Re: How close is Vietnamese to Mandarin or Cantonese?

Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 21:14:48 +1200, benlizross
> <benlizro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> <news:428EFC08.2108@xxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 21 May 2005 10:20:05 +1200, benlizross
> >> <benlizro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >> <news:428E6295.14DB@xxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> In the meantime, I'll say:
>
> >>> - names are words (which are socially assigned to individuals);
>
> >> I don't know what account Peter has in mind, but I don't
> >> consider names to be words in the ordinary sense of the
> >> word. Cecily Clark, 'Onomastics', in vol. 2 of the
> >> Cambridge History of the English Language:
>
> >> Names, whether of places or of people, have by
> >> definition a distinctive standing vis-à-vis the
> >> language at large. Although ultimately derived
> >> from elements of common vocabulary (not
> >> necessarily that of the language they currently
> >> grace), they have become emptied of their
> >> original etymological denotation; and this is true
> >> even for those whose form still coincides with
> >> that of the related lexical items: no-one expects
> >> to find cattle wading across the river at Oxford
> >> and, should a Mr Butcher actually be in the
> >> meat trade, the coincidence almost excites mirth.
>
> > But this is no more than the old truth that etymology is
> > not the basis of meaning.
>
> No, it's the claim that names have a different *kind* of
> meaning from ordinary words, and I think that it's entirely
> correct.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian

They do constitute a special class meaning-wise, though I'd hesitate to
talk about a "different kind of meaning". Their meaning is of the form
"[entity] named X". But this gives no justification for treating them as
outside normal phonology or grammar.

Ross Clark
.

Relevant Pages