Re: CHAT: EU allumettes (was: Re: THEORY/CHAT: Talmy, Jackendoff and Matchboxes

Mark P. Line wrote:

>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.
>
>
Surely the truth of the issue lies somewhere between these two extremes.
I don't think Tommie was intending to suggest that there exists some
theoretical construct by means of which Czech could be judged genuinely
unambiguous. He does point out an illustration (the slurring of words)
which suggests, if true, that whatever is going on regularly affects
speakers' ability to speak ambiguously, at least in some commonly met
circumstances. Certainly very interesting, but hardly so unbelievable, no?

s.

--
To be sure                              Stephen Mulraney
  to be sure                            ataltane@ataltane.net

Reply