Re: Adjectives, Particles, and This ( etc ), and Conjunctions...

At 10:03 pm -0500 15/1/01, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
>
>Or like Greek, which has *three* demonstratives: (1) _hode'_, which
>corresponds to your _dhaz_; (2) _hou^tos_, which is somewhere between the
>English "this" and "that"; (3) _ekei^nos_, which is "that".
Or like Latin which has (1) _hic_ corresponding to _dhaz_; (2) _is_ used
much like Greek _hoûtos_ (or French _ce_, _cette_ etc); (3) _iste_ which is
'that [near the person address, connecting with or pertaining to the person
addressed (whether in speech or writing)]'; (3) _ille_ = 'that [remote in
space or time from speaker and addressee]'

[....]
>Hmm. Greek has particles whereas English doesn't. So it *is* a linguistic
>category proper. I'm not sure what's the precise definition of "particle",
>though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At 7:28 pm -0800 15/1/01, Marcus Smith wrote:
[...]
>
>English does have particles. They are the "prepositions" that don't modify
>anything.
 i.e. not "prepositions" since they are not preposited before anything  :)

>"Sally tore the letter up."
>"John and Peter threw the ball around."
>"Emily put the bag down."
>
>>  So it *is* a linguistic
>>category proper. I'm not sure what's the precise definition of "particle",
>>though.
>
>Particles is not a real category. It is a catch-phrase linguists use to
>describe independent that don't fit into the other classifications.
Yep - that's about it.

David Crystal defines 'particle' thus in his "A Dictionary of Linguistics
and Phonetics":
"particle (1) A term used in GRAMMATICAL description to refer to an
INVARIABLE ITEM with grammatical FUNCTION, especially one which does not
readily fit into a standard classification of PARTS OF SPEECH; often
abbbreviated a _PRT_ or _part_.  In English, for example, the marker of the
INFINITIVE, _to_, is often called a particle because, despite its surface
similarity to a PREPOSITION, it really has nothing in common with it.
Likewise, the unique characteristics of _not_ have prompted some to label
it a 'NEGATIVE particle', and the units in PHRASAL VERBS are often termed
'verbal particles'."

The 'verbal particle' units BTW are, as Marcus will know, his
"non-prepositions" in his three sentences above.
----------------------------------------------------------------

So, to revert to what Eruanno wrote in the first mail of this thread at
12:11 am +0000 on 16/1/01:
[.....]
>
>= PARTICLES =====================================================
>
>Could someone give me an example a langauge without particles?
Nope - I can't think of any.

>I don't know if I HAVE TO have them, for if not, I don't want them.
I don't know if, strictly speakinng, you HAVE TO have them.  But I guess
your language will have quite a few invariable words and my guess is that
they will not all fall neatly in the traditional 'parts of speech'.

>What uses do particles have?
Many and various - and the pesky things have a habit of being among the
most useful little words in any language  :)

Ray.



=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================