LINGUIST List 2.633

Wed 09 Oct 1991

Disc: Yours, and Distributivity

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

  • Kim Jones, [one of you]rs
  • Joe Stemberger, Re: 2.614 Queries
  • , distributive verbs
  • Logical Language Group, distributive/collective

    Message 1: [one of you]rs

     Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 15:18 MST
    From: Kim Jones <KJONESARIZRVAX.BITNET>
    Subject: [one of you]rs
    Re: And Rosta's first question: 1a Is this book one of yours? 1b Is this book one of you's? 2a *This is one of your/our/their book. 2b This is one of you's/us's/them's book. 3a *Sophy's picture of your/our/their frame. [not a picture of a frame] 3b Sophy's picture of you's/us's/them's frame. [not a picture of a frame] First question: Who *can* accept (1a)? (And (2a), (3a)?) I can say something similar to 1b, except that in my (Texas) dialect, it becomes "Is this book one of y'all's?" The only possible permutation of 2a/b for me would make book plural: "This is one of y'all's books," which would have a rather different meaning (this is one of a number of books which you-plural own jointly). Otherwise I would say, "This book is one of y'alls." This is ambiguous, as it could mean either "This book belongs to one of you-plural" or "This book is one of a number of books which you-plural own jointly."

    Message 2: Re: 2.614 Queries

    Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 16:13 CDT
    From: Joe Stemberger <STEMBERGER%ELLVAXvx.acs.umn.edu>
    Subject: Re: 2.614 Queries
    And Rosta asks about people's reaction to sentences like: This is [one of you]'r book. This is [one of you]'s book. To me, both are equally hideous. I don't think that I can do anything other than avoid the whole construction. Which is unfortunate, since there is occasionally a need to use it. I have seen people grind to a halt and get all confused when beginning a sentence of this sort, only to realize that they have no way to complete it. ---joe stemberger

    Message 3: distributive verbs

     Date: 8 Oct 91 12:25
    From: <HASPELMATHphilologie.fu-berlin.dbp.de>
    Subject: distributive verbs
    Re M. Kac's query concerning verbal morphological marking of distributivity: Languages that have this seem to be quite common, see the typological survey in: Xrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.) 1989. Tipologija iterativnyx konstrukcij. Leningrad: Nauka. Dressler, Wolfgang. 1967. Studien zur Verbalen Pluralitaet. Wien. However, such distributive markers on verbs are typically derivational and rarely 100% productive. Martin Haspelmath, Free University of Berlin

    Message 4: distributive/collective

     Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 10:19:41 -0400
    From: Logical Language Group <lojbabgrebyn.com>
    Subject: distributive/collective
    >From: Michael Kac <kaccs.umn.edu> >Are there any languages which have some kind of morphological marking of >verbs to distinguish collective vs. distributive interpretation? E.g. >in an analogue of *John and Bill carried a piano upstairs* a way of mor- >phologically distinguishing the sense in which John and Bill each >carried a piano upstairs from the one in which the two of them did it >together? I would be suspicious of any claim that a language conveys this information solely through the verb, since it is inherently a function of the subject/object. If the example were "John carried two pianos upstairs", would you use the same collective/distributive distinction on the verb for the two possible interpretations (that he carried them both up at once, or that he took two trips). If the collective/distributive is spread over two different objects, any verb-based system would break down: "John and Bill carried two pianos upstairs" could be distributive on John and Bill and collective on the pianos, vice versa, or both collective, or both distributive. A language for which it was important to make the distinction at all would likely allow for the possibility that more than one of the NP's/subjects/objects would be plural. I base my response on my experience with the design of Loglan/Lojban, which makes these distinctions, but in a different way than you pose. Lojban distinguishes collective/distributive of this sort by the form of expression of the subject/object, not by a marker on the verb. In this example, the 'and' would be the non-logical massifying 'and' to indicate that they did it jointly, and the logical conjunction 'and' to say that they each did it separately. In other cases where there is no conjunction, the 'article' distinguishes individual from mass e.g. "the three persons carried a piano upstairs". I am of course interested in languages that run counter to this analysis. Are there any languages that make the distinction Michael seeks, but only to refer to plural subjects, and/or to plural objects, but not multiple plurals in one sentence. ---- lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 lojbabgrebyn.com