nl-kr-request@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (NL-KR Moderator Brad Miller) (02/16/88)
NL-KR Digest (2/16/88 00:42:14) Volume 4 Number 18
Today's Topics:
Re: Ambiguity in 1st person plural
Re: English and Japanese, a coinciding topic
A Plea (Was Re: words order in English and Japanese)
Re: words order in English and Japanese
Submissions: NL-KR@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
Requests, policy: NL-KR-REQUEST@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 88 10:06 EST
From: Alex Colvin <mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Ambiguity in 1st person plural
Many languages distinguish 1st person plural exclusive (me & others, but
not you) from inclusive (you & me & maybe others).
One I know of is Cree, an Algonquin language spoken across much of
Canada. Cheyenne, another Algonquin language of the Great Plains,
shares this. I assume it's generic to the family.
An old story tells of the missionary who sermonized "we are all sinners"
to his audience, using the wrong form.
Incidentally, Algonquin divides things into animate & inanimate, instead
of masculine, feminine, neuter. Inanimate things cannot take active
verbs.
Benjamin Franklin advocated making Algonquin the language of the
Republic. Where would we be now?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 88 11:33 EST
From: Mark Meyer <mmeyer@mips.csc.ti.com>
Subject: Re: Ambiguity in 1st person plural
In article <2144@russell.STANFORD.EDU> goldberg@russell.UUCP (Jeffrey Goldberg) writes:
>In article <186@wundt.psy.vu.nl> sjaak@wundt.psy.vu.nl (Sjaak Schuurman) writes:
>>Do there exist any natural languages in which this ambiguity [whether
>>first person plural includes or excludes the addressee] is solved in
>>a syntactical way, i.e. do they distinguish two forms, one including
>>the addressed object, and one excluding this object?
>There are plenty of languages that distinguish between first
>person plural INCLUSIVE and first person plural EXCLUSIVE.
>These are common in the languages of Australia (along with a
>singular/dual/plural distintion)
Hawaiian also has inclusive/exclusive "we" and singular/dual/plural.
>Jeff Goldberg Internet: goldberg@russell.stanford.edu
--
Mark Meyer USENET: {ut-sally!im4u,convex!smu,sun!texsun}!ti-csl!mmeyer
Texas Instruments, Inc. CSNET : mmeyer@TI-CSL
(SET! TI-RESPONSIBLE-FOR-MSG? #!FALSE)
"...Now, what can I do for you three gentlemen?...AAAAAAA!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 88 16:04 EST
From: Anderson <krista@ihlpa.ATT.COM>
Subject: Re: Ambiguity in 1st person plural
> In article <186@wundt.psy.vu.nl> sjaak@wundt.psy.vu.nl (Sjaak Schuurman) writes:
> >Do there exist any natural languages in which this ambiguity [whether
> >first person plural includes or excludes the addressee] is solved in
> >a syntactical way, i.e. do they distinguish two forms, one including
> >the addressed object, and one excluding this object?
The Cherokee language has quite a few pronouns, among them different
words (or syllables) for you-and-I, you-and-another, I-and-another,
you-and-I-and-another. I think it may also distinguish between more
than dual, such as I-and-others.
Navajo does not explicitly include or exclude the addressee, but it
does have dual (we-both) and plural (we-all) forms which may cut out
some abiguity. Some of the coming and going verbs also have
distributive forms (we-each).
Krista Anderson
--
ihnp4!ihlpa!krista
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 88 21:19 EST
From: David Stampe <stampe@uhccux.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Ambiguity in 1st person plural
The exclusive/inclusive distinction occurs also in all the Munda
languages of India, and most of their cousins the Mon-Khmer languages
of South-East Asia. In Munda, however, some languages make the
distinction not in the pronoun, but only in the verb's subject
agreement system. For example, in the Orissan language Sora:
@nlEn @- jom- t- ay
we pl. eat nonpast 1-person
Let's (exclusive) eat.
@nlEn jom- t- @be
we eat nonpast 1-pl.-inclusive
Let's (inclusive) eat.
It's interesting that it is the inclusive here that has a formation
that is special compared to the rest of the conjugation. Probably
that's because the -@be suffix is etymologically from the pronoun
*a-pen `you plural' (Sora amben, corrupted by the singular am `thou').
There are also a few languages of SE Asia that add an exclusive vs
inclusive distinction in the 2nd person plural, i.e. distinguishing
between addressees-only and the addressees-plus-some-third-person(s)
referred to -- you (but not them) vs you (including them). I recall
seeing such a citation in a book published about ten years ago on
pronoun systems of a fair sample of the world's languages, the
author's name was Forchhammer or Forchheimer I think. (We need a
network bibliographic file server, don't we? When will we be able
to take this over from MLA and UNESCO?).
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 88 01:25 EST
From: Martin Taylor <mmt@dciem.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Ambiguity in 1st person plural
Among all the positive anwers to the original question as to whether
there were any languages that distinguish first-person-plural inclusive
from exclusive, no-one has mentioned any Indo-European languages. Are
there any that make this distinction? All the positive answers have been
from around the Indian Ocean or N. American, so far as I remember.
--
Martin Taylor
....uunet!{mnetor|utzoo}!dciem!mmt
mmt@zorac.arpa
Magic is just advanced technology ... so is intelligence. Before computers,
the ability to do arithmetic was proof of intelligence. What proves
intelligence now? Obviously, it is what we can do that computers can't.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 88 22:49 EST
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <goldberg@csli.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ambiguity in 1st person plural
In article <2644@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes:
>Among all the positive anwers ...
I think you are right about IE, but I recall at least two examples
mentioned that were not "from around the Indian Ocean or N.
American". Chamorro (Guam) which I mentioned, and Quechua (SA)
which some else mentioned maintain the inclusive/exclusive
distinction. I think that there were other examples as well.
jeff goldberg
(note new address)
--
Jeff Goldberg Internet: goldberg@csli.stanford.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 88 21:11 EST
From: Clive Steward <clive@drutx.ATT.COM>
Subject: Re: English and Japanese, a coinciding topic
in article <161@blic.BLI.COM>, inspect@blic.BLI.COM (Mfg Inspection) says:
>
> decision to write what I did. Ignoring the facts in favor of maintaining a
> pet theory is arrogant and specious and bad research. However, it was rude
> of me to point that out, and I apologise.
This comes in a very fairly written answer, and surely Mr. Nakashima would
appreciate it. For myself, thank you, for the integrity. And I apologize
for harshness, sincerely.
> Even the implication, my own inference if you prefer, that one group is over-
> all superior to another is repugnant [...]
This is interesting, and maybe it matters much to 'ai', among other things.
I'll by the way try to keep from referring too closely to currently read
thoughts of Czeslaw Milosz (Nobel poet, writing from California*), which
seem provoking over a similar area.
Perhaps a place to start might be with trying the idea that even all 'high'
cultures may be more oriented to their least common denominator than we
commonly consider. And then that even among the 'educated' of us, the
tendency is for most persons to reflect less than the deepest wisdom of their
background(s)' best accomplishments.
With such an attitude, we could see that a young Asiatic's arrogation
of universal views might be completely analogous to a young Westerner's
apparent egocentrism. It seems too that in neither pole of culture do
many escape the bounds of such first steps; rather turn right at the
first surprise.
>> Perhaps there is something really different about the organization of
>> information from generality to heuristics, as it is done in the east.
>
> No argument. But the farmer/hunter premise is invalid.
Yes, it seems it is. You point out truthfully, one can learn through
criticism, and certainly this person gave the opportunity for that.
What I wonder, is how much more can be learned from wiser reflection,
from those who are wiser in the moment.
And how much we stifle, by insisting on the 'rational (or it's surrogate
semantic, scientific' as the grounding point. None of us learn well or
easily this way, except as a skill, at least I personally believe. It is,
simply, a skill.
Perhaps the 'common man' is truly foolish to refuse learning it better.
But why does he?
Perhaps kind, is right.
>> Perhaps this is interesting to someone doing creative work. Even in
>> the positivist side of ai technology.
>
> The 10% inspiration is laudable, but the 90% perspiration is required to
> make the difference between day-dreaming and research. I know, I am a day-
> dreamer and diletante; [continued below]
Well, I'm probably far less a properly educated researcher than you.
In fact, I guess my specialty is simply making things work. As an
example, at present an actually successful natural language system.
It's built from an awareness of some things through poetry, and a patterning
of a total environment, so that a technology can accomplish a goal.
I'm informed that the technology is crude. Is the thought? Is this
important? Because the results are there, and they are there specifically
because of a very practical approach, which conciously, though 'vaguely'
considered a wide field of need and usage.
I can tell you right now that the method wouldn't be of any interest to
mathematical thinkers who want to know 'how' to do such a thing. And I (most
sincerely) laud them on their particular accomplishments I can and have used.
I also suspect one reason it works is that I was pretty concerned that
it make the lives of those who use it, more interesting. Really.
> knowing this forces me to research ideas before offering them [...]
Here we're to the crux of concern, other than cultural relativism.
Certainly great accomplishment, through scientific orthodoxy. And
clearly enough, shouting through the words of anyone steeped only in
that, great pain.
Being wrong probably isn't sin. Yet it seems the sheol of a pervasive
worldview. Those who thought this way best, from the previous and turn
of the century in several cultures, proved directly how insufficiently right
they were. Japan as a special example, bought the premise, and followed them.
The destruction was nearly complete. The destruction few of we Americans
realize in Europe alone, within families and neighborhoods, where there
were those 'right' on both sides of menace, I think was the worst.
> critics helped me improve a lot of my work. Once one rubs away the first
> stings of criticism, it can feel good to follow a more effective path.
Yes, and in East or West, or as a recent movie Marxist has it, North and
South, don't you understand.(!)
But what if we considered wrongness, simply relative. Something we
will always, and can be with sensual pleasure, in balance with.
In this newsgroup, there have been so many of the ancient 'angels on
heads of pins' discussions. I think for the most part, sincerely, for
people want to come to grips, discover a Rosetta for some human
accomplishment, so we can make tools to help us go further with it.
And admittedly, some do truly seem just to want supremacy of ego.
I'll leave this with a consideration for anyone who feels they do art, or
knows others who seem to. Are any of the accomplishers less than a kind
of ruthlessly practical, working in the very stuff of their dreams?
Are any of them rational scientific, yet do they have any trouble
understanding what that is, and their relationship to it?
And are their materials (and accomplishments) ever less than the whole cloth
of vagueness, which we are without question aware contains both usefulness,
and an amount of sure truth?
Maybe serious students of extending human futures ought to pay serious
attention to the methods of such persons, and the nature of the happiness
in such lives.
A violin makes happy, is hard to play and build, is technology. If we
use ourselves even partly in making other machines, let's try towards doing
as well.
It's my thought for the day, and I apologize.
Do you see?
--
Clive Steward
* the book of essays is 'Visions from San Francisco Bay', tr. 1975, 1982,
Czeslaw Milosz, Farrar/Straus/Giroux
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 88 14:50 EST
From: Martin Taylor <mmt@dciem.UUCP>
Subject: A Plea (Was Re: words order in English and Japanese)
> To get a feel for how word order types are
>distributed, you might glance at Merritt Ruhlen's A Guide to the
>Languages of the World. I would also recommend that you find a copy of
>Bernard Comrie's book on word order typology.
(Author's name omitted intentionally).
References such as this are common. As an interested bystander, I would
like to look up many of the items mentioned in various discussions. Perhaps
I could even participate in the discussion. It would be much easier if
people giving references would add appropriate bibliographic information,
even if the book in question is one "everybody" knows. Even a date would
help greatly, and a publisher or journal name would be terrific.
That's my plea (pleas?), please.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mmt@zorac.arpa
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 88 13:22 EST
From: Gary Fritz <fritz@hpfclp.HP.COM>
Subject: Re: words order in English and Japanese
> I think that your problem with Japanese is the same one faced by all
> language learners. There is nothing special about Japanese. Have you
> ever tried to explain English to a Japanese or Russian speaker ;-? Try
> explaining the difference between "John likes to ski" and "John likes
> skiing". How about the distinction between "Eve gave Adam an apple" and
> "Eve gave an apple to Adam"?
I disagree. You are, I believe, speaking as a person with no experience
in Japanese. (This is why I felt someone with some knowledge of Japanese
should support Nakashima-san's statements about "nuances" in Japanese.
Too many people were stating opinions with little or no factual/experiential
basis.) I have learned a reasonable amount of French and German, and a
smattering of Italian, Spanish, and Swedish. None of these languages
(to my knowledge) contain the same subtleties of expression of MOOD, and
vaguess of expression of CONTENT, that I have observed in Japanese. I have
been told the same thing by two different Japanese teachers (both of which
speak excellent English), and several other native speakers.
Japanese is VERY different from any Western language I am familiar with.
This is to be expected, since it does not have the common roots in Greek
and Latin found in most Western European languages. It also evolved in
a vastly different society than Western languages. Perhaps it isn't
"special", but it is very definitely *different*, and I stand by my
previous claims.
(Disclaimer: I do not have any formal training in linguistics. I have
some experience in several languages, including Japanese, but that is all.)
Gary Fritz
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 88 05:28 EST
From: agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!sp202-ad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: words order in English and Japanese
In article <7390004@hpfclp.HP.COM> fritz@hpfclp.HP.COM (Gary Fritz) writes:
>.... Italian, Spanish, and Swedish. None of these languages
>(to my knowledge) contain the same subtleties of expression of MOOD, and
>vaguess of expression of CONTENT, that I have observed in Japanese ...
>
>Japanese is VERY different from any Western language I am familiar with.
>This is to be expected, since it does not have the common roots in Greek
>and Latin found in most Western European languages. It also evolved in
>a vastly different society than Western languages. Perhaps it isn't
>"special", but it is very definitely *different*, and I stand by my
>previous claims.
I have had no training in Japanese, but from what I have gathered throughout
this discussion the issue raised here is that of cultural relativity. The
fact that Japanese evolved in a different society than Western languages
does not *necessarily* explain structural differences between it and, say,
Romance and Germanic languages. Both Basque and Spanish, to give a
counterexample, are now spoken in the same bilingual society (the Basque
Country, Spain), and yet their structural differences are immense. Material
culture and social structures *do* have an effect in language development,
but similar nuances *can* be expressed in highly differentiated languages
through disimilar procedures. Otherwise, effective translation would not
exist. What the participants in this discussion are probably talking about
is the question of *codification* of cultural notions in a
language's syntax or lexicon. The following early article by
Fishman might be useful for anyone interested in the topic:
Fishman, Joshua A. 1960. "A systematization of the Whorfian hypothesis."
_Behavioral_Science_ vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 323-339.
Perhaps we should look, not at the effect of alleged macro-social factors
such as a hunting society" vs. "a peasant society" in language development,
but, rather, at the opposite process -- the ways in which language use
in verbal interaction *signals* social meanings or reflects certain
aspects of social organization. The issue of politeness strategies is one
fascinating dimension of linguistic pragmatics. But, are we to conclude
from comparing linguistic structures and rhetorical strategies from
languages A and B that society A is "more polite" than society B
-- according, not to a fix, predetermined set of values, but to
*each society's* own values?
Celso Alvarez (sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu.UUCP)
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************