ATEG Archives

October 2007

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:44:35 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
Johanna,

At the risk of a reductio ad absurdum, here is a table of Latin personal pronoun forms:

	Person
Number 	Case 	1 	 2 		3masc 3fem  3neut
Singular 		I 	 you (žu) 	he 	she   it
	Nominative 	ego 	 tu 		is 	ea 	id
	Genitive 	mei 	 tui 		eius 	eius 	eius
	Dative 	mihi 	 tibi 		ei 	ei 	ei
	Accusative 	me 	 te 		eum 	eam 	id
	Ablative 	me 	 te 		eo 	ea 	eo

Plural 		we 	 you 		they	they	they
	Nominative 	nos 	 vos 		ei 	eae 	ea
	Genitive 	nostri vestri 	eorum earum eorum
	Dative 	nobis  vobis 	eis 	eis 	eis
	Accusative 	nos 	 vos 		eos 	eas 	ea
	Ablative	nobis  vobis 	eis 	eis 	eis

The cases represent five different sets of functions.  Would you then have five different lexical categories?  Why would you have two for English?  Or is the problem that we don't want words to be members of two different lexical categories?  Genitive pronouns have reference; they're just not indexical.  Anaphorically they behave like pronouns, but syntactically they don't.  I don't have a problem saying that they are members of both the pronoun and the determiner classes.

Or have I missed your point?

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johanna Rubba
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 4:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Part of speech query

I'm afraid I do find it objectionable to use the term "pronoun" for  
items that do not, in fact, function as such. It's another way that  
traditional grammar can cause confusion by mushing distinctions (as  
is done with form and function for adjectives) or by giving  
incomplete or inaccurate descriptions (e.g., that a pronoun stands in  
for a noun, not a noun phrase, or that simple present tense means  
actual present time for all verbs, not just state verbs).

Now, language itself is pretty good at mushing distinctions, but we  
analysts of language can at least aim for clean-cut terminology use.  
I don't think much can be done about the use of "possessive pronoun"  
for the items in question, but ... if I were queen of the world ...

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Dept.
Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184
Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596
Dept. fax: 805-756-6374
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2