Re: Theory about the evolution of languages

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:22:21 +0200, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:41:03 -0500, Mark P. Line <mark@...>
>wrote:
>> somebody who's a native speaker of the standard language should
>> answer: what if the title is 'Herr' instead of 'Onkel'? I know most
>> people where I lived would say 'Herr Enterichs Millionen' when they were
>> trying to mimic the standard language
>
>That's what I'd say, too.
>
>> is this supposed to be 'Herrn Enterichs Millionen' in standard?
>
>Uh... now you've made me unsure.
>
>A quick google for "Herrn Müllers" finds quite a few hits (several
>hundred, though not thousands of them -- but more than for "Herr
>Müllers"), both for "ART NOUN Herrn Müllers" and for "Herrn Müllers
>NOUN", so you may well be right.
Not a very good way to find out what the standard is, but it's right, the
standard is _Herrn Müllers_.

>However, if that's the "correct" grammar in the standard, I'd say it's
>at least slightly marked as +formal. Not sure whether "Herr Müllers X"
>is wrong, but it's certainly what quite a few people would say in
>everyday speech.
Maybe. In Switzerland, we don't use standard German in everyday speech.


On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:41:03 -0500, Mark P. Line <mark@...> wrote:

>John Cowan said:
>>> If I understand you correctly, you're saying the following: If it's the
>>> noun in apposition that bears the ending, not the one it's 'apposed'
>>> to, then this (kinda unmoored) ending can be called a 'clitic'. Like
>>> this, the German genitive ending in _Onkel Dagoberts Millionen_ is a
>>> clitic suffix, but in _die Millionen unseres Onkels Dagobert_, it's
>>> not a clitic suffix.
>>
>> I don't think it's a clitic in either case, actually; it's clear that the
>> second example is an apposition, but not so clear that the first one is.
>> "Onkel Dagobert" may be seen as a compound name, but not so "Dagobert(s)
>> Onkel".
>
>Interesting question about 'Onkel Dagoberts Millionen'. It's tempting to
>consider the -s a clitic because it seems to be attaching to 'Onkel
>Dagobert'. But because the -s is a perfectly good genitive suffix on names
>in clearer cases, I think the description would be simpler if you found a
>way to explain why 'Onkel' doesn't have to take the genitive suffix as
>well. This type of NP (title + name) is unique in other ways, so I assume
>that's part of the answer.
Probably yes.

g_0ry@_ˆs:
j. 'mach' wust