LINGUIST List 6.48

Mon 16 Jan 1995

Qs: IPA; Ainu; Content analysis; VP ellipsis

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. Joseph P Stemberger, Query: history of IPA
2. "Lizanne Kaiser, Ainu Informant/Sources
3. , content analysis
4. Franz Beil, VP Ellipsis

Can anyone point me to any work on the history of the IPA vs. the
North American standards? I'm curious about how the differences
arose.

I'm particularly interested in why the IPA uses made-up characters
for palatoalveolars, rather than the hacek series that originated
in Slavic languages & that we North Americans prefer. The IPA
rarely uses new characters when there are existing symbols used in
some Western European language or Greek. So why the exception
here? When was the choice between the two alternatives made, &
what sorts of arguments went into the decision?

Also, I can't find my copy of the 1970's revision of the IPA at the
moment, but, as I recall, the hacek series was listed as an
acceptable substitute for the preferred symbols for the
palatoalveolars. But that acceptable status was removed in the
1989 revision of the IPA. Again, what kind of arguments went into
the decision to make this change?

Post replies to me. I will summarize for LINGUIST.

---Joe Stemberger
 University of Minnesota

Dear Linguist List:

Could you please post the following message?

I am looking for an Ainu language consultant (not necessarily a native
speaker) with whom I can communicate by e-mail and/or some written
grammars about this language. I'd appreciate any recommendations.

Thank you,
Lizanne Kaiser
lkaiserminerva.cis.yale.edu

This is a follow up to my previous query. I am seeking tools for
content analysis of text. If anyone has suggestions, or can help me
determine if semantic and pragmatic analysis is the proper way to
describe an exploration of the underlying meaning as well as structure
of text, I shall be appreciative.

 Hillel R. Alpert
 halpertfas.harvard.edu

Could anybody tell me whether there are any other languages apart from
English which allow for VP-Ellipsis constructions. I would also like
to know whether---if there are any---the VP ellipsis constructions are
comparable to the English VP ellipses as with
 - auxilliaries "do" and "be" as in

(1) Sue went to see the doctor, and Ann did, too.
(2) Sue was seriously sick, and Ann was, too.

 - auxilliary "have" as in

(3) Sue tried the treatment after Ann had.

 - modals "can, could, may, might, shall, should, will, would,
 must"

(4) Though Sue does not come to the party, Ann might.

 - verbs or verb complexes with a plain "to" complement without the
 infinitive as in

(5) Sue rang Ann because she asked/wanted her to.
(6) Sue invited Ann since noone else dared/used to.

A test case is whether there is the possibility for so-called
Antecedent Contained Deletion/Anaphora:

(7) Sue invited everyone Ann did.
(8) Sue invited everyone Ann asked her to.

... and a diachronological question: does anyone know since when VP
ellipsis is possible in English?

I would also be grateful for hints to literature dealing with these
questions.

Please post to me directly, I will supply a summary for The Linguist
List. Thanks a lot in advance,

 Franz Beil
 franzims.uni-stuttgart.de