Jason (jcreed) wrote,
Jason
jcreed

Holy Strunk and White! Language log replied to Eli's comment my previous post. I always imagined myself thoroughly below the radar of, you know, those capital-P People with capital-B Blogs and all. In any event, the linked article has some great numbers which are even more statistically satisfying than the previous set, but that's not to say I was unsatisfied before. My
...I imagine that would take much more effort than just pulling up some project gutenberg texts and grepping a few times...
wasn't at all meant as
...well, I guess those are the shoddy results one can expect from a lazy bum! Darn if I ain't just gleeful besmirching the honor of smart folk!...
but rather as
...that seems like an efficient way of estimating the frequency of integrated which, which at least surely convinces me that it's common enough in well-regarded literature to be considered grammatical. To get a more exacting measure seems like it would require quite a tedious manual count, which I don't demand as proof...
So, sorry, Dr. Pullum! The last thing I need to attract is righteous and well-researched fury.

---

Another thought just popped into my head: I should probably look this up in PMEG, (although bertilow.com seems to be down right now!) but as far as I remember, esperanto does get along fine without the integrated/supplementary distinction entirely. Both are expressed with kiu, (or one of kiun, kiuj, kiujn according to number and case) usually with a comma before it, even for the integrated one. So "The boy who knows my sister" and "the boy, who knows my sister" are both rendered as La knabo, kiu konas mian fratinon
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 5 comments