Re: USAGE: Circumfixes
| From: | Stephen Mulraney <ataltanie@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, May 20, 2004, 16:23 |
|---|
=?win-1250?Q?Tamás_Racskó?= wrote:
>On 19 May 2004 Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@E...> wrote:
>
>
>
>>However, suppose, for the sake of argument, that in French
>>you *never* had _ne_ without _pas_, and vice versa, never had _pas_
>>without _ne_.
>>
>>
>
> My French grammar gives sentences with _ne_ without _pas_. It
>says that it's possible in literary language.
>
I can think of phrases such as "personne ne sait que..." ("no one know
that..."), which, however uses "personne". Although "personne" is one of
the class of words that's used with "ne" (like "pas"), it seems a bit
different in its behaviour to me. Can a Francophone give me an example
of "ne" without "pas" (or "personne", "rien", "jamais" or any of the
others)?
I say "personne" seems different in its behaviour because it seems very
counter-intuiutive that it should be have a negative meaning. You say
"il ne sait rien" ("he knows nothing"), yet "rien" can be used without
"ne" to mean "nothing" (and not just in "ne ... rien" constructions
where the "ne" has been dropped). Similarly with "jamais", which clearly
means "never" in all contexts, and "pas" which similarly means "not".
But are there examples of "personne" being used with a positive meaning
(that is, meaning "someone" or "a person", not "no one")? Or does
"person" actually mean unambiguously and universally "no one"?
Getting back to the subject at hand, if "personne" ever has a positive
meaning (and I ask mainly because I thought that I had an example, but
can't remember it right now), mightn't this suggest that there is indeed
some kind of circumfixion going on, in the case of "ne...pas". Yet even
so, I wouldn't expect "ne...personne" to change its meaning just because
the "ne" was elided in speech!
At this point I'm forced to stop trying to rationalise it, and to humbly
bow before indominitable Usage.
Quite apart from such usages, it's typical of spoken French to omit the
"ne" where it might be expected, so that "Il ne sait pas" becomes "Il
sait pas".
>>Of course, the fact that you can replace _pas_ with other forms
>>like _jamais_ weakens the view of them as a single unit.
>>
>>
>
> IMHO, that's the point. Word _pas_ is a simple placeholder for
>the negative "zero complement". If _pas_ would be part of the
>negative, we would expect it before _jamais_, _personne_ etc. Note
>that _jamais_ is affirmative in phrases like "a tout jamais pour
>jamais",
>
What does "a tout jamais pour jamais" mean? It's rather opaque to me,
especially, if you're suggesting, "jamais" means "always" (or "sometimes"?)
>>You sure it's not "ain't doing nothing" or "ain't done nothing"?
>>
>>
>
> Of couse, I'm not sure yet. Just "ain't do nothing" and "ain't
>doing nothing" is the same for me as an undereducated Non-
>Anglophone.
>
>
Hardly undereducated. It's not at all obvious that "ain't doing nothing"
is found, while "ain't do nothing" isn't.
Although, as John pointed out, it is found. I've never heard it, but
then, I don't live in America.
> I simply used the above as an example for double negative in
>English. Its actual form was incorrect (not considering the AAVE),
>but the content behind the form was correct.
>
> I think it would be sometimes helpful if the Anglophone list
>members would consider the essence of my text and not of its poor
>English.
>
>
Easier said than done! I think it might help if you commit more serious
errors in your usage of English. That way we'd know what to silently
correct :). Your fluency works against you in this regard, since you
don't typically make grammatical errors that can be easily spotted.
s.
--
Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of Stephen Mulraney
matter at or near the earth's surface relative to http://ataltane.net
other matter; second, telling other people ataltane@ataltane.net
to do so. -- Bertrand Russell http://livejournal.com/~ataltane
Reply