End of ADS-L Digest - 11 Oct 1994 to 12 Oct 1994

************************************************







There are 2 messages totalling 43 lines in this issue.



Topics of the day:



 1. HAVE constructions

 2. The two [if not]s: one more reference



----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:  Thu, 13 Oct 1994 16:18:28 -0400

From:  Ronald Butters <amspeech[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]ACPUB.DUKE.EDU>

Subject: HAVE constructions



See "Existential and Causative HAVE . . . TO," AMERICAN SPEECH 61.2

(1986), 184-90. See also Lauri Karttunen, "On the Semantics of Complement

Sentences," PAPERS FROM THE SIXTH REGIONAL MEETING, CHICAGO LINGUISTIC

SOCIETY, 328-39. The AMERICAN SPEECH article points out that there is

regional dialect variation between HAVE and HAVE TO (as in, say, "I`ll

have these players (to) play something like the murder of my father

before my uncle") as well as the fact that there are both EXISTENTIAL and

CAUSATIVE senses. Actually, as Karttunen points out, there is also a

third sense--termed POSSESSIVE--as in "They had the money to buy the

sofa." I think that Ivan Sag has also done some work on the

syntax/semantics of the construction(s), but I have only a handout from a

paper that he gave in 1973 at the LSA Summer Meeting in Ann Arbor; Sag

uses the term HAPPENSTANCE HAVE rather than EXISTENTIAL HAVE.



I missed Bruce Southard`s original query on this topic, and so I

apologize if I have repeated any of his wisdom (or anyone else`s) here. I

think that Quirk et al. (COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR) also talk about these

various senses of HAVE; I know that Poutsma does.