Re: CHAT: EU allumettes (was: Re: THEORY/CHAT: Talmy, Jackendoff and Matchboxes
| From: | Mark P. Line <mark@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, May 4, 2004, 0:03 |
|---|
Tommie L Powell said:
> And Rosta wrote:
>
>> Politically, of course. But not linguistically. I think it is
>> instructive to realize that a language that has the
>> expressive capabilities of a natlang but that is
>> unambiguous is linguistically achievable.
>
> Actually, there are some natlangs that are very nearly
> impossible to make ambiguous statements in (without
> violating mandatory rules of grammar). Czech is one
> -- so the Czechs have become adept at sneaking
> ambiguity into sentences by slurring key words (so that
> listeners can imagine that something else is being said)!
I assume that for a language to be unambiguous means that every possible
utterance either has a single reading or is "ungrammatical" (which term
would have to be given a referent by your favorite brand of theory). In
that case, the language would have to be devoid of polysemous lexemes,
even if the grammar were such that *syntactical* ambiguities do not occur.
I find it extremely hard to believe that Czech or any other natlang is
completely devoid of polysemous lexemes.
-- Mark
Reply