From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:26:01 EDT
> > > > - Ã˜ [LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH STROKE] and Ã¸ [LATIN
> > > SMALL LETTER O
> > > > WITH STROKE] are both ruled out as their semantics is
> > > totally wrong.
> > Not at all (as seen by example Jarkko quoted!). In Danish
> > and Norwegian,
> > yes. But in Swedish and Finnish that vowel is written ö (and Ö).
> Uhhh, sorry, I must have not been clear enough. The symbol
> used in the Finnish
> morphology studies is NEITHER the ö nor the ø! It is used to
> mark the _absence_ of
> of a morphological unit:
> jalka -> jalan
> shows the change
> k -> EMPTY SET
Uhhh, sorry. I must have been less clear than I intended.
This neither indicates nor proves nothing of the kind. What IS shown
by your example is that a "slashed circlish shape" is used to explicitly
denote at least one kind of deletion in at least one context. I have no
problem with this being used for several different kinds of deletions, or
similar, or this being used by convention by many linguists; it's just that
your example does not show that. Note that there in no set here, not
even an empty one. To be nitpicking: the empty set IS something, it's not
nothing! The empty string is also something, but this something is a unit
for string concatenation.
What character this shape is, is harder to determine. Indeed,
the reference you give contradicts your statement. And I see no
problem in principle to have a letter, which in other contexts stand
for something else, in some specific contexts explicitly denote
deletion (of some kind, or similar).
Ok, maybe I'm overinterpreting your "shows" here. I think you mean
"indicates" rather than "proves". It may still be a borrowing from set
theoretic notation, and Ken gives an argument that that is at least
sometimes the case.
See further my responses to Peter and Ken.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 16:10:05 EDT