 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » All languages are equally fit... |
|
Page 50 of 83 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 49, 50, 51 ... 81, 82, 83 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Nathan Sanders... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <FZzHm.51624$ze1.40398 at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
John Atkinson <johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:38 pm, "Jim Heckman" <rot13(reply-to) at (no spam) none.invalid
wrote:
On 29-Oct-2009, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com
wrote in message <qDsGm.50900$ze1.50... at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
[Russian spelling rules]
[...]
Also the velars <k>/<g>/<x>, where phonemic palatalization is
marginal at best, leaving phonetic palatalization largely
determined by the frontness/backness of the following vowel. In
spelling, these consonants almost always take <i>/<a>/<u>, not
*<y>/<ja>/<ju>. This is particularly noticeable in noun and
adjective declensions with <i> instead of expected *<y>.
And that's why Morris Halle declared that "phoneme" was a useless
concept. (SPR, 1959)
The reason it's a useless concept is because palatisation happens not to
be phonemic in Russian velars? I don't follow the logic in that
argument. Could you fill in the details?
[/quote]
Peter's right, the original argument had to do with voicing, not
palatalization. I don't know the data off-hand, but the argument is
roughly as follows:
Obstruents undergo voicing assimilation in Russian. Sometimes, this
neutralizes the distinction between two phonemes (e.g., the distinct
phonemes /s/ and /z/ both come out as [z] in voicing environments),
and other times, it's non-neutralizing allophony (e.g., /x/ comes out
as [G] in voicing environments; since there is no /G/ phoneme in
Russian, there is no neutralization).
The problem is that classical phonemic theory, because of particular
theoretical assumptions, required that neutralizing rules and
non-neutralizing rules had to occur at completely different levels.
But it seems reasonably clear that this is a single unified
assimilation process that happens "once". This is, essentially, an
Occam's Razor issue.
Halle's argument wasn't against the fundamental notion of a minimal
unit of contrastive sound; rather, it was against a specific version
of that idea that was prominent at the time and that was built upon
theory-specific assumptions that lead to undesirable consequences,
such as splitting a single unified process into two separate levels of
the system.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Atkinson:
[quote]In Norwegian, stoppe apparently means both "to stuff" and "to stop" --
[/quote]
It's a mess. From <i>>Bokmålsordboka</i>:
I *stoppe* v1 (norr <stoppa>, fra lty)
1 fylle, dytte, stappe "s- pipa" / fylle med *stopp (I) "s- møbler" /
"s- ut fugler og dyr"
2 reparere med nål og garn, bøte "s- strømper"
II *stoppe* v1 (fra lty) stanse "bussen s-t med et rykk" / "s- opp" /
"s- munnen på en" / "stopp tyven!"
II *stappe* v1 (norr <stappa>, sm o s *<stampe>) stue, trykke, stoppe
"s- mose i veggsprekkene" / "s- hendene i lomma" / "s- (i) pipa"
(Not yet in the books:)
*stuffe* el. *støffe* v1 (fra eng.) fylle med stuffing "s- kalkun med
svisker og medisterdeig"
[quote]I remember being mildly amused in Norway by the signs saying "BUSS
STOPP"
[/quote]
Something like
-----------
| B U S S |
| S T O P P |
----------- ,
I suppose.
It's not necessarily a result of the strengthening tendency to decompose
any composite word. It's rather that:
- 'Busstopp' becomes 'buss-stopp' when hyphenated.
- There's a tradition for dropping the hyphen on signs and for
ornamental use.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Atkinson wrote:
[quote]Joachim Pense wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel... at (no spam) wollmersdorfer.at> wrote:
Current Duden has 'stopp' as German word, and 'stop' marked English.
Duden of 1941 has 'stopp' marked [nd.] = niederdeutsch
The second p was appended as a result of the 1996 spelling reform.
I don't suppose there's a verb "stoppen," outside the routines of Mel
Brooks and Carl Reiner?
"Stoppen" is a common colloquial word in German and has been so for
decades. "Wie kann man die Wirtschaftskrise stoppen?"
Yes, I'm surprised Peter hasn't come across it in his reading, since I
have, and I have much less German than he does. Of course German also
has stopfen, cognate with English "to stop", which retains its original
West Germanic meaning, viz "to stuff" (retained in English in the phrase
"to stop up"). English "stuff" < Old French estoffer is apparently not
cognate.
In Norwegian, stoppe apparently means both "to stuff" and "to stop" -- I
remember being mildly amused in Norway by the signs saying "BUSS STOPP"
[/quote]
I bet they have buses with pneumatic brakes and the words for
"bus stop" are onomatopoeic. 
pjk
P.S. Has been proved by humming it in the dark.
[quote][...]
John.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 11:42am, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote:
[quote]"Antnio" == Antnio Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
Antnio> And this hits on another observable difference between
Antnio> ideographic systems and writing systems: you can easily
Antnio> build a parser for mathematical expressions which is able
Antnio> to determine their meaning with perfect accuracy.
.............................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Antnio> ...
Antnio> I'm pointing out that given any such notation system, you
Antnio> can build a parser for it which is able to determine
Antnio> meaning with perfect accuracy; whereas there isn't a single
..........................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Antnio> language for which the same can [currently] be done.
>> And how would your parser interpret "sin x ^ 2"?
Antnio> The way it would see fit.
There is ambiguity.
[/quote]
How can there be "ambiguity" if what is communicated is "ideas"? What
is an ambiguous idea?
[quote]What does your "perfect accuracy" above mean? How will ambiguities be
handled?
[/quote]
Ditto.
[quote] >> When you say parser, are you only talking about syntax? How
>> about semantics?
Antnio> Wan't 'which is able to determine their meaning with
Antnio> perfect accuracy' explicit enough?
But mathematical expressions have ambiguities. Even human beings can
get confused.
[/quote]
Give us an example of a well-formed mathematical expression that's
ambiguous. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
[quote]"António" == António Marques<m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
António> They may be, but differences between languages aren't
António> restricted to word-order and lexicon; and the fact remains
António> that there *are* default assumptions for the value of
António> symbols and type of notation; when you deviate from those,
António> you have to explicitly say so (unless context abundantly
António> makes for it). That's not so for language.
Why not?
António> Because it isn't. For language there are no default
António> assumptions (like, say, that the nth symbol is the verb).
But you determine that a word is a verb based on the lexicon.
[/quote]
You what?
[quote]António> No, LSD. Do you generally write sentences (bar the most
António> stripped ones...) that are identical in mandarin,
António> cantonese, japanese and bai?
二○○九年十月三十日
[/quote]
Is that one example of a sentence that is identical in mandarin,
cantonese and japanese? That's not what I asked for. I didn't ask for
exampels of anything. I asked you whether the vast majority of your
sentences are that way.
(Otherwise, 'my pen is is my hand' and 'my hand is in warm water' would
prove that english and afrikaans are 'written' ideographically.)
[quote]António> If hanzi were ideograms, you would. Just as you can write
António> '1 + 1' in a text in all those languages and it will mean
António> the same in all of them.
No. "Addition" need not be the usual addition that you're
familiar.
António> Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.
António> (Where did I say '1 + 1' involved addition or the number
António> one?)
So, it's not "ideographic" as you claim it to be. It has failed to
communicate your idea to me.
[/quote]
I'm not communicating ideas to you. I'm talking about a text having
mandarin, cantonese, japanese and bai versions, and saying that the part
where '1 + 1' appears will be the same for all.
[quote]When you write "1234", it's always one thousand two hundred and
thirdy four? Wrong! I haven't told you the base. In
hexadecimal, it's a different number than one thousand two
hundred and thirdy four. These 2 numbers aren't equal.
These different mathematical areas are similar to different
cultures in the human world. And the use of identical/similar
symbols to mean different operations or even different numbers is
akin to "false friends" across languages.
So, when you say "1+1" is an ideographic expression, as per YOUR
awkward definition of "ideographic", you're wrong. You're
ignorant. You're only looking at mathematics through a tiny hole
of the wall.
António> No, LSD. I'm so *right* that you immediately gave '1 + 1'
António> its default assumed meaning, proving my point that there is
António> a default assumption.
What assumption? I didn't assume it's talking about usual addition on
numbers.
[/quote]
Of course you did, since you replied '"Addition" need not be the usual
addition that you're familiar'.
[quote]And I have told you that I can interpret it in many different
ways, and those interpretations involve very different ideas. Different
ideas.
[/quote]
And for the 4th time, if context doesn't make it clear which set of
ideas you're using, you must specify it, otherwise a default will be
assumed.
And those are hardly different ideas. There is a reason the same symbols
are used!
[quote]António> In case you're still wondering, for language there are no
António> default assumptions (like, say, that the nth symbol is the
António> verb).
So, in a verb-last language, there is no default assumption that the
last part is the verb?
[/quote]
If you were literate in english, you would have long ago gleaned the
information that I'm not talking about a specific language. I didn't say
'for a given language there are no default assumptions'. I said 'for
language'. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
António Marques wrote:
[quote]LEE Sau Dan wrote:
"António" == António Marques<m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
António> They may be, but differences between languages aren't
António> restricted to word-order and lexicon; and the fact remains
António> that there *are* default assumptions for the value of
António> symbols and type of notation; when you deviate from those,
António> you have to explicitly say so (unless context abundantly
António> makes for it). That's not so for language.
Why not?
António> Because it isn't. For language there are no default
António> assumptions (like, say, that the nth symbol is the verb).
But you determine that a word is a verb based on the lexicon.
You what?
[/quote]
And this hits on another observable difference between ideographic
systems and writing systems: you can easily build a parser for
mathematical expressions which is able to determine their meaning with
perfect accuracy. No one has yet devised such a parser for a written
language, despite decades of generative grammar. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LEE Sau Dan... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]"António" == António Marques <m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
[/quote]
António> And this hits on another observable difference between
António> ideographic systems and writing systems: you can easily
António> build a parser for mathematical expressions which is able
António> to determine their meaning with perfect accuracy. No one
António> has yet devised such a parser for a written language,
António> despite decades of generative grammar.
So, you can write a parse that can smartly parse all three of:
A) 2 + 1 / 2
B) 2 1 2 / +
C) + 2 / 1 2
?
And how would your parser interpret "sin x ^ 2"?
When you say parser, are you only talking about syntax? How about
semantics?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
[quote]"António" == António Marques<m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
António> And this hits on another observable difference between
António> ideographic systems and writing systems: you can easily
António> build a parser for mathematical expressions which is able
António> to determine their meaning with perfect accuracy. No one
António> has yet devised such a parser for a written language,
António> despite decades of generative grammar.
So, you can write a parse that can smartly parse all three of:
A) 2 + 1 / 2
B) 2 1 2 / +
C) + 2 / 1 2
?
[/quote]
Obviously. Again, you managed to miss the point; it's not whether you
need more than one set of rules. SINCE you're comparing different
languages to different mathematical notation systems, I'm pointing out
that given any such notation system, you can build a parser for it which
is able to determine meaning with perfect accuracy; whereas there isn't
a single language for which the same can [currently] be done.
[quote]And how would your parser interpret "sin x ^ 2"?
[/quote]
The way it would see fit.
[quote]When you say parser, are you only talking about syntax? How about
semantics?
[/quote]
Wan't 'which is able to determine their meaning with perfect accuracy'
explicit enough? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LEE Sau Dan... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]"António" == António Marques <m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
[/quote]
António> And this hits on another observable difference between
António> ideographic systems and writing systems: you can easily
António> build a parser for mathematical expressions which is able
António> to determine their meaning with perfect accuracy.
..............................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
António> ...
António> I'm pointing out that given any such notation system, you
António> can build a parser for it which is able to determine
António> meaning with perfect accuracy; whereas there isn't a single
...........................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
António> language for which the same can [currently] be done.
[quote]And how would your parser interpret "sin x ^ 2"?
[/quote]
António> The way it would see fit.
There is ambiguity.
What does your "perfect accuracy" above mean? How will ambiguities be
handled?
[quote]When you say parser, are you only talking about syntax? How
about semantics?
[/quote]
António> Wan't 'which is able to determine their meaning with
António> perfect accuracy' explicit enough?
But mathematical expressions have ambiguities. Even human beings can
get confused.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nathan Sanders... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <87ws2736ha.fsf at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>,
LEE Sau Dan <danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
[quote]"Antnio" == Antnio Marques <m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
Antnio> And this hits on another observable difference between
Antnio> ideographic systems and writing systems: you can easily
Antnio> build a parser for mathematical expressions which is able
Antnio> to determine their meaning with perfect accuracy.
.............................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Antnio> ...
Antnio> I'm pointing out that given any such notation system, you
Antnio> can build a parser for it which is able to determine
Antnio> meaning with perfect accuracy; whereas there isn't a single
..........................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Antnio> language for which the same can [currently] be done.
And how would your parser interpret "sin x ^ 2"?
Antnio> The way it would see fit.
There is ambiguity.
[/quote]
That isn't ambiguity in the linguistic sense. It's merely uncertainty
over which formal notation system is being used. It's analogous to
not knowing how the word "son" should be pronounced and what it means,
merely because you don't know yet whether it's supposed to be French
or English. True linguistic ambiguity is completely different, and
occurs within any given language. This kind of linguistic ambiguity
could be lexical (1), structural (2), referential (3), or scopal (4):
(1) bank (financial institution, river edge)
suit (clothing, legal proceeding)
bat (flying mammal, sports equipment)
(2) I saw the lion with the binoculars.
Flying planes can be dangerous.
Jean is a French history teacher.
(3) John thinks that Bill likes his mother.
his = John's or Bill's?
(4) Mary ate lunch with the president.
the then-current president (PAST > THE)
the now-current president (THE > PAST)
I meet with a student every Wednesday.
the same student (A > EVERY)
potentially different students (EVERY > A)
(Some might claim that (3) is just a subtype of (4). I won't argue
with that claim, but (3) does seem sufficiently different in nature
from (4) to warrant being highlighted separately.)
The lack of these kinds of linguistic ambiguity is one of the ways
that mathematical notation is completely unlike natural language.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DKleinecke... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 6:31 am, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote:
[quote]"António" == António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
António> And this hits on another observable difference between
António> ideographic systems and writing systems: you can easily
António> build a parser for mathematical expressions which is able
António> to determine their meaning with perfect accuracy. No one
António> has yet devised such a parser for a written language,
António> despite decades of generative grammar.
So, you can write a parse that can smartly parse all three of:
A) 2 + 1 / 2
B) 2 1 2 / +
C) + 2 / 1 2
?
And how would your parser interpret "sin x ^ 2"?
When you say parser, are you only talking about syntax? How about
semantics?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page:http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
[/quote]
Computer Languages are an extension of mathematical notation and
mostly share the attribute of mathematical notation that parsing
cannot lead to an ambiguity.
But ambiguities do occur in Computer Languages and when detected they
are resolved by fiat. That is, the semantics of the Language will have
a specific rule addressing the potential ambiguity and saying which
reading to use.
Whether that means Computer Languages are sometimes ambiguous depends
on your definition of ambiguous. Some of them, C for example, are
certainly ambiguous on occasion if you confine yourself to syntax.
Anybody who has ever written a C compiler knows that.
I wonder if anyone thinks of Computer Languages as ideographic. Or
what are they? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:21pm, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote:
[quote]"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
>> >> And how would your parser interpret "sin x ^ 2"?
Antnio> The way it would see fit.
>> There is ambiguity.
Peter> How can there be "ambiguity" if what is communicated is
Peter> "ideas"? What is an ambiguous idea?
Operator precedence.
The above can mean sin(x^2) or (sin x)^2.
[/quote]
Why, don't you know the conventions for interpreting such expressions?
[quote] >> But mathematical expressions have ambiguities. Even human
>> beings can get confused.
Peter> Give us an example of a well-formed mathematical expression
Peter> that's ambiguous.
"1 + 1 = 1".
What do those symbols mean?
[/quote]
I've no idea. You claim it's well formed. What different ideas does it
convey? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:41pm, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
wrote:
[quote]"Nathan" == Nathan Sanders <nsand... at (no spam) williams.edu> writes:
>> >> And how would your parser interpret "sin x ^ 2"?
Antnio> The way it would see fit.
>> There is ambiguity.
Nathan> That isn't ambiguity in the linguistic sense. It's merely
Nathan> uncertainty over which formal notation system is being used.
Nathan> It's analogous to not knowing how the word "son" should be
Nathan> pronounced and what it means, merely because you don't know
Nathan> yet whether it's supposed to be French or English.
But shouldn't ideographic writing, according to PTD, be
"language"-independent? Shouldn't it communicate ideas directly without
errors?
[/quote]
Indeed it should. But you have no way of expressing those ideas but
through language.
[quote]According to such definitions, common mathematical notations do
not qualify as "ideographic". These is so much cultural-depending
factors affecting interpretation of a mathematical expression.
[/quote]
What does "cultural-depending factors" have to do with language?
[quote] Nathan> True linguistic ambiguity is completely different, and
Nathan> occurs within any given language. This kind of linguistic
Nathan> ambiguity could be lexical (1), structural (2), referential
Nathan> (3), or scopal (4):
Take "1 + 1 = 1" as an example. It is a formula in boolean algebra.
1) Lexically, the "1" doesn't refer to "one", but "true". Also, the "+"
doesn't mean "addition", but "logical or".
[/quote]
Thus showing that your formula is language-independent.
[quote]2) Structurally, I'm using infix notation. One could have equivalently
used prefix or postfix notations. Indeed, the latter are better,
because there would be no ambiguity even without using parentheses..
3) When you see: y = c_i x^i
what does the "i" refer to? Does that mean that y is the product of
"c indexed by i" and "x to the i-th power"? Hahahahaha....
Check out Einstein's notation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation
[/quote]
If those are not ideographic notations, then there must be only one
way to put them into the words of any particular language.
It is not the case, however, that there is only one way to put them
into the words of any particular language.
[quote]4) Scopal? This problem occurs frequently in formulas with free
variables. e.g. "E = m c^2". What is "c"? What is "m"? What is
"E"? Why? Which context?
Also, The set "N", the set of natural numbers, can include "0" or
exclude it, depending on context.
And if you see "x^y" in a formula, where both "x" and "y" could be
zero, it is up to the context to determine whether you should take
"x^y" to be zero or one. (See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form#The_form_00) Such a
form can appear in, e.g., the summand in the binomial theorem
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_theorem).
In the open question "P = NP?", what are P and N? Doesn't this
equation have the simple solution "P=0 or N=1"? Why is this question
so hard?
[/quote]
Thank you for example after example that mathematical notation is
ideographic and not linguistic.
Have you seen _yet_ how different this is from Chinese characters?
[quote] Nathan> The lack of these kinds of linguistic ambiguity is one of
Nathan> the ways that mathematical notation is completely unlike
Nathan> natural language.
You're too simplistic. Study more maths and you'll find this the above
is a very naive assumption about mathematical notations. Is this a myth
common among linguists who define "ideographic" that way?
[/quote]
Linguists don't worry about mathematical notation, because it doesn't
notate a human language. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:56:35 -0400, Nathan Sanders
<nsanders at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-F9F891.12563503112009 at (no spam) adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.sbcglobal.net>
in sci.lang:
[...]
[quote]True linguistic ambiguity is completely different, and
occurs within any given language. This kind of
linguistic ambiguity could be lexical (1), structural
(2), referential (3), or scopal (4):
(1) bank (financial institution, river edge)
suit (clothing, legal proceeding)
bat (flying mammal, sports equipment)
(2) I saw the lion with the binoculars.
Flying planes can be dangerous.
Jean is a French history teacher.
(3) John thinks that Bill likes his mother.
his = John's or Bill's?
(4) Mary ate lunch with the president.
the then-current president (PAST > THE)
the now-current president (THE > PAST)
I meet with a student every Wednesday.
the same student (A > EVERY)
potentially different students (EVERY > A)
[/quote]
Where do you classify 'Everyone doesn't like to ride roller
coasters'? For me it's effectively ungrammatical, but it's
certainly a common enough construction. (I have only 'Not
everyone likes ...' and 'No one likes ...'.)
[...]
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian M. Scott wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:56:35 -0400, Nathan Sanders
nsanders at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote in
news:nsanders-F9F891.12563503112009 at (no spam) adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.sbcglobal.net
in sci.lang:
[...]
True linguistic ambiguity is completely different, and
occurs within any given language. This kind of
linguistic ambiguity could be lexical (1), structural
(2), referential (3), or scopal (4):
(1) bank (financial institution, river edge)
suit (clothing, legal proceeding)
bat (flying mammal, sports equipment)
(2) I saw the lion with the binoculars.
Flying planes can be dangerous.
Jean is a French history teacher.
(3) John thinks that Bill likes his mother.
his = John's or Bill's?
(4) Mary ate lunch with the president.
the then-current president (PAST > THE)
the now-current president (THE > PAST)
I meet with a student every Wednesday.
the same student (A > EVERY)
potentially different students (EVERY > A)
Where do you classify 'Everyone doesn't like to ride roller
coasters'? For me it's effectively ungrammatical, but it's
certainly a common enough construction. (I have only 'Not
everyone likes ...' and 'No one likes ...'.)
[/quote]
Wouldn't that be a kind of scopal ambiguity (4)?
pjk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:08 pm
|
|