Editor for this issue: <>
Content-Length: 322 Does anybody know where it was that Chomsky said that in unclear cases we should allow the theory to choose the right analysis? Does anybody know of any work on what I call antirhyme, i.e., cases where rhyme is not allowed (or at least not intended) by the poet and their relevance to phonology? Alexis Manaster RamerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Content-Length: 1774 Recently I was perusing the chapter in Trudgill and Hannah's "International English" that treats the general grammatical differences between the English and North American varieties of English. Like most such examinations, it appears to be, by necessity, a bit oversimplified, showing British forms that seem as frequent in the US as the supposed US forms, and I assume vice versa. One part that struck me, however, was how they treated the difference in usage of the past-tense suffixes -t and -ed. As is usual, T&H point up the fact that many verbs that are irregular in the British standard, taking the -t suffix (and often an attendant vowel change) are regular in North America, and take the -ed suffix. While this is true for many of the verbs (e.g., "learnt," "spelt"), the situation does not seem so simple to me with others. In my dialect (upper middle class southeastern Michigan) many of the irregular "EngEng" forms seem quite common, even apart from set phrases, like "He who smelt it dealt it," or, "There's no use crying over spilt milk." However, I seem to perceive a difference in connotation between the -t forms and the -ed froms in ordinary American speech. Do other native English speakers perceive a difference in meaning or "feel" between the following pairs of sentences, and if so, what? 1.a. Last night I dreamed something strange. 1.b. Last night I dreamt something strange. 2.a. The leaves burned. 2.b. The leaves burnt. 3.a. The milk was spilled. 3.b. The milk was spilt. 4.a. We kneeled down. 4.b. We knelt down. 5.a. She leaped up. 5.b. She leapt up. This being a query on English, it will likely take a while to plow through all the responses, but you'll get a summary, if there's anything interesting. James KirchnerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Content-Length: 1068 I am looking for references to the application of game theory to linguistic phenomena, especially to linguistic behaviour in plurilingual situations, including acknowledged or unacknowledged translation activities. I would be happy to prepare a summary of any responses I might receive. Sean Golden iuts0Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecc.uab.es (N.B.: I-U-T-S-zero)
Content-Length: 1341 REQUEST On Friday, 26th May, Alexis Manaster sent a message asking about languages where body part terms became adpositions. I am sorry for my ignorance but I didn't know the existence of that kind of languages. I can't help Mr. Manaster but can anybody tell me which languages are them? Can anybody give me information about those languages? Does anybody know references about them ( languages or body parts becoming adpositions)?. Thanks in advance. Olga Fullana (fullanaMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueskywalker.udg.es) Universitat de Girona Dept. Filologia i Filosofia Pl. Ferrater Mora, 1 E-17071 Girona Spain