Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
- From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 02:38:29 GMT
Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >
> >>My comments below are, obviously, addressed to Stanley Fish, who isn't
> >>here to read them. Is there a rhetorical term for this, addressing a
> >>person who isn't present for the benefit/interest of people who are?
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>In English, for example, most plurals are formed by adding an "s" to
> >>>nouns. Is that the only way to indicate the difference between singular
> >>>and plural? Obviously not. But the language you create, I tell them,
> >>>must have some regular and abstract way of conveying that distinction.
> >>
> >>Again, why?
> >
> >
> > Because it's not Chinese?
>
> It also isn't English. So, again, why does it have to follow English
> precepts concerning the modalities that must be expressed via the syntax?
I believe Mr. Fish was referring to English, which is the departments he
was associated with, and which is probably the only language he's
familiar with.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
- From: JHM
- Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
- From: Harlan Messinger
- Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
- From: Harlan Messinger
- _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
- Prev by Date: Re: Universality of Interjections?
- Next by Date: Re: Half of all Chinese people can't speak Mandarin!
- Previous by thread: Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
- Next by thread: Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|