LINGUIST List 7.1391

Tue Oct 8 1996

Qs: Borgesian joke?, Lx & lit course, Short of(on, by, etc.)

Editor for this issue: Susan Robinson <robinsonemunix.emich.edu>


We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

Directory

  1. "PXX06625niftyse", Borgesian Joke?
  2. Jorge N Guitart, linguistics & literature course
  3. hiro-t, Query: _short of, on, by, etc._

Message 1: Borgesian Joke?

Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 10:47:00 +0900
From: "PXX06625niftyse" <PXX06625niftyserve.or.jp>
Subject: Borgesian Joke?
Re: A Borgesian joke?

On page 103 of the _Other Inquisitions_
by J. L. Borges (1899-1986), I have found a vague
reference to some work by Franz Kuhn commenting
on a funny classification of animals by a Chinese
encyclopedia entitled
_Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge_:

>> ... animals are divided into:

(a) those that belong to the Emperor,
(b) embalmed ones,
(c) those that are trained,
(d) suckling pigs,
(e) mermaids,
(f) fabulous ones,
(g) stray dogs,
(h) those that are included in this classification,
(i) those that tremble as if they were mad,
(j) innumerable ones,
(k) those drawn with a very fine camel brush,
(l) others,
(m) those that have just broken a flower vase,
(n) those that resemble flies from a distance. <<

As I have been working on a study of parts of speech
classifications for a while, I can really appreciate
the elaborate humor of this passage and I would
like to refer to it in a future publication.
However, I am unable to identify the Chinese
encyclopedia (or the work by Franz Kuhn) Borges
was referring to. Could you, please, help me find
some lead to the original?

Also, those colleagues who are interested in
exchanging bibliographical data (and ideas)
on categorization, on the principles of
classification, as well as those with an interest
in part-of-speech theory, please, contact me directly.

Thanks in advance,

Laszlo

Ref.:

BORGES, Jorge Luis 1964. Other Inquisitions.
 1937-1952. tr. by Ruth L.C. Simms
 [Otros inquisiciones]
 Austin: University of Texas Press

KUHN, Franz Walter (1884-1961)
 Privatgelehrter in Freiburg i.Br.
 Uebersetz.: _Jin Ping Mei_, usw.

- -----------------
CSERESNYESI, Laszlo
Prof. of Ling.
Shikoku Gakuin University
765 Kagawa-ken, Zentsuji-shi,
Bunkyo-cho 3-2-19 (JAPAN)
TEL=FAX -81-877-63 5451

/POST
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: linguistics & literature course

Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 21:02:14 EDT
From: Jorge N Guitart <jorge2+pitt.edu>
Subject: linguistics & literature course

an associate of mine is interested in offering a course in linguistics
and literature for grad students in comp lit, english, and modern
languages. I would appreciate hearing from anybody who has taught such
a course as to what it should cover.
thanks
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 3: Query: _short of, on, by, etc._

Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 17:52:07 +0200
From: hiro-t <hiro-tias.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Subject: Query: _short of, on, by, etc._
Dear Linguists,
 One of my colleagues asked me to post a query on this List about the use
of adjective _short_, meaning "lack of". He wants to know, especially
the prepostions following _short_ and the prepositional objects. He has
fairly many sentences to ask, but please answer each acceptability if you
are not bothered to do. His query is the following:

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 I would like you to let me know whether the following sentences in which
_short_ is used are acceptable. Please put OK, ? or * in each slot, and
make further comments if any.

 (1) a. ( )We're _short of_ money.
 b. ( )We're _short on_ money.
 c. ( )We're _short_ money.

 (2) a. ( )We're _short of_ time.
 b. ( )We're _short on_ time.
 c. ( )We're _short_ time.

 (3) a. ( )We're _short of_ cash.
 b. ( )We're _short on_ cash.
 c. ( )We're _short_ cash.

 (4) a. ( )I'm _short of_ 10 dollars.
 b. ( )I'm _short on_ 10 dollars.
 c. ( )I'm _short_ 10 dollars.
 d. ( )I'm _short by_ 10 dollars.

 (5) a. ( )I'm _short of_ units.
 b. ( )I'm _short on_ 10 units.
 c. ( )I'm _short_ 10 units.
 d. ( )I'm _short by_ 10 units.
 e. ( )I'm ten units _short_.

 (6) a. ( )I'm _short of_ a few units.
 b. ( )I'm _short on_ a few units.
 c. ( )I'm _short_ a few units.
 d. ( )I'm _short by_ a few units.
 e. ( )I'm a few units _short_.

 (7) a. ( )We're _short of_ nurses.
 b. ( )We're _short on_ nurses.
 c. ( )We're _short_ nurses.

 (8) a. ( )We're _short of_ 1,000 nurses.
 b. ( )We're _short on_ 1,000 nurses.
 c. ( )We're _short_ 1,000 nurses.
 d. ( )We're _short by _ 1,000 nurses.
 e. ( )We're 1,000 nurses _short_.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Thanks a lot in advance. Please answer me directly.

Best Wishes,

Hiroaki Tanaka

Associate Professor,
1-1, Minamijousanjima-cho, Tokushima, 770, Japan
Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences,
Tokushima University, Japan

hiro-tias.tokushima-u.ac.jp
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue