Good to meet you, Pin!
Thanks for finding the example. Would be helpful to find a comparable example
with a determiner. I'd be interested to note the case form - genitive as with
þæs cyninges þegen? or nominative: se deað?
R.
________________________________
From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Wang Pin <wangpin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2024 6:18 PM
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: Halliday's response to criticism
Hi David and Rosemary,
Sorry - I haven't done any serious research on OE, so definitely not a lareow.
Just at a very rudimentary stage of learning.
To go back to David's question on the king of England's hat... I found a
comparable instance 'deað Eastseaxna cyninges' (death of the East-Saxons' king).
- deað: m. sg. nom.
- Eastseaxna: m. pl. gen.
- cyninges: m. sg. gen.
Latinate morpheme labels only; so it's up to you to do the function analysis,
David;)
Pin
----- 原始邮件 -----
发件人: "Rosemary Huisman" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
收件人: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
发送时间: 星期六, 2024年 3 月 23日 下午 2:54:02
主题: [asflanet] Re: Halliday's response to criticism
Hello again,
Case forms are sub-classifications of classes of linguistic units – as you say,
forms. OE scholars with no acquaintance with SFL might think them "vaguely
functional" but it is certainly not how I use the terms. The function
(meaningful use) can only be identified when the form (notably the accusative,
genitive, dative or instrumental) is studied in context. But a student of OE is
certainly helped to speculate on the possible function (meaning) by recognizing
the case form. For example, in the "ago" chat of some weeks ago, recognizing a
nominal group in the accusative case may provoke a functional analysis of
temporal circumstance in the clausal context.
I have Cummings' book but nothing from Pin Wang - yet?
Seo lærestre,
Rosemary.
________________________________
From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2024 4:06 PM
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: Halliday's response to criticism
Hi Rosemary
Pin Wang and Michael Cummings are þa lareowas for OE.
Nominative, genitive and dative cover a lot of ground don’t they? The names are
vaguely functional, but they denote forms with multiple varying functions.
Wouldn’t you like to see SFL sweep away the baggage of latinate morpheme
labels, and start anew from functions? Then we could call it a possessive
Deictic, realised by a nom gp with possessive function marker. It’s then
irrelevant if the marker has the same form as a different function.
I think what’s Whorfian are the reactances, that function differently in
different structures, e.g.
England’s king and the king of England might both be called possessive, but
they are different structures...
[cid:image002.png@01DA7D3B.08DE2690]
;-)
How does OE handle the king of England’s hat?
:David
From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of Rosemary Huisman <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, 23 March 2024 at 12:55 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: Halliday's response to criticism
Hi David,
Another difficulty of grammatical analysis resulting from the effacement of Old
English morphology in Modern English? Whorf's covert trace?
In Old English, a noun group within a noun group.
The morphology of the Head noun is determined by its function in the clause.
The morphology of the "enclosed" noun group remains the genitive.
Eg, with masculine nominative case for Head noun
þæs cyninges þegen "the king's thane" The king's thane [came into the hall].
þæs cyninges biscopas "the king's bishops"
Or eg with masculine dative (no preposition in OE):
[He sent a message] to the king's thane. þæs cyninges þegene.
[He sent a message] to the king's bishops. þæs cyninges biscopum.
Best,
Rosemary.
________________________________
From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf
of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 23 March 2024 9:56 AM
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Halliday's response to criticism
This seems to be the last time MAKH took the time to respond to criticisms of
his work – 1966! It’s interesting for many reasons, amongst which...
- how much of the theory was already in place
- what it shows of his reasoning and positioning in prior lx
- how stressful he found it, which shows in occasional annoyance and yes,
sarcasm, ‘Matthews' crusading zeal on the part of those he considers less able
to look after themselves seems to have led him to think it has never been
questioned’ ;-)
- how much of the criticism is ostensibly about names, ‘to the extent that his
objections are purely terminological they could of course be accommodated if
one knew what they were’.
- the critical gambit of putting words in one’s mouth, and his bemused
response, ‘There remains the question of the king of England's hat, where
Matthews has invented a problem on my behalf by insisting that either the king
of England or 's must be a word.’
If Matthews were around today, what would he make of this?
[A close-up of a document Description automatically generated]
Happy weekend reading
:David
