hellogѸ˥֥     ChangeLog ǿ     ƥǿ     ڡ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ڡ / page 2 (17)

syntax - hellogѸ˥֥

ǽ: 2026-07-15 01:27

2025-02-18 Tue

#5776. ³passers-by Τ褦Ⱦüʰ֤ -s Ĥ̯ʣ [plural][compound][morphology][inflection][phrasal_verb][french][syntax][noun][suffix]

ε#5775. passers-by Τ褦Ⱦüʰ֤ -s Ĥ̯ʣ ([2025-02-17-1]) ³ʣ -s ʶǤˤĤơ Poutsma 򻲾Ȥ (142--43)
ե󥹸δѶͳ褹ʣ̾ʶˤ¿ϡѸäƤե󥹸ȿǤơ̾ǡܷƻǡפνˤȤɤޤ롥ѸȤƤϡθʣˤäơ̾Ǥ -s ĤΤŪǤ롥attorneys general, cousins-german, book-prices current, battlesroyal, Governors-General, damsels-errant, heirs-apparent, knights-errant Τ褦ˤʤattorney generals, letters-patents ⤢ˡ
ȯüǤ passer(s)-by Υסʤ̾Ǥθֻ硦줬դʣ⡤̾Ǥ -s դʣΤŪcommanders-in-chef, fathers-in-law, heirs-at-law, quarters-of-an-hour, bills of fare; blowings-up, callings-over, hangers-n, knockers-up, lookers-on, lyings-in, standars-by, whippers-in, goers-in, comers-out, breakings-up, droppings asleep, fallings forward ʤ (cf. men-at-arms)
ɽϥե̵ͭʤɤˤĤƤФɤ줬̤ꡤơɽˤĤˤ䴷ѤΤȻפ졤̲§ߤ뤳Ȥ񤷤θˤȤ롥

Poutsma, H. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II, The Parts of Speech, 1A. Groningen: P. Noordhoff, 1914.

[ | ѥڡ ]

2025-02-15 Sat

#5773. ʻȤϲ --- ̩˵ǽˤʬλ [pos][terminology][linguistics][category][semantics][function_of_language][functionalism][syntax]

ε#5772. ʻȤϲ --- ̩˰̣ˤʬϲǽ ([2025-02-14-1]) ǡ1Ĥδ̩ŬѤʻˤĤƹͤϤ᤿³ؿѸؼŵ٤ parts of speech ι˰͵򤷤ʤ顤ϵǽΤߤ˴Ťʻʬ׹ͼ¸Ƥߤ褦

(3) ǽˤʻʬ. Fries (1952, ch. 6) ʻ̩˵ǽˤʬह٤ǤȼĥȼʻʬƤΰ֡εǽϤˤơƱΰ֤ˤĤθˤޤȤ᤿The concert was good (always). / The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly). / The team went there. 3ɽŪʸ (test frame) ȯȤơʸˡ¤ѤˡʸΤɤθΰ֤ˤ뤫ˤäơ4 (CLASS WORD) --- ۤƸ (CONTENT WORD) Ʊ --- ꤷʻȤ
(class 1 word): concert, clerk, tax, team ΰ֤ˤ
(class 2 word): was, remembered, went ΰ֤ˤ
軰 (class 3 word): good ΰ֤ˤ
(class 4 word): always, suddenly, there ΰ֤ˤ
ʳϵǽ (FUNCTION WORD) Ȥ A O ޤ15η (group) ʬդ٤ϡThe poorest are always with us. poorest ϡη֤ɤǤȤΰ֤Ȥ뤷ޤI know the poorest man. poorest ϡ軰ȤΤǤ롥ˡa boy friend a good friend boy good Ʊ軰Τ餫Ǥ롥ä a cannon ball cannon ̾Ǥ뤫ƻǤ뤫εƤʤ̤󤳤ξ cannon 軰Ȥʤ롥͡ʬˤСĤθ줬ĤʻʤʤΤʤĤΤȤˤʤꡤĶˤɤʸ줬뤫ȡ̾Ȥ̾ȤǤʤ1줺ĸ줦뤹٤ƤθʤФʤʤΤ褦ʬˡθ̩˲ͤϤ뤬ʸˡηΤȤƤ;̣Τʤ뤫⤷ʤ


ޤɤʬȻפֵǽפȤϡŪǽפΤȤǤ롥ΤˤϤŪ˰ӤƤ롥Ѥˤ϶Ť餤ؿѸؼŵ٤εҤˤϡʻʬϼˤꡤȤ뤳ȤǧǤ롥ϽפȻפ

⿮ ʸͺʴƽˡؿѸؼŵ١ҡ1982ǯ

Referrer (Inside): [2025-03-04-1] [2025-02-24-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-12-17 Tue

#5713. ʸˡȸѲѸˤݤ碌񤬽Фޤ --- Ƿ ͵ ˡʸˡȸѲ١ʳҡ2024ǯ [generative_grammar][language_change][grammaticalisation][syntax][review][toc][notice]


Nawata-Yanagi-Tanaka-Generative.png



ɸγҤο򤴸ܤޤ꤬Ȥޤ
ҤˤֺǿѸءإ꡼פ20Ȥ֤Ťǡʸˡ߱ѸˡפκǿŪθޤȤƤޤ300ǤۤɤǡŪˤܳɤǤѸѲŪ˹ͻԡˤȤäơɬȤλͽǤ
ʲܼФƤߤޤ礦̥Ūȹ٤Ѹ줬¤Ǥޤ



I ʸˡˤѲ

1 ʸˡŪȤߤȸѲ
1. ϤˡѸˤλʬ
2. ʸˡŪȤ
3. ʸˡѲȤƤθѲ

2 ѲΥ
1. ʬϤȥѥ᥿Ѳ
2. ʸˡɸ to Ȥ
3. Ѳ
4. ๽¤ѲưȤ

II Ѹṽ¤Ѳ

3 Ѹṽ¤ưưξü
1. Ϥ
2. űѸ졦Ѹδܸ
3. űѸ졦Ѹṽ¤
4. ưư˭ʰפβ
5. ܼοưưξü
6. ʸˡˤư줫ưؤѲ
7. ޤȤ

4 ֤ȳƼﹽʸѲ
1. Ϥ
2. 칽ʸ
3. ֳʷиԼ칽ʸ
4. ¾ưʸ
5. that ׸
6. ޤȤ

III Ѹ̾ι¤ʬ

5 ¤ʤξüȳʤˤ̾ǧˡѲ
1. Ϥ
2. ʤ˴ؤиŪ¤Ū
3. Ϳ̾ȤʤʸŪ
4. Ϳ̾ǧĤǧˡѲ
5. ޤȤ

6 ̻ʬۤͷΥǽ̻Ū
1. Ϥ
2. Ѹˤ̻ʬ
3. Ū
4. ͷΥ̻ʬۤ˴ؤ̻ŪѲ
5. ̾ȿ̻θ
6. ޤȤ




ܽˤĤƤϡ1211 Voicy heldio ˤ#1291. Ƿ ͵ ˡʸˡȸѲ١ʳҡ2024ǯˡۿǤ⤴Ҳ𤷤Ƥޤܵȹ碌ƤİС



ܽȴϢơҤΡֺǿѸءإ꡼פ21 ջҡ δˡʸؤȱѸ˸١ʳҡ2022ǯɤꤤפޤ

Ƿ ͵ ʸˡȸѲ١ҡ2024ǯ

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-12-15 Sun

#5711. ǤνˤĤƤشط --- ˴ؤ෿δŪʥǥ [typology][syntax][word_order][history_of_linguistics]

˴ؤ෿ (typology) θŵŪθҲ𤹤롥Whaley (86) Lehmann (1973, 1978a) 򻲾Ȥʤ "Lehmann's Consituent Order Correlations" ǤƤ롥

Word OrderCorrelation
VOOV
Preposition + nounNoun + preposition
Noun + genitiveGenitive + noun
Noun + adjectiveAdjective + noun
Noun + relative clauseRelative clause + noun
Sentence-initial question wordNoninitial question word
PrefixesSuffixes
Auxiliary verb + main verbMain verb + auxiliary verb
Comparative adjective + standardStandard + comparative adjective
Verb + adverbAdverb + verb
Negative + verbVerb + negative
Subordinator + clauseClause + subordinator


줬 VO 礫 OV 礫ʬС¾ܤ¤ӽͽۤǤ롤ȤΤɽιҤǤ롥ɬΤͽۤǤ櫓ǤϤʤΤʤȤشطϤ롤ȤΤݤ
شطμĥФƤ͡ȽꤲƤ1Ĥϡۤɹ⤤شطǤϤʤΤǤϤʤȤ㤨СѸ VO ͽܷۤ̾ƻפǤϤʤַƻ̾פܤΤ褦ʡȿפפä¿ФƤƤޤ褦
1Ĥϡɽˤ衤ʤΤ褦شطΩΤˤĤƤιͻʤƤʤȤ
ˡVO OV Ȥ㤤פ˿¾ܤ¤ӽͽۤ뤳ȤǤȤĥʤƤ櫓شطΩĤΤǤСפ˿Τ¾ܤǤ褤Ϥʤ VO OV Ȥ櫓פʴפȤߤʤΤ
Τ褦ȿϤΤΡLehmann ˴ؤ෿δŪʥǥ򼨤Ƥ줿ȤϤ롥
󻲾Ȥ Whaley ˤĤƤϡ#4692. ෿3Ĥꡤ෿ȸѲδطˤĤơ ([2022-03-02-1]) ⻲ȡ

Whaley, Lindsay J. Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1997.
Lehmann, Winfred P. "A Structural Principle of Language and Its Implications." Language 49 (1973): 47--66.
Lehmann, Winfred P. "Conclusion: Toward an Understanding of the Profound Unity Underlying Language." Syntactic Typology. Austin: U of Texas P, 1978. 395--432.

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-12-13 Fri

#5709. ̾ν¤ӽ [syntax][word_order][noun][adjective][determiner][article]

̾ (noun phrase) ϡȤ˽礬¿ղä졤Ĺʤ뤳Ȥ롥㤨СüˤǤä夲ǤϤ뤬all the other potentially lethal doses of poison that may be administered to humans ʸˡŪǤ롥
Τ褦͡ʽ礬ղäˤϡ̾Ǥ¤ӽ礬ޤäƤ롥Ŭ֤ƤϤʤΤѸε§Fischer (79) "Element order within the NP in PDE" ꤹɽǺܤ褦

PredeterminerDeterminerPostdeterminerPremodifierModifierHeadPostmodifier
quantifiersarticles,quantifiers,adverbials,adjectives,noun, proper name,prepositional
    quantifiers,   numerals, specialized   some adjectives   adjuncts   pronoun   phrase, relative
    genitives,   adjectives   clause (some
    demonstratives,    adjectives)
    possessive/    (quantifiers?)
    interrogative/     
    relative pronouns     
halftheusual  price 
 anyotherpotentiallyembarrassingdetails 
 a prettyunpleasantencounter 
bothour   meetingswith the
         chairman
 a  decibellevelthat made your
         ears ache
 thesetwo criminalactivities 


(head) Ȥʤ̾򺸱Ϥ褦͡ʥ٥ĥ줿礬֤뤬ΤȤƤϼκ¦ؤ֡ʤʤ֡ˤͥǤ롥顤Ѹ̾θϸ§Ȥơֽܼ̾פǤꡤεդǤϤʤȤʬ롥

Fischer, Olga, Hendrik De Smet, and Wim van der Wurff. A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: CUP, 2017.

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-10-26 Sat

#5661. Ȥϲ [negation][polarity][negative][terminology][syntax][double_negative][logic][assertion][semantics]

ε#5670. ʤѸˤñʣζ̤Ρ --- Mond ǤμȲ ([2024-10-24-1]) ǡ (negation) Ǹ˽ФޤˤȤϲϤ礭Ǥؤůؤ뤳ȤǤޤǤϸؤδ˹ʤޤ
ؤѸ켭ŵ뤳ȤϤޤ礦ޤ Crystal (323--24) Ѥޤ

negation (n.) A process or construction in GRAMMATICAL and SEMANTIC analysis which typically expresses the contradiction of some or all of a sentence's meaning. In English grammar, it is expressed by the presence of the negative particle (neg, NEG) not or n't (the CONTRACTED negative); in LEXIS, there are several possible means, e.g. PREFIXES such as un-, non-, or words such as deny. Some LANGUAGES use more than one PARTICLE in a single CLAUSE to express negation (as in French ne . . . pas). The use of more than one negative form in the same clause (as in double negatives) is a characteristic of some English DIALECTS, e.g. I'm not unhappy (which is a STYLISTICALLY MARKED mode of assertion) and I've not done nothing (which is not acceptable in STANDARD English). . . .
   A topic of particular interest has been the range of sentence STRUCTURE affected by the position of a negative particle, e.g. I think John isn't coming v. I don't think John is coming: such variations in the SCOPE of negation affect the logical structure as well as the semantic analysis of the sentence. The opposite 'pole' to negative is POSITIVE (or AFFIRMATIVE), and the system of contrasts made by a language in this area is often referred to as POLARITY. Negative polarity items are those words or phrases which can appear only in a negative environment in a sentence, e.g. any in I haven't got any books. (cf. *I've got any books).


Bussmann (323) ѤޤؤˤФƸؤ򡤼Τ褦˲⤷Ƥޤ

In contrast with logical negation, natural language negation functions not only as sentence negation, but also primarily as clausal or constituent negation: she did not pay (= negation of predication), No one paid anything (= negation of the subject NP), he paid nothing (= negation of the object NP). Here the scope (= semantic coverage) of negation is frequently polysemic or dependent on the placement of negation, on the sentence stress . . . as well as on the linguistic and/or extralinguistic context. Natural language negation may be realized in various ways: (a) lexically with adverbs and adverbial expressions (not, never, by no means), indefinite pronouns (nobody, nothing, none), coordinating conjunctions (neither . . . nor), sentence equivalents (no), or prepositions (without, besides); (b) morphologically with prefixes (in + exact, un + interested) or suffix (help + less); (c) intonationally with contrastive accent (in Jacob is not flying to New York tomorrow the negation can refer to Jacob, flying, New York, or tomorrow depending which elements are stressed); (d) idiomatically by expressions like For all I care, . . . . Formally, three types of negation are differentiated: (a) internal (= strong) negation, the basic type of natural language negation (e.g. The King of France is not bald); (b) external (= weak) negation, which corresponds to logical negation (e.g. It's not the case/it's not true that p); (c) contrastive (= local) negation, which can also be considered a pragmatic variant of strong negation to the degree that stress and the corresponding modifying clause are relevant to the scope of the negation (e.g. The King of France is not bald, but rather wears glasses. The linguistic description of negation has proven to be a difficult problem in all grammatical models owing to the complex interrelationship of syntactic, prosodic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects.


2Ĥβ˴Ťơؤˤ˴ؤվȼΤ褦ˤʤǤ礦

1. μϰ
ʸ (sentence negation)
(clausal negation)
(constituent negation)
2. μ¸ͼ
Ū (lexically): 졤̾졤³졤ֻʤ
Ū (morphologically): Ƭ
Ū (intonationally): оȥ
Ū (idiomatically): ɽ
3. ηŪʬ
Ūʶ (internal/strong negation)
Ūʼ夤 (external/weak negation)
оŪʶɽŪ (contrastive/local negation)
4. κѰ (scope)
꼭ΰ֤ˤƶ
ʸˤƶ
ŪŪʸ̮ˤƶ
5. 2 (double negative)
ɸѸǤλ
ʸŪͭɸʹɽȤƤλ
6. (polarity)
(positive/affirmative) vs. (negative)

7. ˴ؤŪΧỤ̄ŪŪ¦̤ʣߴط
8. Ūΰ㤤

ΰϡʣ¿򼨤ƤޤƤꡤȴʤʤǤ

Crystal, David, ed. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. 295--96.
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans. and ed. Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzizi. London: Routledge, 1996.

Referrer (Inside): [2025-01-01-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-10-24 Thu

#5659. 2°ɽ a friend of mine ᤰά (2) [double_genitive][genitive][syntax][french]

#5656. 2°ɽ a friend of mine ᤰάˡ ([2024-10-21-1]) ³ԡ2° (double_genitive) θˤäɤƤ롥³βսȤơJespersen (§§1.52 [pp. 15--16]) Ѥ褦

   1.52. Kellner recognizes three historical stages:
     I. a castell of hers (from 14th c., Chaucer, &c.).
    II. a knight of the dukes (not yet Chaucer, frequent in Caxton)
   III. that berde of thyne (rare in Caxton, frequent later).
   But he overlooks the fact that stage II is really found just as early as I (see Chaucer G 368 an officere of the prefectes), nor is it easy to see why stages I and II should not have sprung into existence at the same time, while there is nothing strange in the later occurrence of III. But Kellner rightly lays stress on the fact that only a few of the constructions admit the partitive explanation; he therefore suggests the name 'pseudo-partitive genitive', but both he and other scholars evidently think that those applications which cannot be explained partitively have developed through analogical extension starting fro the partitive use.
   The partitive explanation is the only one recognized by Professor Sonnenschein, who says, §184: 'In sentences like He is a friend of John's there is a noun understood: of John's means of John's friends, so that the sentence is equivalent to He is one of John's friends. Here of means out of the number of.
   Sonnenschein does not mention constructions like that long nose of his; but even if we omit them for the moment, the explanation cannot be strictly maintained, for an enemy of ours cannot be the equivalent of an enemy of our enemies, which would be taken in a different sense, just as an enemy of the French is not to be explained as an enemy of the French enemies. And if I say he is a friend of mine, I need not at all imply that I have more than the one friend, though of course it will often be understood in this way. To express the partitive sense we have the unambiguous expression one of my friends. There is a difference between the two sentences 'The General and some of his friends left the house' and 'The General and some friends of his left the house': while the former implies that he had other friends, the latter means only: 'the General and some people who were on friendly terms with him'.
   If Einenkel is right that the English expression a friend of his is due to direct imitation of French, where he has found examples like un chevalier des siens, the ultimate beginning of the idiom is partitive, as shown by the French plural. Unfortunately there seems to be no English example old enough to go back to a period when it was possible to distinguish between the singular and the plural of the pronoun: in Old English it would have been, for instance, an dohtor of minum with the plural, and therefore, necessarily, a partitive sense, or an dohtor of minre with the singular, and therefore not partitive. The modern a daughter of mine may be either, as far as the forms is concerned.
   But it is not at all certain that the construction came to England from France: it may just as well have come into existence independently of the French idiom. The construction with the genitive of a substantive, as in a friend of my wife's cannot, at any rate, be due directly to French influence, for the French have no such genitive.


ε񤭽ФȡΤ褦ˤʤ

1. ʬ°⤬ή
Kellner 3ĤŪʳŦ
Kellner ʬϤˤϵĤ
¿θԤʬ°ʤˡ¾ˡŪȯŸȹͤƤ
2. ʬ°θ³
Sonnenschein ʬ°ΤߤǧƤ
Ϥ٤ƤˡˤŬѤǤʤ
a friend of mine mine ɬʣͧͤްդʤ
3. ¾
ե󥹸줫αƶ
ΩȯŸǽӽǤʤ
a friend of my wife's Τ褦 of θ̾ǤϤʤ̾礬빽ʸ˴ؤƤϥե󥹸αƶϤʤ

Jespersen, Otto. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part III. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1954.

Referrer (Inside): [2024-10-26-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-10-21 Mon

#5656. 2°ɽ a friend of mine ᤰά [double_genitive][genitive][syntax]

Ϣ2° (double_genitive) ˤĤơ
Jespersen (§§1.51--1.59 [pp. 15--23]) "An old friend of Tom's" ꤹܤͻ롥Ȥ櫓Ƭ 1.51 Ǥϡɽ˴ؤ븦˾ν⤬ؤ˾Ҳ𤵤ƤͭѤǤ롥

1.51. These constructions are treated here, because the genitive is here as in the preceding sections a primary; but here, in contradistinction to the constructions mentioned hitherto, a possessive may be used in the same way, for we may say, "an old friend of yours | that old friend of yours." Much has been written on these constructions, which are so characteristic of English, see E. Beckmann, ESt 8.412 (who explains them from an imaginary and seemingly impossible combination a friend mine); L. Kellner in his ed. of Caxton B. XIX; Einenkel, Anglia 33.504; Trampe Bødtker, Christiania Vidsk. Selsk. 1908 no. 6.34; cf also my own GS §194, PG 111, S.P.E. Tract XXV. This tract was occasioned by Mr. Fowler's mention (in MEU 399), where he ranks that nose of his with certain other constructions as 'plainly illogical' and says: 'a friend of mine, i.e. among my friends, but surely not that nose of his, i.e. among his noses; so the logic-chopper is fain to correct or damn; but even he is likely in unguarded moments to let the forbidden phrases slip out'; so even Mr. Fowler reckons it among recognized idioms, sturdy indefensibles, as he terms them. The belief that there is something illogical in this idiom evidently rests on the assumption that of here has to be taken in its partitive sense, one of or among several. But of has several other meanings---in the N.E.D. they are entered under no less than sixty-three numbers---and it may be worth while to examine if another explanation than the partitive might not be admissible.


ε ([2024-10-20-1]) Ǥߤ褦ˡJespersen ϡ Growth and Structure of the English Language Ǥϡɽʬ°ʤˡΤȤߤƤΰѤǤϤǤϤʤǽ˸ڤƤꡤºݤˤεɤ߿ʤƤȡǤϤʤȷ˻äƤΤϲΤ
2°ɽϳˤδⶽ̣

Jespersen, Otto. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part III. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1954.
Jespersen, Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. 10th ed. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1982 [1905].

Referrer (Inside): [2024-10-24-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-10-20 Sun

#5655. 2°ɽ a friend of mine ʬˡƱˡ [double_genitive][genitive][syntax][semantics][apposition]

Ϣ a friend of mine Υפ2° (double_genitive) ɽܤƤ롥

#5647. a friend of mine --- 2°ʡ ([2024-10-12-1])
#5653. 2°ɽ a friend of mine 2Ĥΰ̣Ūħ ([2024-10-18-1])
#5654. a friend of mine vs. one of my friends ([2024-10-19-1])

of mine ̤Ƥ뵡ǽˤĤơʬˡ (partitive) ȸƱˡ (appositive) ȸäԤǤ "a friend of my friends" ȡԤǤ "a friend, who is mine" ȥѥե졼Ǥ롥Ԥβ򤤤֤פ⤢뤫⤷ʤε ([2024-10-19-1]) ǾҲ𤷤 "this hand of mine" Τ褦ɽˤԹ礬褤
ػ˾塤2ĤβᤰäƵʤƤ㤨 Jespersen §194 [pp. 173--74]) ϡʬˡȤĤĤ⡤ƱˡˤڤƤ롥ΤȤƻڤΰʲ˰Ѥ褦

194. Speaking of the genitive, we ought also to mention the curious use in phrases like 'a friend of my brother's'. This began in the fourteenth century with such instances as 'an officere of the prefectes' (Chaucer G 368), where officers might be supplied (= one of the prefect's officers) and 'if that any neighebor of mine (= any of my neighbours) Wol nat in chirche to my wyf enclyne' (ib. B 3091). In the course of a few centuries, the construction became more and more frequent, so that it has now long been one of the fixtures of the English language. A partitive sense is still conceivable in such phrases as 'an olde religious unckle of mine' (Sh.. As III, 3, 362) = one of my uncles, though it will be seen that it is impossible to analyse it as being equal to 'one of my old religious uncles'. But it is not at all certain that of here from the first was partitive; it is rather to be classed with the appositional use in the three of us = 'the three who are we'; the City of Rome = 'the City which is Rome'. The construction is used chiefly to avoid the juxtaposition of two pronouns, 'this hat of mine, that ring of yours' being preferred to 'this my hat, that your ring', or of a pronoun and a genitive, as in 'any ring of Jane's', where 'any Jane's ring' or 'Jane's any ring' would be impossible; compare also 'I make it a rule of mine', 'this is no fault of Frank's', etc. In all such cases the construction was found so convenient that it is no wonder that it should soon be used extensively where no partitive sense is logically possible, as in 'nor shall [we] ever see That face of hers againe' (Shakespeare, Lear I, 1, 267), 'that flattering tongue of yours' (As IV, 1, 195), 'If I had such a tyre, this face of mine Were full as lovely as is this of hers' (Gent. IV, 4, 190), 'this uneasy heart of ours' (Wordsworth), 'that poor old mother of his', etc. When we now say 'he has a house of his own', no one could think of this as meaning 'he has one of his own houses'.


2°ʤϡʬˡ򵯸Ȥʤ⡤ˤ椫ƱˡȯãƤ褦ˤߤ롥ԤȯãηϲäΤ夯路Ĵ٤Ƥ

Jespersen, Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. 10th ed. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1982 [1905].

Referrer (Inside): [2024-10-21-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-10-19 Sat

#5654. a friend of mine vs. one of my friends [double_genitive][genitive][syntax][determiner][definiteness][number][semantics][pragmatics]

ε#5653. 2°ɽ a friend of mine 2Ĥΰ̣Ūħ ([2024-10-18-1]) ˰³double_genitive 뤤 post-genitive ΰ̣롥 a friend of mine ȤɽȤ one of my friends Ȥΰ̣Ūʺۤ뤫ɤܤ롥
Quirk et al. (17.46) ˤСξɽ̾Ʊʸ̮ˤäƤϰۤʤް (entailment) ӤӤȤ

The two constructions a friend of his father's and one of his father's friends are usually identical in meaning. One difference, however, is that the former construction may be used whether his father had one or more friends, whereas the latter necessarily entails more than one friend. Thus:

Mrs Brown's daughter[8]
Mrs Brown's daughter Mary[9]
Mary, (the) daughter of Mrs Brown[10]
Mary, a daughter of Mrs Brown's[11]


[8] implies 'sole daughter', whereas [9] and [10] carry no such implication; [11] entails 'not sole daughter'.
   Since there is only one composition called the War Requiem by Britten, we have [12] but not [13] or [14]:

The War Requiem of/by Britten (is a splendid work.)[12]
*The War Requiem of Britten's[13]
*One of Britten's War Requiems[14]


̯ʰ㤤褦Ƕ̣ȤǺǸ˽Ҥ٤ƤӺεǿ줿ħˤȿ㤬롥㤨 "that wife of mine", "this war Requiem of Britten's", "this hand of mine", "the/that daughter of Mrs Brown's", "that son of yours" ʤɤ
Quirk et al. ϡ򼡤Τ褦롥"this hand of mine" ϡǤ "this one of my (two) hands" ΰ̣ǤϤʤ "this part of my body that I call 'hand'" ΰ̣Ǥ롥ޤԤʸ̮ǰ "a daughter of Mrs Brown's" ƤС򻲾Ȥݤ "the/that daughter of Mrs Brown's (that I mentioned)" ۤɤΰ̣ǻȤ뤳Ȥ롥ˡŪŪʰ̣礤 "that son of yours" ʤɤȤ⤢롥Ĥޤꡤ㳰Ū˷줬դ륱Ǥϡ餫Ρʰ̣ŪǤʤ˸ŪʴްդäƤȤȤ

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.

Referrer (Inside): [2025-01-01-1] [2024-10-20-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-10-18 Fri

#5653. 2°ɽ a friend of mine 2Ĥΰ̣Ūħ [double_genitive][genitive][syntax][definiteness][semantics]

#5647. a friend of mine --- 2°ʡ ([2024-10-12-1]) ³double_genitive 뤤 post-genitive ȸƤФ롤̯ɽΰ̣ŪħͤƤߤ
Quirk et al. (17.46) ˤа̣Ūħ2Ĥ롥(1) of θ̾礬Ū (definite) Ǥʹ (human) Ǥ뤳ȡ(2) of Ū (indefinite) Ǥ뤳Ȥ

. . . It will be observed that the postmodifier must be definite and human:

an opera of Verdi'sBUT NOT: *an opera of a composer's
an opera of my friend'sBUT NOT: *a funnel of the ships


There are conditions that also affect the head of the whole noun phrase. The head must be essentially indefinite: that is, the head must be seen as one of an unspecified number of items attributed to the postmodifier. Thus [1--3] but not [4]:

A friend of the doctor's has arrived.[1]
A daughter of Mrs Brown's has arrived.[2]
Any daughter of Mrs Brown's is welcome.[3]
*The daughter of Mrs Brown's has arrived.[4]


As a consequence of the condition that the head must be indefinite, the head cannot be a proper noun . . . . Thus while we have [5], we cannot have [6] and [7]:

Mrs Brown's Mary[5]
*Mary of Mrs Brown[6]
*Mary of Mrs Brown's[7]


ʤۤ a friend of mine Υפ2°ɽγǤꡦ (definiteness) δʬϤȡ嵭2Ĥħ뤳ȤϤ狼äͤƤߤСɽǤ one of my friends ˤĤƤƤϤޤ̣ŪħǤ롥2ɽ̣Ū˰ۤʤʤȤС¸ƤյϲʤΤ

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.

Referrer (Inside): [2024-10-20-1] [2024-10-19-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-10-12 Sat

#5647. a friend of mine --- 2° [double_genitive][genitive][syntax][determiner]

Ѹˤϴ̯ʽͭɽ롥my friend Ǥ one of my friends Ǥʤa friend of mine ȤäƤޤäŪˤ (double_genitive) ȸƤФɽǤpost-genitive ȸƤФ뤳Ȥ⤢ˡ
ŪˤߤƤⶽ̣ʸǡѸ˽뤬μϸűѸˤäȼĥԤ⤤롥ޤϢ빽ʸȤơűѸǤ괧°̾줬֤̾¤ΤäѸˤ *a my friend, *his a man तιʸűѸǤϵƤƤΤΡ˵ƤʤʤäȤȤϡ a friend of mine פιʸνиȴطƤǽ롥
2°ʤϡΤ褦˱ѸˤǤ⤿ӤܤƤޤ椬¿ĤƤ롥ŪõäƤäơޤιʸ˴ؤƸѸλİƤɬפ롥Τ Quirk et al. γȴФƤߤ褦

The 'post-genitive'
5.126 An of-construction can be combined with a genitive to produce a construction known as the POST-GENITIVE (or 'double genitive'). In this construction, the independent genitive acts as prepositional complement following of:

   some friends of Jim's ['some of Jim's friends']
   that irritating habit of her father's
   an invention of Gutenberg's
   several pupils of his

But the independent genitive is not in this case elliptical. Rather, the post-genitive contrasts in terms of indefiniteness or unfamiliarity with the normal determinative genitive. Whereas [1] and [2] presuppose definiteness, the presupposition in [1a] and [2a] is one of indefiniteness:

Jim's friend[1]a friend of Jim's[1a]
Joseph Haydn's pupil[2]a pupil of Joseph Haydn's[2a]


ܥ֥Ǥϡ2°ʤˤĤơ#2082. 夷ʤä° *the knight of his ([2015-01-08-1]) Ǥäȿ줿ˤʤܲhelwa Discord ߥ˥ƥ夬äƤʸˡǤ⤢ꡤܤƤơޤ

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-10-03 Thu

#5638. ƻʸȤ to 줬³6ĤΥ --- LGSWE [infinitive][syntax][adjective][complementation][construction]

#5633. ƻʸȤ to 줬³7ĤΥ --- Quirk et al. ([2024-09-28-1]) ˰³ƱʸˤĤơ̤ʸˡ򻲾ȤȡۤʤʬबʤƤ롥 LGSWE (= Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English) §9.4.5.2 򻲾ȤǤηƻΰ̣ˤäơ6פ̤Ƥ롥

9.4.5.2 Adjectives taking post-predicate to-clauses

   CORPUS FINDINGS

- Only one adjectival predicate is notably common controling to-clauses in post-predicate position: (un)likely. This form occurs more than 50 times per million words in the LSWE Corpus.
- Other adjectival predicates occurring more than ten times per million words in the LSWE Corpus are: (un)able, determined, difficult, due, east, free, glad, hard, ready, used, (un)willing.
- Other adjectival predicates attested in the LSWE Corpus:
     Degree of certainty: apt, certain, due, guaranteed, liable, (un)likely, prone, sure
     Ability or willingness: (un)able, anxious, bound, careful, competent, determined, disposed, doomed, eager, eligible, fit, greedy, hesitant, inclined, keen, loath, obliged, prepared, quick, ready, reluctant, (all) set, slow, (in)sufficient, welcome, (un)willing
     Personal affective stance: afraid, amazed, angry, annoyed, ashamed, astonished, careful, concerned, content, curious, delighted, disappointed, disgusted, embarrassed, free, furious, glad, grateful, happy, impatient, indignant, nervous, perturbed, pleased, proud, puzzled, relieved, sorry, surprised, worried
     Ease or difficulty: awkward, difficult, easy, hard, (un)pleasant, (im)possible, tough
     Evaluation: bad, brave, careless, crazy, expensive, good, lucky, mad, nice, right, silly, smart, (un)wise, wrong
     Habitual behavior: (un)accustomed, (un)used


Ǥϡ줾Υפηƻ줬Ѥ to 줬ɤΤ褦ʰ̣ôäƤΤȤˤĤƤϿƤʤLGSWE ³սˤʤ⤬ΤǡҤȤ

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan, eds. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education, 1999.

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-10-01 Tue

#5636. 9ܡMond 10ε˲ޤ [mond][sobokunagimon][hel_education][notice][link][helkatsu][adjective][slang][derivation][demonym][perfect][grammaticalisation][h][word_order][syntax][final_e][subjectification][intersubjectification][personal_pronoun][gender]

mond_20240930.png



10ϤޤޤؤοشⳫϤޤΤǡơhel (helkatsu) ФƤȻפޤ9ܤˤϡμͭӥ Mond ˤ10αѸ˴ؤ˲ƤޤϡѸˤ˴ؤѤʵ (sobokunagimon) ˤȤɤޤ餺ʳ̤ʤɤ󤻤ޤΤ̤äƥ󥯤ĥꡤդޤ

(1) ʤѸˤϥݥƥ֤ʷƻ¿Τ˥ͥƥʷƻ줬ʤΡ
Ѹˤϥݥƥʷƻͥƥʷƻ˭٤ˤޤŪθҲŪװˤꡤŪʱѸؽǤϥݥƥʷƻ˿뵡¿ʤ뷹ꤽǤºݤθѡä˥󥰤ɽǤϡͥƥʷƻ¿¸ߤޤ

(2) ̾ȷƻδطˤĤơGermany German Τ褦˸ʪޤ
̱̾²̾̾ʤɤδطʣǡɤ餬ΤǤɤ餬줫ϾˤäưۤʤޤŪѲ伫Ρ¾Τΰ㤤ʤɤƶŪʷŦΤϺǤ

(3) ߴλ I have been to б븽߷ *I am to ʤΤϤʤ
have been to 18о줷Ūɽǡб븽߷ϸ¸ߤޤǤbe ưξֻ to ư԰פͳΰĤǤָߴλ׼Τʸˡ̤ȯŸƤޤ

(4) ɤޤʤƬʳ h ˤĤƤθˤϡ
h Ū2Ż2ǤȤƤh䡤<wh> бȯѸˤ /h/ ʬ۳ʤɡ͡ʴ鸦椬ʤƤޤh ԰ꤵѸȯֻȯŸ˴ͿƤܤǤ

(5) ˤֽħѲˤĤ
ˤäƸǤֽͭηꡤϸ硤ֹ¤¤ʤ͡¦̤˸ޤħŪʤΤǤϤʤŪѲ뤳Ȥ⤢ޤ㤨бѸ䥲ޥδܸ SOV SVO ؤĹ֤򤫤ѲƤޤ

(6) ʤ come some ˤ "magic e" Υ롼뤬ŬѤʤΡ
comesome ʤɤñϡ"magic e" Υ롼Ȥ̵طˤǤޤñֻϡ򸺤餷ɤߤ䤹뤿ˡޤ줿ΤǤѸֻˤ¿Υ롼뤬¸ߤ"magic e" ϤΤ1Ĥ˲᤮ޤ

(7) Let's ˤߤ us s ξάϤ롩ޤ̣Ѳͳϡ
us ξάȤƤ -'s ȤƤϡshall's shall us ޤäΡˤޤlet's ϷŪˤ us μ岽ޤޤǽŪˤϡֵĤΰפִͶפؤȯŸˡ֤ʤ¥׵ǽޤϸμѲּѲȤޤ

(8) ѸˤܸΡ~פΤ褦1;ΤܤɽϤ롩
Ѹˤ⸬ɽϤޤܸۤηŪǤϤޤ㤨 in my humble opinion my modest prediction ʤɤɽ¾εĤɽԤؼ the present author ʤɤɽޤθ䴷ɽˤȤɤޤꡤܸΤ褦ηŪԶɽƥ¸ߤޤ

(9) Ѹ˸Ԥܻؤ4ǯ
´ȸ˼ҲиѤǤر˿ʳؤ륭ꥢѥޤ󡥶鸽Ǥηиϸ˥ˡʻ⤿餹ǽޤԤˤʤ뤫ɤ԰¤¿οͤΤǤǤפʤΤϻ³ؿõ濴ʤǮǤ䥻ߥʡؤλä³ؤӤΥ١ݤäƤ

(10) Ѹο;̾ˤ̶ʬͳȿ̾βǽϡ
1;Ρ2;̾ϲäθ̤ȽǤǤ뤿ᶦŪǤ3;ñ̾ϲäθˤʤͤؤᡤŪ̾դƤǤǤ¿ؤǧ顤3;ñ̾줬ƤƤޤƤΤ singular they ǤܤǤ

ʾǤ10 Mond ꡤѸʻˡˤ˴ؤѤʵ򤪴󤻤

Referrer (Inside): [2025-01-01-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-09-30 Mon

#5635. easy-to-please ʸˤߤưŪ [middle_voice][passive][voice][semantic_role][infinitive][syntax][adjective][complementation][construction][adverb]

ϡε#5634. eager-to-please ʸθŤȽư첽η ([2024-09-27-1]) ǿʤä⤦1Ĥιʸeasy-to-please ʸˤĤơŪħͤƤߤޤ
Fischer et al. (171--72) ˤСeasy-to-please ʸˤ (voice) ˴ؤפ꤬ĤޤȤޤ

   The easy-to-please construction has undergone a number of changes. From around 1400, two slightly more complex variants of the construction are found. One has a stranded preposition in the subordinate clause, as in (28a). The other has a passive infinitive (28b).

(28) aþei fond hit good and esy to dele wiþ also
'They found it good and easy to deal with as well.' (Curson(Trin-C)16557)
bthe excercise and vce [= 'use'] of suche ... visible signes [...] is good and profitable to be had at certein whilis [= 'times'] (Pecock,Represser,Ch.XX)


(28a) Ϥޤ˸ easy-to-please ʸǤ(28b) ʬ to be had Τ褦˼ư֤ȤʤäƤʬդɬפǤΰ㤤ϲʤΤǤ礦ˤĤơѸ˰ĤƶŪ˲⤷ޤ礦 He is easy to please. ˤơʸμ he ȤƸư please ̣Ūʴطϡ"he is pleased" 뤤 "someone pleases him" ȤȤˤʤޤԤȤСǽư֤ǤϤʤư֤βȤʤޤȤƸư켫Τϼư֤ɸӤӤƤʤˡȵǽ˿㤤ƤޤäƤޤ֤δߤȡ嵭 (28a) (28b) ΤۤŬäƤ褦˻פޤɤʤΤǤ礦
Fischer et al. (172) ǤϡΤ褦˵³ޤ

The development in (28b) is reminiscent of that in the modal passive . . . , and some degree of mutual influence seems likely. Curiously, however, passive marking eventually became obligatory in the modal passive, but not so in the easy-to-please construction, where formal passives never became systematic and sometimes even disappeared again, as shown by the now-ungrammatical example in (29a). Fischer (1991: 175ff) suggests that formally passive infinitives tend to occur with easy-type adjectives when the relation between adjective and infinitive rather than between adjective and subjective is stressed (cf. 29a). In such cases, an adverb rather than an adjective is also often found, as in (29b).

(29) a when once an act of dishonesty and shame has been deliberately committed, the will having been turned to evil, is difficult to be reclaimed (1839, COHA)
b Jack Rapley is not easily to be knocked off his feet (1819, Fischer ibid.)

From this, one might speculate that passive forms failed to fully establish themselves in this context because the meaning the construction conveys is not always purely passive. As (30) illustrates, the subject of many easy-to-please constructions combines both patient-like and agent-like qualities. While the subject undergoes the action, its intrinsic qualities also contribute to how that action unfolds. The construction could therefore be analysed as marking middle voice.

(30) more experienced opponents ... can sometimes be tricky to play against. (BNC)


easy-to-please ʸư֤Ȥʴط夬äƤ

Fischer, Olga, Hendrik De Smet, and Wim van der Wurff. A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: CUP, 2017.
Fischer, Olga. "The Rise of the Passive Infinitive in English". Historical English Syntax. Ed. D. Kastovsky. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991. 141--88.

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-09-29 Sun

#5634. eager-to-please ʸθŤȽư첽η [infinitive][syntax][adjective][complementation][construction]

ε#5633. ƻʸȤ to 줬³7ĤΥ --- Quirk et al. ([2024-09-28-1]) ǡַƻ + to פ͡ʥѥǧޤ7פؤζʬϤʤ٤ΤǤǤ Fischer et al. ˽绨Ƥ2פ˶ʬޤ礦ɸˤȤꡤeager-to-please ʸ easy-to-please ʸ2Ǥ (170--71)

In the so-called eager-to-please construction in (22a), the main clause subject functions also as agent-argument of the infinitive. In the easy-to-please construction, the main clause subject corresponds to the patient-argument of the infinitive. The easy-to-please construction is therefore somewhat reminiscent of the modal passive . . . expressing a passive-like meaning without passive marking.

(22) a [Eager-to-please construction]
Andropulos was a bit reluctant to go (BNC)
b [Easy-to-please construction]
He was lying in wait in the hallway, where he was impossible to overlook (BNC)


ιʸˤϸŤǤ˸űѸʸڤޤ (171)

Both the eager-to-please construction and the easy-to-please construction were already available in OE, as shown in (24) and (25), respectively. . . .

(24) ic eom gearo to gecyrrenne to munuclicere drohtnunge
I am ready to turn to monastic way-of-life (ÆCHom.I,35 484.251)
'I am ready to turn to a monastic way of life.'
(25) ðis me is hefi to donne
This to-me is heavy to do (Mart.5(Kotzor)Se.16,A.14)
'This is hard for me to do.'


⤷ΤϡԤ eager-to-please ʸϡűѸ줫ŪʸڤΤǤˡŪʰ̣ӤӤơưȯŸΤФƤƤ뤳ȤǤFischer et al. ³ưѤޤ (171)

The eager-to-please construction has been essentially stable throughout the history of the language. It is interesting to note, however, that some adjectives in the construction developed into modal markers. A straightforward example is bound, originally meaning 'under a binding obligation' but now typically used to mark epistemic necessity.


Ǥ be bound to 㤬ƤޤۤβսǤ be sure to be certain to ˤڤޤεƤȤ碌ợäƤС

Fischer, Olga, Hendrik De Smet, and Wim van der Wurff. A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: CUP, 2017.

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-09-28 Sat

#5633. ƻʸȤ to 줬³7ĤΥ --- Quirk et al. [adjective][complementation][infinitive][syntax][construction][semantics][helmate][helwa]

Quirk et al. (1226--27; §16.75) ˡ"Adjective complementation by a to-infinitive clause" ꤹब롥

We distinguish seven kinds of construction in which an adjective is followed by a to-infinitive clause. They are exemplified in the following sentences, which are superficially alike:

  (i) Bob is splendid to wait.
 (ii) Bob is slow to react.
(iii) Bob is sorry to hear it.
 (iv) Bob is hesitant to agree with you.
  (v) Bob is hard to convince.
 (vi) The food is ready to eat.
(vii) It is important to be accurate.

In Types (i--iv) the subject of the main clause (Bob) is also the subject of the infinitive clause. We can therefore always have a direct object in the infinitive clause if its verb is transitive. For example, if we replace intransitive wait by transitive build in (i), we can have: Bob is splendid to build this house.
   For Types (v--vii), on the other hand, the subject of the infinitive is unspecified, although the context often makes clear which subject is intended. In these types it is possible to insert a subject preceded by for; eg in Type (vi): The food is ready (for the children) to eat.


ιʸɽŪˤϡַƻ + to פƱͤ줾˸ͭỤ̄Ūħ롥ĴǤϤ뤬餯Ūȯãηϩߤ礭ۤʤΤ¿
ܲ helwa ꥹʡʤ Discord αѸ˥ߥ˥ƥˤ֥̥ޤ롪ʸˡץͥˤơHe is sure to win the game. Τ褦ʹʸȤʤäƤ롥Ρsure + to פιʸϡQuirk et al. ˤ (iv) פ°Ȥɬ⤿䤹ʤ

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-08-22 Thu

#5596. ѻˤѤʸ礬 --- OVS, VSO, OSV, SOV [poetry][syntax][word_order][poetic_license][rhetoric][star_wars][voicy]heldio]

ѸϸθȤ롥㤨 S, V, O 3Ǥ˸¤äƹͤƤ⡤̾ S+V+O ¤Ƥʤ̾ϡ׳ΤˤʤΤḽѸλ뤤Ϥ¾νŪʸ̮ˤƤϡŪ (poetic_license) ˤäƸ絬§ˤ뤳Ȥ뤳Ȥ롥Crystal (98) ĤθˤĤƶ󤲤Ƥ롥

SVO the boy saw the man
OVS Johns I invited --- not Smith
VSO govern thou my song (Milton)
OSV strange fits of passion have I known (Wordsworth)
SOV pensive poets painful vigils keep (Pope)


ۤˤϡեǤϤ뤬 Star Wars Υޥ衼ä֥衼 (Yodish) θ礬褯ΤƤ롥ˤĤƤ Crystal (98) Ѥ褦

Sick have I become.
Strong am I with the Force.
Your father he is.
When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not.


ѸǤ SVO θ礬ޤ˼ФǤ뤿ᡤտŪ˰æݱʤΩषŪѲͤޤ롤Ȥä𤬤褦˻פ롥
(word_order) ˤĤƤϡǶ#5585. ػҶβʳء9Ǿ5Ρ֤ʤܸȱѸǤϸ礬㤦ΤǤפ˲ޤ ([2024-08-11-1]) εǼ夲ޤī heldio #1180. ػҶβʳء٤ѸδܸˤĤƲޤ⤪İ



Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd. Cambridge: CUP, 2003.

Referrer (Inside): [2025-01-01-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-08-11 Sun

#5585. ػҶβʳء9Ǿ5Ρ֤ʤܸȱѸǤϸ礬㤦ΤǤפ˲ޤ [notice][sobokunagimon][helkatsu][word_order][syntax][link][youtube][inohota][mond][voicy][heldio]

Kodomonokagaku_202409.png



ػҶβʳء9椬ȯ䤵ޤع3ǯɼؤȤʳػǤ44Ǥˤơع5ǯ󤻤ƤɸѤʵ˲ƤޤȤƤϡָźˤϤޤޤʸ礬ޤפȤʤޤ
μˤĤƤ͡ΤǼ夲ƤޤϻǾФƲ⤹ȤƤεäΤǡƬǺޤޤ¤줿ǡɤޤΤפܼͤ褦ʲõäƤߤޤϤƤǤ礦ɤΤ褦ɤǤ館ƤΤˤʤȤǤ
嵭ǤϱѸ줬ŤϸθȤϰۤʤäƤˤȿޤϤǤޤǤ˴ؿΤϡ YouTube ֤ΤۤإͥפֱѸθΤ SOV äΤˤʤ SVO ѤäͤƤߤ!!30󡪡
¾ܥ֥Ǥ (word_order) ϢϤӤӼ夲ƤƤޤ

ΡѸˤˤѲѰۤȤθ

#3127. ĸ줫鸽Ѹؤδܸοܡ ([2017-11-18-1])
#132. űѸ줫Ѹؤθȯã ([2009-09-06-1])
#4597. űѸ6Ĥΰۤʤ硧SVO, SOV, OSV, OVS, VSO, VOS ([2021-11-27-1])
#4385. Ѹ줬Τ SV θäȻפäƤޤ󤫡 ([2021-04-29-1])
#2975. ޤοȸθ경ζϴط ([2017-06-19-1])
#4793. ¿˻İƤƤޤ塦Ĥ YouTube 30ơֱѸθΤ SOV äΤˤʤ SVO ѤäͤƤߤס ([2022-06-11-1])

Ρܸ෿]

#137. θδܸ ([2009-09-11-1])
#3124. ܸ෿ (1) ([2017-11-15-1])
#3125. ܸ෿ (2) ([2017-11-16-1])
#3128. ܸ෿ (3) ([2017-11-19-1])
#3129. ܸ෿ (4) ([2017-11-20-1])
#4316. ܸ췿 SOV ϷŪɸѸ췿 SVO Ϥ⤿ʤ ([2021-02-19-1])
#3734. ٥ȸ VSO ε ([2019-07-18-1])

ˡ˽񤤤ƤϢܵ¿ޤΤǡ󥯤ĥäƤޤ

ѸϢܴʸҡָѸѸˤλͤ1112
- #3131. Ϣ11֤ʤѸSVOθʤΤԡˡס ([2017-11-22-1]) Ϣܵؤľܥפ
- #3160. Ϣ12֤ʤѸSVOθʤΤʸԡˡס ([2017-12-21-1]) Ϣܵؤľܥפ
μͭӥMondǤβܸʤSOVѸʤSVOӥʤVSOʤɸˤäƸ礬ۤʤޤϤɤΤ褦ʸ㤤ʤΤǤ礦
#3733.رѸ춵٤Ϣ5֤ʤѸϸ礬ʤ˷ޤäƤΤס ([2019-07-17-1])
#4583. δñѸ in English٤Ϣ9֤ʤѸθ SVO ʤΡס ([2021-11-13-1])
#4527. ѸθˤѤǤͤҲ ([2021-09-18-1])

ˤĤƲƹͤƤߤƤС

ʰʲ嵭2024/08/22(Thu)



δ졡֤ʤܸȱѸǤϸ礬㤦ΤǤ --- źˤϤޤޤʸ礬ޤסػҶβʳء2024ǯ9桤ʸƲҡ2024ǯ81044ǡ

[ | ѥڡ ]

2024-08-05 Mon

#5579. Ȥϲ [interjection][pos][category][exclamation][syntax][onomatopoeia][terminology][exclamation][pragmatics][syntax]

(interjection) Ȥޥʡʻϡ褽쵬§ʤͣθȤȤǡɤͳ̥Ϥ롥Ū˼椫졤夲Ƥ롥εȤƤϡ#3689. Ѹδ ([2019-06-03-1])#3712. Ѹδ (2) ([2019-06-26-1])#3688. ܸδưʬ ([2019-06-02-1]) ʤɤ򻲾Ȥ줿
Crystal, McArthur, Bussmann γơѸ켭ŵ interjection Ƥߤ

interjection (n.) A term used in the TRADITIONAL CLASSIFICATION of PARTS OF SPEECH, referring to a CLASS of WORDs which are UNPRODUCTIVE, do not enter into SYNTACTIC relationships with other classes, and whose FUNCTION is purely EMOTIVE, e.g., Yuk!, Strewth!, Blast!, Tut tut! There is an unclear boundary between these ITEMS and other types of EXCLAMATION, where some REFERENTIAL MEANING may be involved, and where there may be more than one word, e.g. Excellent!, Lucky devil!, Cheers!, Well well! Several alternative ways of analysing these items have been suggested, using such notions as MINOR SENTENCE, FORMULAIC LANGUAGE, etc. (Crystal)


INTERJECTION [15c: through French from Latin interiectio/interiectionis something thrown in]. A part of speech and a term often used in dictionaries for marginal items functioning alone and not as conventional elements of sentence structure. They are sometimes emotive and situational: oops, expressing surprise, often at something mildly embarrassing, yuk/yuck, usually with a grimace and expressing disgust, ow, ouch, expressing pain, wow, expressing admiration and wonder, sometimes mixed with surprise. They sometimes use sounds outside the normal range of a language: for example, the sounds represented as ugh, whew, tut-tut/tsk-tsk. The spelling of ugh has produced a variant of the original, pronounced ugg. Such greetings as Hello, Hi, Goodbye and such exclamations as Cheers, Hurra, Well are also interjections. (McArthur)


interjection [Lat. intericere 'to throw between']
Group of words which express feelings, curse, and wishes or are used to initiate conversation (Ouch!, Darn!, Hi!). Their status as a grammatical category is debatable, as they behave strangely in respect to morphology, syntax, and semantics: they are formally indeclinable, stand outside the syntactic frame, and have no lexical meaning, strictly speaking. Interjections often have onomatopoeic characteristics: Brrrrr!, Whoops!, Pow! (Bussmann)


¾Ѹ켭ŵ٤ƤȤǤ롥ޤܤ뤳ȤΤʤ̥ϤäƤ

Crystal, David, ed. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. 295--96.
McArthur, Tom, ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: OUP, 1992.
Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Trans. and ed. Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzizi. London: Routledge, 1996.

Referrer (Inside): [2025-01-01-1]

[ | ѥڡ ]

Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow