Re: Universal Translation Language

Mathias, what you write is usually interesting, but often contains terms
that at least I am unfamiliar with... take for instance the message round=
ing=20
off this mail. Is this simply due to you being French, and having to tran=
slate
everything, or, do you take your terms from a school of linguistics that =
I am
unfamiliar with? Sure, I can find explanations of terms like 'attributive=
' and
'equative' in my copy of "A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistic=
s" by=20
R. L Trask (hereby recommended to all), but he doesn't mention in what br=
anch=20
of linguistics this originated, and gives no context whatsoever.

So in what books did you pick up these terms, and if they are in French o=
nly,
can you recommend a good French -> English linguistic dictionary?

Oh btw, Fate permitting, I now have a minor in linguistics. The linguisti=
cs=20
department of my university (http://www.ntnu.no) concentrates on pragmati=
cs
(Relationally so), semantics (mostly Montague), syntax (HPSG now, but for=
merly=20
one of Chomsky's strongholds), African languages (lotsa classes on Swahil=
i here)
and that section of CompLing that uses the computer as a tool for linguis=
tics,=20
and not the other way around :). Just so that my perspective on things is=
 known.


tal.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
* Lassailly@aol.com (Lassailly@aol.com) [990530 20:41]:
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 29/05/99 19:15:15  , Marcos a =E9crit :
/snip question on "white horse" paradigma/
> well, that's another problem because i don't know one word of Chinese ;=
-).=20
> But i'll try to explain it as well as i can :
> In the 18th century, European grammarians considered that in "white hor=
se",=20
> adjective "white" was "subjected" to noun "horse" : "horse" could "stan=
d by=20
> itself" (as a noun) while "white" couldn't (as an adjective). There was=
 a=20
> kind of hierarchy between attributive and substantive PoS (noun / adjec=
tive).=20
> For Chinese grammarians, in "white horse" neither "white" nor "horse" w=
ould=20
> prevail on another : "the horse that is not attached to the white is a =
horse=20
> and the white that is not attached to the horse is white".
> Nowadays, we know that a noun cannot "stand by itself" and must fit int=
o a=20
> predicate-argument pair however implicit it is. And we know that an=20
> "adjective" is only the attributive form of a concept while a "noun" is=
 its=20
> substantive form.
/snip "bonam fishumero" and other examples/