Editor for this issue: James German <james
linguistlist.org>
Dear Linguists, The establishment of DO as an auxiliary verb seems to have been a gradual process in early Modern English. Certain verbs took longer to fit into the NICE framework, to adopt Palmer's term- verbs such as COME, SAY, and most notably HAVE (esp. in British English). The first examples of HAVE used with DO in an interrogative or negative context would appear to go back to 1800 ca. In every case, HAVE is not stative eg: Do have the goodness to hear me my third act - Jane Austen some people did not have their fill of laughter - Charles Dickens Given that HAVE in its non-stative uses was widespread before 1800, I would like to know: 1/ How the negative/ interrogative form was expressed before 1800. (eg How would Milton have said 'I didn't have the hors d'oeuvre, but Tabatha did. What did you have, Mel?') 2/ If any of you have bibliographical references to hand on this subject. As supplementary questions: 3/ What credence would you give to claims for a functional opposition between the simple form and the DO-form of HAVE in contemporary British English? eg Palmer suggests that the following sentence is acceptable and not contradictory: The supermarket hasn't any ice-cream, but it _does_ have ice-cream. HAVEN'T is 'now', or individual level, whereas DOES HAVE is 'generally speaking', ie 'usually stock'... 4/ Has the simple form (eg I haven't a clue) completely died out in American English? Thanking you in advance, Ivan Ivan Birks ivan.birksMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueuniv-paris3.fr ibirks
pratique.fr Universite Paris III, Institut du Monde Anglophone, 13, rue Santeuil, 75231 Paris cedex 05
Speaking of disabilities, we have had a problem in our linguistics courses with students who have learning disabilities in mathematics-type skill areas _as well as foreign languages_. These students have enormous difficulty in linguistics courses. While our department and college have instituted means by which such students can be waived from FL and math requirements (if their disability is verified by the appropriate on-campus testing office), there is no such waiver for linguistics courses. This has caused tremendous difficulty in the case of one student, and hardship in the case of some others (although most learning-disabled students are able to learn linguistics with usual special allowances such as more time to take tests, etc.). I am wondering if other programs with ling. requirements have had similar difficulties, and if their institutions have recognized the similarity between math skills and skills of linguistic analysis, and made provision for waivers in both areas. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~ English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~ San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~ Tel. (805)-756-2184 E-mail: jrubbaMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuepolymail.calpoly.edu ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Linguists, I am working on determiners in Romance languages, and have some specific questions about Spanish artcles with nouns followed by genitive PP or adjectives. More specifically, I try to find some conditions on the distribution of the two forms of the Spanish definite article 'lo' / 'el'. It seems that the first one is restricted in some way I would like to be commented. Here are some examples I would like Spanish speakers to comment. Please help me choose the good ones: (1) el libro de Juan y el de Maria (2) el libro de Juan y lo de Maria (3) el libro rojo y el blanco (4) el libro rojo y lo blanco It looks to me that examples (2) and (4) are better than (1) and (3), but I am not a Spanish native speaker. It also looks like 'lo' only is used when an adjective follows, not a noun (my dictionary says so), but why? (5) el libro (6) * lo libro (7) * el contrario (8) lo contrario Now, the same with relative clauses: (9) el hombre que duerme y el que habla (10) el hombre que duerme y lo que hable In any case, is there a way to distingish both paradigms and justify their distribution? Also, is it possible to apply the same conclusions to the Spanish indefinite article, between 'un' and 'uno' ? (11) un libro rojo y un blanco (12) un libro rojo y uno blanco Any comments are welcome. Thanks a lot in advance. Victor Prijker shiketMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuebigfoot.com
How do general human phonemes differ from those of say other Hominidae? I have noticed the [u] and [i] vokals amongst the chimpanzees. There are traces of konsonants as would be expected within the complexities of ever differing phonetic values, but which human phonemes could be considered to be the closest approximations? pugs <pugsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueozemail.com.au>