nl-kr-request@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (NL-KR Moderator Brad Miller) (03/25/88)
NL-KR Digest (3/24/88 15:06:21) Volume 4 Number 29
Today's Topics:
Pronoun drop
Submissions: NL-KR@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
Requests, policy: NL-KR-REQUEST@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 88 17:26 EST
From: Erland Sommarskog <sommar@enea.se>
Subject: Pronoun drop
Bill Poser (poser@csli.UUCP) writes:
>"Pro-drop" stands for "pronoun drop". In languages like English, the arguments
>of the verb, especially the subject, must be expressed, so that a sentence
>like "came" is ungrammatical, even if the subject can be inferred from
>context. In some languages this is not the case - the subject need not
>be expressed. Languages of this type are referred to as "Pro-Drop languages".
>The conditions under which arguments may be unexpressed and the typological
>properties of languages that permit this have been the subject of much
>research in syntactic theory, though I think that it is fair to say that
>no really adequate theory of this has emerged thus far.
I see. It was quite fun, but I have never been that fond of language
mixing. It would have been nicer, if it had all been in Catalan.
As for the conditions for whether pronouns may be dropped or not,
brings me to the next naive question. Isn't there a very simply
connection between distiguishable verb forms and dropping of pronouns?
Each such language I know of has one verb form for each combination of
person, number and tense. Latin, Polish, Spanish, Italian are some that
come to mind.
And if the verb forms are similar in some case, the pronoun is often
put in. An example is the singular of the subjonctive present in Italian.
Are there languages where you can't drop the pronoun, despite the verb
form is unique? Or drop it, even if it's not unique?
Finally I find the term "dropping" somewhat confusing. Might as well
call languages as English as "pro-taking". In old French pronouns
were generally not used, but as the verb forms became similar, the
pronouns became mandatory.
--
Erland Sommarskog
ENEA Data, Stockholm
sommar@enea.UUCP "Souvent pour s'amuser les hommes d'equipages
and it's like talking to a stranger" -- H&C.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 88 08:38 EST
From: Mark Edwards <edwards@dogie.edu>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
In article <2818@enea.se> sommar@enea.UUCP(Erland Sommarskog) writes:
:Bill Poser (poser@csli.UUCP) writes:
:>"Pro-drop" stands for "pronoun drop". In languages like English, the arguments
:>of the verb, especially the subject, must be expressed, so that a sentence
:>like "came" is ungrammatical, even if the subject can be inferred from
:>context.
:
:Are there languages where you can't drop the pronoun, despite the verb
:form is unique? Or drop it, even if it's not unique?
One might guess that if you took formal forms in these pro-dropping
languages that they might just require the pronoun. I have no evidence
though. Japanese is an example of a language that does not have
distinct forms for each person and the pronoun can be dropped. In fact
in polite forms it is more polite not to include the pronoun.
:Finally I find the term "dropping" somewhat confusing. Might as well
:call languages as English as "pro-taking". In old French pronouns
:were generally not used, but as the verb forms became similar, the
:pronouns became mandatory.
Perhaps a better name might be "nominal ellipsis", or "NP deletion".
mark
--
edwards@vms.macc.wisc.edu
UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 88 13:11 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
In article <2818@enea.se> sommar@enea.UUCP(Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>As for the conditions for whether pronouns may be dropped or not,
>brings me to the next naive question. Isn't there a very simply
>connection between distiguishable verb forms and dropping of pronouns?
>...
>Are there languages where you can't drop the pronoun, despite the verb
>form is unique? Or drop it, even if it's not unique?
>
As far as I know, your assumption that so-called pro-drop is connected to
verbal inflection is entirely correct. Languages where verbal inflection
specifies the potential form of the subject allow pronouns to be omitted.
English and French are not "pro-drop" languages because their verbal
inflections are not rich enough to render subject pronouns redundant.
Spanish and Russian are "pro-drop" languages for the opposite reason. I
feel that pro-drop can be adequately explained in this fashion. If there
are languages in which we cannot use redundancy to account for subject
omissions, then we have something interesting to explain. So I second
your question. Are there any such languages? (Note that I mean
linguistic redundancy, not pragmatic redundancy. Bill Poser correctly
noted that English forbids pro-drop even when the subject can be inferred
from context.)
>Finally I find the term "dropping" somewhat confusing. Might as well
>call languages as English as "pro-taking". In old French pronouns
>were generally not used, but as the verb forms became similar, the
>pronouns became mandatory.
I agree with you on this point as well, but "pro-drop" has come to be the
accepted term. It does seem that fewer languages require subjects than
allow their omission.
--
Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@boeing.com
uucp: {uw-june uw-beaver!ssc-vax}!bcsaic!rwojcik
address: P.O. Box 24346, MS 7L-64, Seattle, WA 98124-0346
phone: 206-865-3844
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 88 13:21 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
In article <92@dogie.edu> edwards@dogie.macc.wisc.edu ( Mark Edwards) writes:
> though. Japanese is an example of a language that does not have
> distinct forms for each person and the pronoun can be dropped. In fact
> in polite forms it is more polite not to include the pronoun.
>
David Stampe once pointed out to me that oblique reference to addressees
is a mark of politeness across all languages. It is the principal
motivation for the lack of a subject in English imperative sentences, and
it is the reason why military imperatives such as "You sit down" are
considered impolite in most contexts. It is possible that this is part of
the motivation for Japanese subject omissions.
>:Finally I find the term "dropping" somewhat confusing. Might as well
>:call languages as English as "pro-taking". In old French pronouns
>
> Perhaps a better name might be "nominal ellipsis", or "NP deletion".
Both of these terms fail to distinguish pragmatic ellipsis of subjects,
which is permitted in English, from true cases of pro-drop, which are not.
For example, you can say "Opened the door" in response to "What was it
that John did?". Pro-drop is not a good term either, but most linguists
understand what is meant by the term.
--
Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@boeing.com
uucp: {uw-june uw-beaver!ssc-vax}!bcsaic!rwojcik
address: P.O. Box 24346, MS 7L-64, Seattle, WA 98124-0346
phone: 206-865-3844
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 88 17:36 EST
From: Bill Poser <poser@csli.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
It is true that there are a bunch of languages in which the possibility of
omitting the subject is tied to the availability of identifying
morphology on the verb, and a lot of work in syntax has been based on this
idea. However, a problem arises with languages like Japanese that have
no agreement morphology of any sort (subject honorific marking in Japanese
doesn't really behave like agreement in other languages, and in any case
does not provide the same amount of identification of the subject
that person and number marking do in the languages that have it, so it
probably shouldn't count for this purpose) but that freely allow the
omission of the subject. There are quite a few languages like this.
So the functional principle that the subject can be omitted only to the extent
that it is recoverable from context cannot be right.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 88 23:19 EST
From: Danny Sharpe <dts@pyr.gatech.EDU>
Subject: Pronoun drop in English
Now I wish I'd paid more attention to the discussion of pro-drop languages
all along. I include a relevant quote at the end that states that English
forbids pronoun dropping even when the subject can be inferred from context.
This strikes me as a statement made from a prescriptive standpoint instead
of descriptive. Consider this utterance:
I like eating. <pause> Makes me feel good.
If you say this, especially if in the right tone of voice, not only will
you be understood but some listeners won't even notice that the second
sentence has no explicit subject. The subject is inferred from context
and the fact that the verb is in the third person singular. So at least
in certain restricted situations you can have a perfectly good English
sentence without a subject. (Goodness being measured by how well the
purpose of communication is served rather than whether it meets a certain
set of prescribed rules.)
-Danny
In article <4453@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>As far as I know, your assumption that so-called pro-drop is connected to
>verbal inflection is entirely correct. Languages where verbal inflection
>specifies the potential form of the subject allow pronouns to be omitted.
>English and French are not "pro-drop" languages because their verbal
>inflections are not rich enough to render subject pronouns redundant.
>Spanish and Russian are "pro-drop" languages for the opposite reason. I
>feel that pro-drop can be adequately explained in this fashion. If there
>are languages in which we cannot use redundancy to account for subject
>omissions, then we have something interesting to explain. So I second
>your question. Are there any such languages? (Note that I mean
>linguistic redundancy, not pragmatic redundancy. Bill Poser correctly
>noted that English forbids pro-drop even when the subject can be inferred
>from context.)
----------
"Have you hugged your parents today?"
Danny Sharpe, Ga Tech Box 34832, Atlanta, GA, 30332
Internet: dts@pyr.gatech.edu
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!dts
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 88 09:01 EST
From: Rob Bernardo <rob@pbhyf.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
In article <2849@csli.STANFORD.EDU> poser@csli.UUCP (Bill Poser) lets
his "linguo-centricity" show (don't mean to pick on him, but he *does*
provide a good example :-) [Now that last was a subject-less sentence
in English!]):
+It is true that there are a bunch of languages in which the possibility of
+omitting the subject is tied to the availability of identifying
^^^^^^^^
+morphology on the verb, and a lot of work in syntax has been based on this
+idea.
We have been using words here like "drop" and "omit" wrt the subject of
a clause. These imply that there is some canonical form of a clause in *those*
languages and it has a subject. One of the first principles of linguistic
analysis is to look at a language *on its own grounds*. Since we are
not all generative grammarians here, we really ought to stick to the
observable.
+However, a problem arises with languages like Japanese that have
+no agreement morphology of any sort (subject honorific marking in Japanese
+doesn't really behave like agreement in other languages, and in any case
+does not provide the same amount of identification of the subject
+that person and number marking do in the languages that have it, so it
+probably shouldn't count for this purpose) but that freely allow the
+omission of the subject.
Sounds like you are assuming that that the person and number would
have to be deduced from the verb inflection and context and then from
the person and number the actual referent is understood. However,
maybe Japanese works different from our familiar European "pro-drop"
languages. Maybe the referent of the would-be subject is deduced from
the verb inflection and context directly without an intermediate step.
Maybe the subject honorific marking gives just enough information
about the would-be subject to deduce the referent.
+So the functional principle that the subject can be omitted only to the extent
+that it is recoverable from context cannot be right.
I suspect you are thinking to much in terms of recovering *the words* that
would express the subject. If you think of recovering the *referent*,
i.e. if we replace "the subject" above with "the referent of the would-be
subject", your functional principle accounts for Japanese.
--
Rob Bernardo
uucp: [backbone]!pacbell!rob
residence: (415) 827-4301 (Concord, CA)
business: (415) 823-2417 (San Ramon, CA)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 88 13:51 EST
From: Mark Edwards <edwards@dogie.edu>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
In article <2973@pbhyf.UUCP> rob@pbhyf.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) writes:
:Sounds like you are assuming that that the person and number would
:have to be deduced from the verb inflection and context and then from
:the person and number the actual referent is understood. However,
:maybe Japanese works different from our familiar European "pro-drop"
:languages. Maybe the referent of the would-be subject is deduced from
:the verb inflection and context directly without an intermediate step.
:Maybe the subject honorific marking gives just enough information
:about the would-be subject to deduce the referent.
There is one problem however, the honorifics are not required. In
everyday speech with friends on the same social level, one is free to
omit the subject. Honorifics do give more information about what the
subject is when they are used, but not always.
An interesting side note is that japanese which is usually a SOV
language, may become SVO or OVS in speech. For instance:
1. sushi ga suki yo, watashi wa. (Sushi like, I)
for
2. watashi wa sushi ga suki yo. ( I sushi like.)
for SVO
3. watashi ga suki yo, sushi wa. ( I like, sushi.)
This phenomena probably serves to clarify or qualify the sentence. If
you listen to normal conversation you'll hear "dare ga?" (who? )
and (watashi ga?) (me?) occassionally. This is likely because the
subject of the sentence could not be infered, or the listener did not
want to assume that he was the subject of the sentence.
mark
b
--
edwards@vms.macc.wisc.edu
UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 88 15:22 EST
From: Bill Poser <poser@csli.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
I don't think the point about my "linguo-centricity" in referring to
absent arguments as "ommitted" or "dropped" is really fair. To begin with,
my own language speciality is Japanese, which is a language in which this
"dropping" is indeed the norm, so I am quite familiar with the
phenomenon. The problem is simply that we need some way of referring to
this phenomenon, and this has become the conventional way of doing it.
I didn't invent the terminology. Attempts to evade this way of talking about
it seem to produce long and ugly circumlocutions.
The point about honorific morphology is a good one, but I don't think
that it provides much identifying information in the usual case. To be
sure, in rare circumstances it can narrow the referent down pretty far.
When I studies Classical Japanese we began by using a Japanese high-school
textbook that contained short (paragraph length) excerpts from classical
texts, which meant that we didn't get very much context. The subjects were
typically absent. In one case (I think it was a passage from the diary of
Lady Murasaki) we concluded that the subject had to be the Empress because
the amount of honorific morphology on the verb was so great as virtually
to require the subject to be a member of the Imperial Family. But this
is a special case, and Classical Japanese had more elaborate honorific
morphology than the modern language does. Honorific morphology doesn't
provide much information since its use indicates only that the subject
is exalted. That doesn't necessarily tell you which particpant in a
discourse is involved. Moreover, the conditions on its use are such that
a very large part of the time one doesn't use subject honorifics, and the
absence of honorific morphology conveys information only when
(a) the participants in the discourse and the other potential subjects
differ in status and (b) there is reason to believe that the speaker would
use subject honorifics if there were anyone exalted around. This just doesn't
happen that large a percentage of the time.
So it is true that honorific morphology conveys some information about the
subject, but I don't think that it conveys nearly as much as person and
number marking. In any case, Japanese may just be a bad example. Chinese
has comparable properties with regard to omission of arguments, but it
does not have subject honorific morphology. I believe that there are other
examples of this type but cannot cite them off the top of my head.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 88 11:49 EST
From: David Govett <govett@avsd.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop in Japanese
>
> Sounds like you are assuming that that the person and number would
> have to be deduced from the verb inflection and context and then from
> the person and number the actual referent is understood.
Except when keigo (honorific language) is used, person cannot
usually be deduced from verb inflection in Japanese. (I say "usually"
because I hate to generalize without giving it more thought.)
Number can never be deduced from verb inflection.
This has caused me considerable consternation over the years while
translating Japanese. Even Japanese patents can be vague about number
and subject.
For example, in an article on computers, it might say
Connect [it] to the pin[s?].
Even the context may not explicitly state what is connected to how many
pins.
In such cases, one must bring relevant context to the translation
(i.e., be familiar with the topic).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 88 12:08 EST
From: David Govett <govett@avsd.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
> the absence of honorific morphology conveys information only when
> (a) the participants in the discourse and the other potential subjects
> differ in status and (b) there is reason to believe that the speaker would
> use subject honorifics if there were anyone exalted around. This just doesn't
> happen that large a percentage of the time.
Do you mean "the presence of honorific morphology..."?
In any case, keigo is useful only when the relative status of all
participants in a conversation is known. That is why Japanese are
so obsessive about exchanging business cards or determining one's
university/company. That is also why, when asked what they do, they
will often give the name of the company they work for (i.e., their
affiliation) whereas an American would give his profession (e.g.,
computer programmer). (There is a corporate status hierarchy in Japan.)
They can be quite tongue tied without status information.
But, like all generalizations--including this one--it makes for
an interesting discussion but has limited practical application.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 88 12:27 EST
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
In article <2849@csli.STANFORD.EDU> poser@csli.UUCP (Bill Poser) writes:
>It is true that there are a bunch of languages in which the possibility of
>omitting the subject is tied to the availability of identifying
>morphology on the verb, and a lot of work in syntax has been based on this
>idea. However, a problem arises with languages like Japanese that have
>...
>So the functional principle that the subject can be omitted only to the extent
>that it is recoverable from context cannot be right.
Arnold Zwicky has informed me that German and Chinese are solid
counterexamples to my simplistic functional principle. He feels that
German has sufficient morphology to predict pronouns, but it forbids
pro-drop. Chinese lacks the morphology, but it allows pro-drop. I do not
know how well these generalizations hold up for these languages, but I do
have to admit that there is more to it than redundancy in the morphology.
It is probably the case that no single principle is going to explain the
patterns of subject omission across all languages. I personally favor
functionalist explanations because I feel that language has evolved for
communicative function. There may be some purely formal explanation for
the phenomenon of pro-drop, but I don't see one. Until someone can show that
pro-drop distribution correlates with some nonbehavioral trait of
languages, it is perfectly legitimate to seek explanations in
communicative function.
In the case of Japanese, I have already offered a second principle that
might underly subject omissions. It seems to be true across all languages
that politeness requires oblique reference or omission. Witness all of
the languages that use 3rd person for polite reference to 2nd person
(Hindi, German, Spanish...). It has already been stated that subject
omission in Japanese correlates with respect toward the referent. (I rely
on others to verify this claim, since I have never studied the language
formally.) That would make Japanese pro-drop similar to subject omissions
in English imperatives.
My gut feeling about pro-drop is that the majority of languages which
allow it have rich verbal morphology. There is some correlation, even if
one can find exceptions. So redundancy of form is probably going to have
to count somewhere in a satisfactory explanation of pro-drop distribution.
There is the further complication that pro-drop languages require subject
pronouns under certain (entirely pragmatic?) conditions and non-pro-drop
languages allow omissions under certain conditions. It may be the case
that we have a continuum of languages, rather than a dichotomy, with
respect to this phenomenon. This is what we would expect if more than one
principle underlies it.
Finally, I want to point out that redundancy--the standard functionalist
explanation for omissions--is always counterbalanced by perspicuity--the
explanation for insertions. The opposing forces are nicely discussed in
Donegan and Stampe's "The Study of Natural Phonology" (D. Dinnsen, ed.
Current Approaches to Phonological Theory. Indiana U. Press. 1979).
I expect that their functional dichotomy between lenitions (speaker-based
weakening/deletion) and fortitions (hearer-based strengthening/insertion)
has its correlates in processes governing syntax. So my claim that
pro-drop correlates with redundancy is too simplistic, even from a
functionalist perspective. We might just as well call English and French
"pro-insertion" languages. For Russian and Spanish, we can ask "Under
what conditions are speakers required to insert subject pronouns?"
--
Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@boeing.com
uucp: {uw-june uw-beaver!ssc-vax}!bcsaic!rwojcik
address: P.O. Box 24346, MS 7L-64, Seattle, WA 98124-0346
phone: 206-865-3844
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 88 16:00 EST
From: Greg Lee <lee@uhccux.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop in English
From article <5217@pyr.gatech.EDU>, by dts@pyr.gatech.EDU (Danny Sharpe):
" Now I wish I'd paid more attention to the discussion of pro-drop languages
" all along. I include a relevant quote at the end that states that English
" forbids pronoun dropping even when the subject can be inferred from context.
" This strikes me as a statement made from a prescriptive standpoint instead
" of descriptive. Consider this utterance:
"
" I like eating. <pause> Makes me feel good.
" ...
Seems pro-drop is maybe not so uncommon. Don't know if everyone accepts
such contructions, though. Understand what I'm saying? Maybe not.
Trying to go on dropping my subjects. Doesn't seem hard. Could go
on like this for days. Love those profound insights of GB, don't you?
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 88 09:38 EST
From: John Chambers <jc@minya.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
> English and French are not "pro-drop" languages because their verbal
> inflections are not rich enough to render subject pronouns redundant.
> Spanish and Russian are "pro-drop" languages for the opposite reason.
> ... English forbids pro-drop even when the subject can be inferred
> from context.)
>
What? English not a pro-drop language? Around where I grew up, folks
called their langauge "English", but pronouns were often omitted. There
are lots of folks in the USA that find this normal:
Going to the store? (Are you going to the store.)
Going to the store. (I'm going to the store.)
Need anything? (Do you need anything?)
Be back soon. (I'll be back soon.)
Be back soon? (Will you be back soon.)
See 'ya. (I'll see you.)
Wanna split? (Do you want to leave?)
KnowhutImean? [Excercise for the reader :-]
Of course, my 5th-grade teacher wouldn't have approved of such sloppy
speech; hardly a linguistically-interesting observation.
Note that it's mostly 1st and 2nd person pronouns that are dropped;
can't think of many 3rd person cases.
As for Russian, well, in my meager couple years of study, I got the
distinct impression that, while pronouns are frequently omitted, it
isn't really noticeably more common than in my native English dialect.
This despite the fact that Russian verbs are rather heavily inflected.
Think American English and Russian are good counterexamples?
--
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 88 11:29 EST
From: morgan@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop in English
From Greg Lee:
Seems pro-drop is maybe not so uncommon. Don't know if everyone accepts
such contructions, though. Understand what I'm saying? Maybe not.
Trying to go on dropping my subjects. Doesn't seem hard. Could go
on like this for days. Love those profound insights of GB, don't you?
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Gotcha! There's a big difference here that makes English unlike so-called
pro-drop languages. This kind of truncation in English (discussed at
length in a paper by Sue Schmerling, I'll get the reference if you're
interested) is restricted to 'root' clauses, unlike pro-drop languages,
where it is unrestricted. Thus 'John knows that am hungry' is not normal
English, but would be word-for-word ok in pro-drop lgs. Likewise
'This is the book (that) want to read',
'Bought this book because seems interesting,'
'Since don't feel good, (I) will stay home today'
etc. ad nauseam.
Further, the English truncation is restricted to very informal style,
while pro-drop is style-independent; in fact it's preferred, unless
some kind of emphasis or focus of the (referent of) the omitted
pronoun is intended.
Finally, it's not really pro-drop in English, but some kind of
initial-word(s) truncation; e.g. (Have you) got a match, and
your own (Do you) understand what I'm saying?
(point is, it's not just pronouns that are omitted).
In short, these cases of omission in English are very different from
so-called pro-drop, in spite of some superficial similarities.
That doesn't constitute support for gb, of course.
In fact any theory that says pro-drop is tightly linked to verb
morphology is just dead wrong (I don't think gb does say that
any more). Unless, of course, you posit all sorts of 'invisible'
morphology to make the correlation hold up, which is downright
silly.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 88 12:14 EST
From: Mark Edwards <edwards@dogie.edu>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
In article <485@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes:
:> English and French are not "pro-drop" languages because their verbal
:> inflections are not rich enough to render subject pronouns redundant.
:> Spanish and Russian are "pro-drop" languages for the opposite reason.
:> ... English forbids pro-drop even when the subject can be inferred
:> from context.)
:>
:What? English not a pro-drop language? Around where I grew up, folks
:called their langauge "English", but pronouns were often omitted. There
:are lots of folks in the USA that find this normal:
: Going to the store? (Are you going to the store.)
....
I think the more formal Linguists would argue that those sentences
are derived from the stuff you have in "()". Also that there is a very
limited number of cases where this phenomena can happen, thus pulling
a Chomsky and brushing it off as not applicable or something like that.
I would be inclined to argue with you that as you point out English
does exhibit said "pro-drop". I can think of many more:
Washing the car?
Taking a shower now?
Wow, cooking up a big feast!
It'll be interesting to see what the more formal linguist think.
mark
--
edwards@vms.macc.wisc.edu
UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 88 14:27 EST
From: "J. A. \"Biep\" Durieux" <biep@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: French can drop pronouns (Was: Pronoun drop)
In article <4453@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>English and French are not "pro-drop" languages because their verbal
>inflections are not rich enough to render subject pronouns redundant.
But in French one *can* drop pronouns! It's not very common, and gives
a very poetic (or would-be poetic) sense, but it can be done.
My (lack of) "feeling" for French may make me err in the example, but I
guess a poet might write:
Dans le village vert suis ne',
Comme enfant y ai joue',
Comme jeun'homme suis marie',
Toute ma vie ai habite'.
Sorry for both my English and my French..
--
Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
Their utter materialism is proven by the fact
they say "nobody" when they mean "no person".
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************