Re: THEORY: more questions

John Cowan wrote:
> Stephen Mulraney scripsit:
>
>
>>The verb 'write' takes a direct object alright, but one which
>>refers to what's written. Obviously the American verb can do
>>this too, but the rightpondian version definitely requires a
>>'to' to introduce the recipient.
>
>
> You can't say "Write me a letter"?

Yes. I've just realised this, and mentioned it in a separate post
(in response to Keith) that's somewhere between my ISP's SMTP server
and your inbox. But "write me when you get there" is definitely way
beyond the Pale

 >  I suspect that the "me"
> in "Write me" is still an IO, but this IO without DO is
> lexically specific.   We have:
>
>         Write a letter.                 Sing a song.
>         Write a letter to me.           Sing a song to me.
>         Write me a letter.              Sing me a song.
>         Write me.                       *Sing me.
.

I'd parse this Forring Construction similarly, though of course my
perception of it may not be reasonable. But the point is that, for
whatever reason, in Rightpondian English (AFAIK, dialects excepted,
E&OE, etc) _write_ isn't parallel with _sing_, _tell_, or the others.

I wonder when this developed, though. I'm sure it wasn't present in,
say, the 14th Century (though I can't think of an example offhand).

>>ObConlang: ... nah... wait till I'm ready :)
> This is one of those features that no one would dare introduce into a
> conlang for fear of being absurd.
It is, and I think it shows that these YA[E/D/tlh][P/D/G]Ts are good for
something: teaching us brazen inventors of languages humility :)

--
She wolde weep, if that she saugh a mous        Stiofán Ó Maoilbreanainn
Kaught in a trappe, if it were deed or bledde.     ataltane@ataltane.net
       -- Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, GP.144-145

I hope I got *that* one right :)