Re: English "another"/Conlang Question

Alex wrote:
<<
I'm a bit late to the discussion of this, I guess, but here goes: is it
really that much of an anathema to have a thing called syntax?
 >>

I haven't seen a convincing atheoretical reason yet for having
the two be different.  I haven't seen a convincing theoretical
one, either, but I think you'd need the former to really settle
the matter.

Alex (hereafter, it's always Alex):
<<
For that matter, I'm not sold on the
crucial difference between a 'rule' and a 'pattern'.  Is not this
(from a
later message)


> {X [V] <-> should X [V (oblig. Z)] <-> should be Xing [V (oblig.
> progr. Z)]}
>
a rule, if one whose applicability is limited?
 >>

Here's the difference.  A rule is a magic box that takes some
sort of input and turns it into the output:

A > [MAGIC BOX] > B

The patterns aren't really rules, but observations about the
organization of paradigms.  In a rule-based theory, you
have, in your head, a set of rules, and a set of atoms.  In a
paradigm-based theory, you just have the lexicon: lists of
words (and phrases, if you take it that far) arranged paradigmatically.
The "rules" or patterns are a way of characterizing how a
speakers fills each paradigm.  So, for example, the idea is if
you hear:

"Yesterday, I got totally gloffed."

You've then acquired some new lexical item (whose meaning
you may not know, or may have to guess at).  By its form, though,
you can enter into your personal lexicon by comparing it to
the various paradigms you've got--one of which can be
condensed in this way:

{X [V (stem)] <-> Xed [V (past, also passive part., etc.] Xs <-> [V
(3rd.sg. pres)]}

And whatever else you want to throw in there--essentially, the
great big regular verb paradigm of English.  You can then fill
up the paradigm, which looks however you want:

stem: gloff
past: gloffed
past part.: gloffed
passive part.: gloffed
3rd.sg. pres.: gloffs

And unless further evidence forces you to rethink your assumption,
you've got it set.

So, it's kind of like a rule, but these "rules" only really function
when you acquire a new phrase, and the rules themselves are
constantly modified, as you acquire new data.

I personally think (with my *extensive* background in brain
research [read: none at all]) that these generalizations that we
form are not language specific--i.e., that these analogical patterns
are applied to everything we take in, in one way or another.  If
this is something separate from the lexicon, I'd hesitate to call it
syntax, since that term seems language-specific.

In my experience, the main objection to an approach like this is
not that they really look like rules, but that they have no explanatory
power, and/or that they're purely descriptive.  I would say that
a paradigmatic approach can help to clear up a lot of the murky
areas of a given natural language (which I find to be useful), and
that the predictions you make are about how data is treated by
a speaker of a given language.  Admittedly, this area needs work.
Maybe someday.

<<
My gut-felt objection ran
deeper than that -- I think I would have objected to /kagorota/ whatever
lang it was proposed in.
 >>

I can understand that.  But would that objection vanish if suddenly
there appeared a natural language that did just that?

<<
It'd be interesting to know -- no, I understate: it's probably the
crux of
this whole matter to understand how the first instance of prefixing a
preposition (or verbs with positional senses) started.
 >>

Especially with respect to  Latin, I'd be very curious.

<<
What's a palm, btw?  Is it what I'd call a palm branch?  For me 'palm' =
'palm tree'.
 >>

"Palm" = "palm branch" or "palm tree".  I've never heard or used
the term "palm branch", though; I've always heard them referred
to (and referred to them) as palms.

<<
So (zero-derived?) associated nouns came first.  Are there any
patterns to
what sort of associated noun each verb selected that are relevant here?
 >>

Umm...I'm not sure?  How do you mean?

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/