Comments on: I’d like to report a case of zeugma http://noncompositional.com/2007/10/id-like-to-report-a-case-of-zeugma/ Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:04:39 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Russell http://noncompositional.com/2007/10/id-like-to-report-a-case-of-zeugma/comment-page-1/#comment-25059 Russell Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:50:28 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/2007/10/id-like-to-report-a-case-of-zeugma/#comment-25059 <p>Ah, cool idea. I hadn't thought to place it on the (inverse) selectional properties of the PP. Though I don't know exactly the "meaning" consequences for either choice - would they mean different things due to some inherent semantics of the various categories, or would they "eventually" mean different things due to semantic composition, which would follow syntactic composition?</p> <p>I'm also confused by "(VP/NP)(VP/NP)." Should there be a \ in there? (I freely admit that any ability I have to read CG notation is completely by analogy to H/GPSG.)</p> Ah, cool idea. I hadn’t thought to place it on the (inverse) selectional properties of the PP. Though I don’t know exactly the “meaning” consequences for either choice – would they mean different things due to some inherent semantics of the various categories, or would they “eventually” mean different things due to semantic composition, which would follow syntactic composition?

I’m also confused by “(VP/NP)(VP/NP).” Should there be a \ in there? (I freely admit that any ability I have to read CG notation is completely by analogy to H/GPSG.)

]]> By: Neal Whitman http://noncompositional.com/2007/10/id-like-to-report-a-case-of-zeugma/comment-page-1/#comment-25018 Neal Whitman Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:54:29 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/2007/10/id-like-to-report-a-case-of-zeugma/#comment-25018 <p>I'd tag it as zeugma. At first, instead of looking for a single word having two meanings or categorizations, we can just give the entire PP two categorizations, looking at it from a categorial grammar standpoint. First categorization: The meaning for <i>take away anything in this box</i> could be adjectival or adverbial, and I'd assign it the category NP\NP or (VP/NP)(VP/NP) depending on what meaning is intended. Second categorization: For <i>place anything in this box</i>, where the PP is a complement to <i>place</i>, you can categorize the PP as an oblique-marked NP, or as one of the previous categories, just as long as you make sure the category for <i>place</i> calls for the appropriate category as a complement.</p> <p>Now, a revision: You can still pin this all on one word's having multiple categorizations (and therefore multiple meanings), by giving <i>in</i> the category X/NP and Y/NP, where X and Y are whatever categories you settle on for the PP as a whole for its two meanings.</p> I’d tag it as zeugma. At first, instead of looking for a single word having two meanings or categorizations, we can just give the entire PP two categorizations, looking at it from a categorial grammar standpoint. First categorization: The meaning for take away anything in this box could be adjectival or adverbial, and I’d assign it the category NP\NP or (VP/NP)(VP/NP) depending on what meaning is intended. Second categorization: For place anything in this box, where the PP is a complement to place, you can categorize the PP as an oblique-marked NP, or as one of the previous categories, just as long as you make sure the category for place calls for the appropriate category as a complement.

Now, a revision: You can still pin this all on one word’s having multiple categorizations (and therefore multiple meanings), by giving in the category X/NP and Y/NP, where X and Y are whatever categories you settle on for the PP as a whole for its two meanings.

]]>