[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] repetition & anaphora (was: RE: ke'a/ce'u subscripting

In a message dated 11/3/2002 9:26:34 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@hidden.email writes:
<<
In cases where English grammar regulates the presence or absence
of referential dependency, repetition normally indicates referential
independence:

  John said that John would come.
  The man said that the man would come.

  If John is late, John will be sacked.
  If the man is late, the man will be sacked.

is read with the two NPs noncoreferential, absent some special
context or rhetorical effect. And of course that reading is even
harder to resist with:

  John loves John.
  The man loves the man.
>>

So, Britspeak IS that different from Yankspeak.  These are coreferential for me (and my grammar books) unless there is a marked stress difference in speech and some other mark in writing (though context, where two men or two Johns have been introduced in the IMMEDIATE run-up to this entence, may be enought).  This is also how matters sit at the deep level in my grammars.  "Anaphora" is used for a reason.

<<
.  But runarounds are never a reason for
> adding new vocab.

I think they are, if the result (of adding new vocab) is that the
lexical form can directly mirror the logical form.
>>
Well, yes, mirroring logical form is, of course, a reason for at least having available another form.  As xorxes has demonstrated, the other forms do lead to further problems in interpretation until their rules are clarified.  And, of course, {ce'u} does give the form correctly -- it is just an awkward reprsentation in some cases, and a hard one to use in all.