. I would never call someone who cheats habitually a "cheater" but
always a "cheat" and I'm sure there are other cases of this contrast that I
can't bring to mind, right now. Talking of this also reminds me that Americans
sometimes ommit affixes where I would use one, the most coming being -ing in
compound such as "filing cabinet" "swimming suit/costume" where as, far as I
know, all Americans would say "file-cabinet" "swim suit" etc. By the way, what
do Canadians produce for these?
Bernadette Plunkett
York
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 4: come with

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 11:00:21 CDTcome with
From: <MORSEGAGucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: come with

I don't use "Do you want to come with?" myself (New England with some
early Pennsylvania influence is my dialect) and certainly notice it
when other people do, but I dont
(oops) find it all that weird and can imagine it creeping into my own
speech in time. One thing I have noticed is that I think the <th> in
"with" is always voiceless in this construction. This strikes me because
in my speech it is usually voiced, including when the next word starts
with a voiceless segment. So, question: is it true that in the construction
given above (which Natalie Maynor suggests is associated with German
influence; if so, my early years in PA might explain my relative lack of
surprise at the usage)--is it true that it requires a voiceless <th>? If
so, further question: do the speakers who use this construction normally
pronounce "with" in other contexts with voiceless or voiced <th>?
Elise Morse-Gagne
morsegagucs.indiana.edu
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 5: 'come with'

Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1993 09:09:06 'come with'
From: <MOKENNON%ALBION.bitnetCUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: 'come with'

here's something on 'come with'. i'm from the south and never heard it
(consciously), but the
theory about its being more common in places influenced by german rang a bell.

i bought a book while living in cape town last year, one of those
"let stalk strine" or
"how to speak southern"
type books called "ah big yaws?" about how to speak WUESA (white urban english-
speaking south african), by "rawbone malong" (robin malan). p. 56: "wirth".
as in "kinnah come wirth?" and two other examples, "hugo wirth, see." and
"...kin mar luttle susta come wirth?" (the "i" in "little sister" has
changed to a short u from the afrikaans influence.)

cheers!

martha o'kennon
albion college
mokennonalbion.bitnet
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 6: Re: 4.776 Varia: Null object, OK, Nouns

Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 21:46:50 -Re: 4.776 Varia: Null object, OK, Nouns
From: Beard Robert E <rbeardcoral.bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: 4.776 Varia: Null object, OK, Nouns

 "Do you want to come with", "Can I go with" are Pennsylvania Dutch
constructions. You get the same contrunctions in contemporary German.
 --RBeard
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue