Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin
emunix.emich.edu>
I am soliciting a cross-linguistic information on the relative positioning of `focussed' constituents, by which i mean constituents that are highlighted because they represent `new', rhematic or contrastic information, as in the following examples: 1. I introduced her to LESLIE = It was LESLIE i introduced her to (i.e., not to Morgan) 2. Ewan is nervous aobut EARTHQUAKES = It's EARTHQUAKES that Ewan is nervous about (i.e., not fires) 3. You must be home by SUNRISE = It's at SUNRISE that you must be home (i.e., i don't care where you are at midnight) For instance, Hungarian has a specific, clearly-defined position for such constituents: immediately to the left of the verb. I would be interested in hearing about any languages that also have a clear preference for plac- ing such constituents in a specific position (pre-verbal? post-verbal? clause-initial? clause-final?) within a simple declarative clause. Clear, well-glossed examples will be especially welcome. I'll post a summary if there's sufficient interest. Best, Steven - ------------------- Dr. Steven Schaufele 712 West Washington Urbana, IL 61801 217-344-8240 fcoswsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueprairienet.org **** O syntagmata linguarum liberemini humanarum! *** *** Nihil vestris privari nisi obicibus potestis! ***
There was a workshop on comparative linguistics at Stanford in 1987 which featured a panel on the Altaic question, but two of the most important contributions to it were not published and I can find no concrete information about them either from the organizers of the panel or from the author of one of them (the other one is dead), so I am asking anybody who might have attended, to see if they can find any notes, handouts, or any texts that might have been distributed either for the Clark or the Austerlitz talks at that workshop. Any material I might obtain will be used in preparing the final draft of a paper to appear this year in Journal of Linguistics, entitled "Telling general linguists about Altaic". Alexis Manaster Ramer amrMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecs.wayne.edu
Is it only me, or is comparative linguistics disappearing from American and European universities? I recently looked over the list of departments put out by the LSA and lots of departments simply have NO comparative linguist at all. Moreover, both in the US and in Europe I hear of more and more cases where retiring or dead comparative linguists are not replaced, and the posts go to other kinds of linguistics. I fully understand that there was a need in the 60's and 70's to shift some resources from diachronic to synchronic work, as a result of the Chomskyan revolution, but the 90s seem a bit late for that, don't they? ((And of course now even the term 'comparative linguistics' is increasingly being appropriated for work in what used to be known as 'contrastive linguistics' instead. Is there a connection between the two trends?)) Alexis Manaster Ramer Professor of Computer Science Wayne State University amrMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecs.wayne.edu