Re: Looking for a case: counting

En réponse à Philippe Caquant :


>Well, I think this discussion is not going to help me
>neither anyone anyhow.
Maybe not you, but the replies have shown that it has helped everybody 
else. Just because facts don't fit your ideas doesn't mean that they are 
useless.

>  If instrumental is the same as
>process quantifier, if process quantifier is the same
>as temporal mark, and if we have to disregard the
>German form 'vielmals' because it doens't cope with
>your theory,
If you don't read what I write, of course the discussion is gonna be 
useless. My only remark was that "vielmals" was transparently a nominal 
form (even synchronically), and thus that it couldn't prove your argument 
because it was no different than "many times". I am not the one 
disregarding things because they don't fit "my theory" (I don't have one. I 
just look at the facts. Sorry that you can't see them). You're the one 
trying to fit facts into a theory where they don't fit. Don't shoot at me 
for pointing that out. Isn't it the whole point of science to advance by 
trial and error? If you refuse to see your errors, you won't be able to 
advance at all!

>  if trying to find the primitive,
>all-mankind concepts is supposed to be the same as
>classifying some natlang as retrograde,
It is when your idea of primitives is so obviously tainted by the syntax of 
your native tongue. Pointing that out was the only purpose of my 
comparison. Philosophically, using examples to simplify and enlighten your 
ideas is not a crime, it's rather welcome on the contrary.

>  if logic is
>useless anyway,
It is when talking about language. Logic has other purposes where it is 
very useful. Language is just not one of them (like any human construct 
after all. Logic cannot explain things like culture or religion, so why 
should it apply to language?).

>  and if cats are dogs,
Your words, not mine. I am merely pointing out that your approach makes 
indeed cats into dogs.

>  then surely we
>will come to an awful mess,
Actually, the mess begins when you try to apply things to language that 
don't apply to it, and when you mix the syntactic and semantic level. 
You're the one doing it, not I.

>  which can be fun but which
>is not my purpose.
Too bad, because you're very good at it.

> >
> > I just consider it to be a temporal mark. I don't
> > see the point of such a
> > useless distinction.
>
>Well, maybe you don't see it, but it looks like some
>linguists can see it.
And many others don't. What makes them less good than the ones you read?

>  I didn't write their books.
So why follow them blindly?

> >
> > Which is basically the same form as "many times",
> > without a preposition.
> > It's this absence of preposition that makes you
> > think of this form as more
> > adverbial than "with a hammer". Your analysis at the
> > beginning of your post
> > shows it very clearly.
>
>I thought exactly the opposite, but if you decided
>so...
I didn't decide it. I just read what you wrote. If that was not what you 
meant, maybe you should re-read yourself and find out what went wrong.

> >
> > Yes, and your reply is wrong in that way: it doesn't
> > treat semantic
> > concepts but surface forms.
>
>Same remark.
And same from me. You're applying a distinction (between oblique noun 
phrases and adverbs) which exists only at the syntactic level to the 
semantic level, without even wondering if it can apply or if your "feeling" 
is just affected by your L1. I just point this fact out. The semantic 
distinction you're trying to push on us is wrong for at least one reason: 
Occam's razor (or "don't multiply theoretical entities needlessly). It's a 
needless distinction, and many people have already pointed out why. 
Shouldn't you begin to question your "feeling"? (science is *not* done by 
feeling, but by confronting the facts. I confront the facts, you have a 
"feeling". Guess what is better).


>Well, that's very precisely what I say over and over:
>we should find the general semantic primitives below
>the surface forms. Comparing natlangs is a great help
>for it.
Of course. But that's what I've been doing from the beginning, while you're 
not. You're just pushing your own opinion on what those semantic primitives 
are, without ever wondering if they have any existence beyond what you 
"feel" is right.


>I shall not abjure my convictions, Your Honour !
Of course not, since you're religious about them.

>  Only
>relevant arguments can make me reconsider them, not
>anatheme neither mixing up everything.
"C'est l'hôpital qui se moque de la charité !" Re-read the whole 
discussion: I've been the one pointing out all along that you're mixing 
things up, using your "feeling" as only argument, and not taking the 
relevant facts I pointed out into account. So before looking at the straw 
in my eye, you better look at the tree in yours.

And if your only reply is going to be to defend your religious opinions 
about language by insulting me even more, no need to reply. I have been 
extremely polite and tried to discuss this subject using actual relevant 
arguments derived from facts, and pointing out weaknesses in your theory. 
All you've been able to do is rehash the same things over and over again, 
without paying attention for one second to what I wrote, and accused me of 
closemindedness! But then, I should know better. Don't discuss with a 
French person about language, their opinions are already made and 
unshakeable. Until now the French people on this list had been the 
exception. I should have known it couldn't last :( ...

Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.