LINGUIST List 7.342

Mon Mar 4 1996

Qs: Machine translation, Pre IP heads, Usage of MUST

Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <>

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.


  1. Harold E. "Skip" Wilcox, English-Arabic/Arabic-English machine translation
  2. Annabel Cormack, Q: pre IP heads
  3., Q: MUST again

Message 1: English-Arabic/Arabic-English machine translation

Date: 02 Mar 1996 00:00:00
From: Harold E. "Skip" Wilcox <>
Subject: English-Arabic/Arabic-English machine translation

Does anyone know of any English-Arabic and/or Arabic/English
translation software? Pls respond directly to me.

Harold E. "Skip" Wilcox, Ph.D.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Q: pre IP heads

Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 12:15:12 CST
From: Annabel Cormack <>
Subject: Q: pre IP heads
There are languages with the equivalent of _who that_, and languages
with the equivalent of _if that_. I believe there are languages where
all three pre-IP heads may occur in sequence, perhaps in a complement
clause as in

 I don't know [whom if that John saw _]

Can anyone tell me of such a language?

Annabel Cormack.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 3: Q: MUST again

Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 13:06:14 +1000
From: <>
Subject: Q: MUST again
Dear Subscribers,

Here's another question for all modal maniacs. A sentence very much
like the following was recently emitted from the bowels of
bureaucracy, inadvertently making its way onto the Home Page of a
local university administration Web service. The sentence aroused my
curiosity, and I have been pondering over it ever since. it went
something like this:

All forms must have been submitted by February 16.

The reason I was pondering over it was that it appeared prior to
February 16. My personal intuitions would have constrained the use of
MUST in such a construction, mainly because it offers a deontic
interpretation (having come from an administrator's office!), and the
(usual) interpretation of MUST + HAVE + past participle could be
assumed to be only epistemic. I was wondering what other subscribers
thought about the use of MUST used deontically in a future perfect
construction such as this - deviant? or ambiguous?

If this arouses enough enthusiasm, a summary of responses will follow.

Debra Ziegeler
Monash University, Australia
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue