Re: Gramcord notes on the article

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Fri Jan 02 1998 - 13:48:16 EST


On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 20:41:07 -0700 Wes Williams <WesWilliams@usa.net>
writes:

<snip>
>
>When someone suggests that a count noun with some qualitative emphasis
>is neither definite nor indefinite any longer, should we not properly
>question them to show an undisputed example rather than unquestioningly
>accepting a new proposal as a new "rule"? I know you well enough to
know >that you already abide by that principle, but it nevertheless needs
to be >underscored due to the propensity to accept new "rules" without
questioning >the evidence.

Yes, this would be an interesting study. Has anybody done anything in
this area? And, what exactly is the accepted rule that is being
challenged here? That count nouns can denote definiteness and
qualitativeness simultaneously? Is this an established rule? Whence
cometh it? For some reason (hermeneutical presupposition?) I have always
believed that words mean one thing and one thing only in any given
context, except for intended double meanings which are relatively rare.

I assume you balk at the definitions of definiteness, indefiniteness and
qualitativeness as cited by Jonathan from the Gramcord Institute whereby
the idea of stress is key. Do you deny that nouns stress either
definiteness, indefiniteness or qualitativeness, but not two or more
equally? That is the issue, I believe.

Paul Dixon



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:46 EDT