Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <dizdar
tam2000.tamu.edu>
Not to be difficult, but something in the comment by Chris Brockett on the excellent paper by Whitman on Japaense and Korean caught my eye: CB seems to be saying that Whitman's work, which he compares to Verner's Law in Indo-European, is what proves that Japanese and Korean are related. BUT -- Verner's Law is NOT what proved the relatedness of the various IE languages. The existence of IE as a family had been established and was universally accepted long before Verner's Law. The point is that we run the risk here of buying into a increasingly widespread fallacy about the basis of language classification. And, one might add, there is no indication that those who reject the relatedness of Japanese or Korean to each other or to the rest of Altaic, notably Janhunen and Doerfer, both of whom have written on this subject recently, are willing to accept Whitman's Law as proof of this relationship anyway (unfortunately!). Alexis Manaster RamerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Alexis Manaster Ramer writes: I don't understand how anyone can deal with the problem of the generic or default masculine pronouns in English by ignoring the fact that the same phenomenon is found in just about any other language you can name, including languages where no pronoun as such is used in such cases but where the verb forms indicate gender. Jeffrey Weber replies: 1) My own approach to the "generic he" problem is based on my observation of the late survival of the h-stem feminine in historical English, in many cases the form being identical to the masculine. This observation is counter to modern writers such as Pyles/Algeo, Strang, Penelope (e-mail me for citations) -- writers who have kept alive and academically popular the idea that the h-stem feminine had disappeared before 1300. English speakers were by these writers said to have been driven by a need for distinct pronouns. Lesbian scholar Penelope has even posited homophobia as a motivating force in early Middle English for sex-distinct pronouns. If there was a late survival as I maintain, in many cases "he" having been also a feminine pronoun, than instead of the current interpretation of the "he" rule in academia as gendrist inspired, the rule must be reconsidered to reflect a historical feminine association as well. As you may know, I have also challenged the "worthiness" doctrine -- the supposed basis for the prescribing of "he" by male grammarians in centuries past who said the masculine gender was more "worthy". On a sociolinguistic note, and with unintended humor, my instinct tells me that their wives would never have let them get away with that. For the worthiness doctrine, I'm suggesting a closer look at the distinctions between the TWO Old English roots for Middle English "worthy", one of which has no "superior" connotations to it, and is as neutral as the modern use of "appropriate" or "correct". And as a final note in this connection, I have suggested that the "generic-he" can not be properly understood from the perspective solely of the modern pronoun paradigm, what I call a "chronocentric" interpretation. Understanding must take into account the Old English word-root relations, inherited through ProtoGermanic, which on the one hand associated the feminine with the all-genders plural and on the other, the masculine with the singular and neuter. I have lines of text from the 15th century -- some of which I have already posted -- available to anybody who asks -- that I interpret as suggesting a radical notion: that the "proverbial he" and the "generic he" were in some significant way influenced by FEMININE morphology. 2) It's not that I haven't thought about the problem of the generic or default nature of the masculine pronoun as it is found in many -- or I'll accept your conclusion here, all -- languages. But a solution involves (doesn't it?) defining the nature of the evidence that would satisfy requirements for a solution. Consensus might be hard to come by. BUT, can YOU present an idea or some outlines regarding why this quasi-universal exists?, since you seem to be presenting what I take to be a friendly challenge saying that my discussion of "he" requires a prior grounding in an answer to the wider question, i.e.,"why generic"? Best Regards Jeffrey WeberMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Is it really documented that the Russian authorities did not seek to impose knowledge of Russian on the population of Finland in the 19th century? They certainly did in other conquered countries, so this would be a very important datum and one in need of explanation.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
On Thu, 20 Jul 1995 jjeepMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuemiamiu.acs.muohio.edu (John M. Jeep) wrote: >The Cincinnati City Council has received a recommendation from the Public >Works Department (Committee of Names) that the city display informational >signs on twelve area streets which had lost their earlier German names. >English Street would thus receive a sign (12 by 18 inch) reading "Formerly >German Street, renamed April 9, 1918 because of the anti-German hysteria >during WW I." > >The others named (with earlier name in parenthesis): >Woodrow (Berlin) St >Republic (Bremen) St >Edgecliff Road (Brunswick Pl) >Connecticut (Frankfort) Av >Stonewall (Hamburg) St >Yukon (Hanover [sic]) St >Merrimac (Hapsburg) St >Taft Road (Humboldt Av) >Beredith Pl (Schumann St) >Panama (Vienna) St >Orion Av (Wilhelm St). > >The German American Citizens League had requested the names of a number >of >streets be changed back to their original ones." > >Source": Cincinnati Enquirer, 19 July 1995, Metro B1 > >With the change from Vienna to Panama we see that indeed the hysteria was >not only aimed at Germany. Whether each 'German' street name was 'original' >would need to be ascertained. > > > > >John M. Jeep >jjeep
miamiu.muohio.edu >Department of German, Russian, and East Asian Languages >Miami University >Oxford, Ohio 45056 >(Tel.) 513 529-1821 - (Fax.) 513 529-1807 In this age of brotherhood and reconciliation, it certainly would be a nice gesture on the part of the U.S. to change the names back to German, and it would say a lot about how far we've come since the world wars. Paul J. Perry New York uti
cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu