Editor for this issue: <>
I. The Question and its Motivation Three weeks ago or so, I asked LINGUIST readers to help me find examples of function words with unusually specific meanings. This was meant to elicit examples that I could mention in a paper called "The Formal Semantics of Grammaticalization", where I discuss what happens to the meaning of a content morpheme that develops into a function morpheme. I argue there, developing work by other semanticists/logicians, that (1) Function morphemes do have meanings (contrary to a widespread assumption). Just consider that the meanings of quantifiers, tense, aspect, modals, etc. are the bread and butter of us working semanticists. (2) There is a class of "logical" meanings that have certain formal properties (permutation-invariance, high types). (3) Unfortunately, there is no perfect correlation between logical meanings and functional morphemes. There are lexical/content morphemes with (almost) logical meanings (adjectives "same", "mere", "alleged", verbs "deny", "believe", nouns "majority", etc.). And there might be functional morphemes with non-logical meanings (hence the LINGUIST query). (4) Thus there is not much that we can say about what happens to the meaning of a morpheme that is becoming grammaticalized. Although I make some presumably doomed efforts. The finished paper (which is based on a talk I gave at the NELS 25 Workshop on Language Change) will appear in the NELS 25 Proceedings (to be available from the GLSA at UMass Amherst, glsaMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuelinguist.umass.edu). The paper is downloadable by anonymous ftp from the following URL: ftp://broca.mit.edu/pub/fintel/gramma.ps I would welcome any comments. II. Some of the Responses: MARK ROBERT HALE (hale1
alcor.concordia.ca) wrote: ) The reference [to the pejorative pronouns "you shit"] ) is Samuel Elbert's grammar of ) Rennellese/Bellona, "Echo of a Culture: A Grammar ) of Rennell and Bellona", UHawaii Press 1988 ) [Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 22]. ) ) A few interesting cases of ) grammaticalization of a somewhat relevant ) type do exist. In Micronesian languages ) there are a set of verbal affixes for ) directionality (up, down, towards speaker, ) towards hearer, towards some third ) party [the usual deixis system]) which ) also include "toward the open ocean" ) and "toward the lagoon"; whereas (of course) ) if you want to say "toward John's house" ) (or some other nonce collocation) ) you need to use a PP. ) ) Similar, but probably not similar enough, ) is the bizarre use of the cardinal directionals ) in Icelandic documented in a classic paper ) by Einar Haugen (I can dig up the reference ) if you really want it). It seems like, being ) predominantly coastal inhabitants, and having ) a rather uneven fjorded coastline, to go ) to a city which was north of you actually ) involved heading out in a southerly ) direction (all that time). (Or, if you ) lived on the North Coast, going South ) frequently involved your walking North ) or Northeast...). The system ended up totally ) screwed up, as I recall (it's been some ) time since I read the article -- Hoski ) Thrainsson at Harvard would probably know ) the relevant facts [thrainss
fas.harvard.edu]), ) when the cardinal directions were grammaticalized ) with inverse force from their original ) semantics with verbs of motion (or some ) such thing). ) ) The "river names" case is supposed to Salishan. ) Maybe Sally Thomason will respond to your ) Linguist posting, otherwise you might write ) to her (sally
pogo.isp.pitt.edu). Although ) the Salish speakers she's actually working ) with are land-bound, she's done some historical ) Salishan and probably knows the basic facts. ) ) The only other case I can think may not be ) all that relevant, either, I guess, but it's ) kind of interesting nonetheless. In Ho-Min ) Sohn's "Woleaian Reference Grammar", I suspect ) in the discussion of noun incorporation ) (but possibly elsewhere), he states that ) bare N objects obligatorily incorporate ) (so 'I eat fish' is ungrammatical, one has ) to say 'I fish-eat' -- this is generally ) true with Micronesian transitive clauses; ) I've written about it's history). Definite ) NP objects cannot incorporate (*I the-fish eat). ) Nor can N's that are modified by anything ) (so 'I eat big fish' is fine, in spite of ) the fact that 'I eat fish' is garbage -- clearly ) a structural constraint: only heads can ) incorporate). Anyway, "doctor" cannot ) incorporate under any circumstances, because ) there's only ever been ONE doctor on Woleai! ) So it's inherently specific, as it were. ) [Woleai is an atoll, population ca.250.] ) Like I said, maybe not directly relevant, ) but kinda cute... David Gil (ELLGILD%NUSVM.BITNET
mitvma.mit.edu) wrote: ) I can think of so many examples of what you're looking for that ) I suspect there's some terminological confusion. ) ) Classifiers. They're about as idiosyncratic and as contentful ) as you'd like -- but their uses are clearly functional. Arguably ) so when in "numeral classifier" position, more clearly so when ) functioning as nominalizers (eg. CLF John saw, meaning "the one ) John saw"), ligatures/relativizers (eg. movie CLF John saw, ) meaning "the movie which John saw", or articles (eg. CLF movie, ) meaning "the movie"). (I'm presently working on the syntax ) and semantics of these constructions in SE Asian languages.) ) ) Then, pronouns. I don't know of any "you shit" examples, but ) in SE Asian languages pronouns come with all sorts of idiosyncratic ) and culture-bound "honorific" content. ) ) I could go on ... Hala'sz Sa'ndor (halasz
kewszeg.norden1.com) wrote: ) Are the old Germanic prepozitions enough for you: "benorth", "beeast", ) ...? I believe that in Iceland they yet are found. Old English had a ) bunch of words besides these that were adj's that also behaved as ) prep's; the one left is "near", but on the other hand "du" was pickd ) up: "the honor du me", "tomorrow this is du". It sumtimes seems to me ) that in old Germanic the prep's were an open class, with rules for ) making one from adj's or other words. "RANDY J. LAPOLLA" (HSLAPOLLA
ccvax.sinica.edu.tw) wrote: ) In the Qiang languages (Tibeto-Burman family, Sino-Tibetan stock) ) there are systems of verb prefixes that refer to geographic landmarks ) such as "towards the river", "toward the mountian", aside from ) "normal" references such as "towards the speaker", etc. Most ) interesting is that these prefixes also mark achievement vs. state, ) and also perfective vs. imperfective. Lee Hartman (ga5123
siucvmb.siu.edu) wrote: ) The following is probably not exactly what you are looking for, ) but it does bear some similarity to your example of ) prepositions that refer to the nearby river. ) Indonesian has four words for north, south, east, and west, ) -- al monomorphemic so far as I know. But northeast and northwest are ) respectively _timur laut_ and _barat laut_, ) literally east sea west sea ) (Southeast is _tenggara_ -- monomorphemic? -- ) and I haven't yet found a southwest.) Thank you all for your very interesting comments. ---------------------------------- Kai von Fintel Dept. of Linguistics & Philosophy MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 email: fintel
mit.edu http://broca.mit.edu/fintel.home.html