Editor for this issue: Ann Dizdar <ann
linguistlist.org>
Q: Terminological question: Quantification Dear Linguists, I am posting this query on behalf of the Basque Language Academy's grammar commission, and would welcome your opinions and suggestions on the latest of numerous problems of grammatical terminology that we encounter periodically in the process of compiling our large-scale, multi-volume Basque grammar. Answers sent to me will be summarised on this list. Our present problem is the following: In previous volumes of the grammar we have employed [a Basque translation equivalent of] "quantifier" to refer to items that can determine a noun phrase such as 'many', 'some', 'how many?', 'so many' etc. We have also been referring to items such as 'very', 'rather', 'how' and 'so' which modify adjectives or adverbs as "degree modifiers". Thus: QUANTIFIERS: (1) There are MANY students. (2) There are SO MANY students. DEGREE MODIFIERS: (3) The students are VERY intelligent. (4) The students are SO intelligent. To some of us in the grammar commission it seems acceptable to refer to the functions of ALL the items mentioned, collectively, as "quantification". Why would we wish to refer to them all collectively? Well, we are currently discussing sentences like the following, known as consecutive sentences: (5) There were SO MANY students that we needed a larger classroom. (6) The students were SO intelligent that we needed to get another teacher. There has been a proposal among us to state in the grammar that sentences like both (5) and (6) express a "quantification" (this being a characteristic of consecutive sentences), and that the main clauses in these examples (i.e. the first clauses) contain "quantifiers". However, others on the commission find this terminology unfortunate given the differentiation, mentioned above, between quantifiers on the one hand (such as the one capitalized in (5)) and degree modifiers on the other (like that capitalized in (6)). The question is: Is it recommendable to use "quantification"/"quantifier" to refer to both (5) and (6)? AND: If not, then is there a better term that could be used in its place? Or, more generally: How can we refer collectively to such constructions as (5) and (6) in a way that captures what they have in common in terms of their "? quantifying" sense? We look forward to all your suggestions! Alan R. King, Ph.D. alankingMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuebigfoot.com Alternative email addresses: mccay
redestb.es, a
eirelink.com, 70244.1674
compuserve.com SNAIL: Orkolaga plaza 3 1A, 20800 Zarautz, Basque Country, Spain PHONE: +34-43-134125 / FAX: +34-43-130396 and... VISIT MY WEB PAGE AT --> http://www.eirelink.com/alanking/ !!! Please note the new SNAILMAIL ADDRESS and PHONE NUMBER !!!
Does anyone have a copy of the solutions to the problems included in R. Langacker's 'Fundamentals of Linguistic Analysis' (1972), and if so, would he/she accept to give, lend or sell it to me? Many thanks in advance. Mohamed Mohamed Laafou Departement de didactique 770, Faculte des Sciences de l'Education Universite Laval. Quebec, (Que), CANADA G1K 7P4 Tel.: (418) 656-2131 Ext. 3504(Universite) (418) 682-3626 (Residence) courrier: mlaafouMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuerescol.fse.ulaval.ca
Dear Linguists, For an upcoming term class , we are searching for Yagnobi recordings. Does anyone know where to find any? Thanks in advance. Juergen Lenhart - ---------------------- Juergen Lenhart Br.-Grimm-Str. 46 D-63069 Offenbach Germany - -----------------------Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue