Measurement theory in classical mechanics

We investigate measurement theory in classical mechanics in the formulation of classical mechanics by Koopman and von Neumann (KvN), which uses Hilbert space. We show a difference between classical and quantum mechanics in the “relative interpretation” of the state of the target of measurement and the state of the measurement device. We also derive the uncertainty relation in classical mechanics.

THE ANALOGUES OF TENSE INTERPRETATION IN RUSSIAN EMBEDDED CLAUSES: ABSOLUTE VS. RELATIVE MODALITY, ABSOLUTE VS. RELATIVE ASPECT

The paper adresses parallels between tense, aspect and modality marking in Russian embedded clauses. It is widely known that tense forms of embedded verbs can be interpreted relatively or absolutely, and in some cases, the relative and absolute use seem to be in free variation. It turns out that the interpretation of modality and aspect can be described along the same lines and classified into the relative and absolute uses. For instance, subjunctive mood—one of the main instruments of irreality marking—can be interpreted as less real than the main event (relative interpretation) or less real than the moment of speech (and to the same degree as the main event; absolute interpretation). Similarly, aspect forms, depending on their interpretation, can describe the structure of the situation compared to the speech act or to the main event. I show that the parallelism between the three categories is not full: for instance, relative modality is mainly observed in triclausal constructions. Modality interpretation is sensitive to the opposition of clausal adjuncts vs. relative clauses. For the aspect interpretation, the contrast between finite forms and infinitive is relevant: infinitive allows for relative use of perfective aspect use much easier than finite forms. Finally, interpretations of the three categories are related to each other. For example, in complement clauses, the relative interpretation is perfectly acceptable for all the three categories.

Quantity Superlatives in Germanic, or “Life on the Fault Line Between Adjective and Determiner”

This paper concerns the superlative forms of the words many, much, few, and little, and their equivalents in German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Dalecarlian, Icelandic, and Faroese. It demon-strates that every possible relationship between definiteness marking and interpretation is attested. It also demonstrates that different kinds of agreement mismatches are found under relative and proportional readings. One consistent pattern is that under a relative interpretation, quantity superlatives with adverbial morphology show neuter singular agreement even if the target noun is plural. In contrast, under a proportional interpretation, quantity superlatives always agree in number. This evidence is taken to show that quantity superlatives are not structurally analogous to quality superlatives such as tallest on either a relative or a proportional reading; however, depending on their interpretation, quantity superlatives depart from a plain attributive structure in different ways. On relative readings, they can have a structure akin to that of pseudo-partitives (as in two liters of milk), while on proportional readings, they tend to have a quantificational structure, sometimes involving a true partitive (as in some of the children). Furthermore, I suggest that the agreement features of a quantity superlative depend on the domain from which the target is drawn (the Target-Domain Hypothesis).

Identity in the Oral History of Bujuur Naga

In this age of objective historical construction based on empirical evidence, the space of oral narrations is minimal and their reliability is doubtful. However, the importance of oral narrations cannot be altogether ignored as many communities’ identity is embedded in them. The article explores and reconstructs the history of Bujuur Naga from oral sources, using analytical and discussion discourse, rather than completely relying on relative interpretation. For the Bujuur, such historical construction is crucial to uphold the being and identity in the ever changing modern period; and being one of the least known community and largely undocumented, the article provides a glimpse of the community, the oral history and other historical events that shaped the identity of the present.

Prosody and absolute vs. relative uses of English and Slovene adjectives

The paper explores the role prosody plays in distinguishing two types of uses of adjectival structures in English and Slovene. In both languages, adjectival structures can be used with an internal standard, yielding an absolute interpretation, or with an external standard (typically comparing the nominal referent to other members of the same category), giving rise to a relative interpretation. It is shown that, in the base degree, a focus on the adjective provides disambiguation by making it clear that the construction is an instance of absolute use. In the comparative and superlative degrees, however, structural differences in the intonation patterns of the two languages come into play in the case of analytic comparison, so that in Slovene reduction in stress signifies absolute use, but in English relatively used comparatives and superlatives can be unstressed as well.

A superlative argument for a minimal theory of definiteness

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L';">This paper concerns the interpretation of the definite article with superlatives on a relative interpretation. Previous work has suggested that definite superlative noun phrases like </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L'; font-style: italic;">the fewest letters </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L';">in </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L'; font-style: italic;">Gloria received the fewest letters </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L';">(relative superlative DPs) are semantically indefinite. This paper argues that such DPs are </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L'; font-style: italic;">definite </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L';">(presupposing uniqueness) but not </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L'; font-style: italic;">determinate </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L';">(denoting an individual). We provide new evidence that they are not determinate, and undertake a critical review of the evidence that has previously been used to argue for their indefiniteness, arguing that it is consistent with the hypothesis that they are definite. We argue furthermore that a movement analysis of relative superlatives is not consistent with a treatment of the determiner as definite. We therefore offer an analysis of relative superlative DPs on which they are definite but indeterminate, and the superlative morpheme is interpreted </span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L'; font-style: italic;">in situ</span><span style="font-size: 11.000000pt; font-family: 'NimbusRomNo9L';">. </span></p></div></div></div>

A Disputed Sabaic ‘Relative’ Pronoun

The following note, though drafted by A. F. L. Beeston, is essentially the result of co-operative discussion between him, A. K. Irvine, W. W. Müller, M. Rodinson, and J. Ryckmans; all of whom are now in agreement on the issue. The discussion originated from the question whether four words beginning with t- in CIH 540 (tbs2nf line 15, ts3n/ts1n lines 16 and 19, tbn line 18) are to be explained as containing a feminine relative pronoun t as a variant of the normal Sabaic form ḏt, as Praetorius suggested; or are t-prefix verb forms. In favour of the relative interpretation are the facts, firstly that in classical Arabic poetry we find a masculine ḏā contrasting with feminine tī, and the same type of alternation is widely attested in vernacular dialects, including Yemeni ones; secondly, that in all four cases there is a defined feminine antecedent (‘glmtn, k'btn, k'bt/ġyln, k'bt/mfllm—assuming, as is most probable, that the last word is a proper name). Against it was the fact that such a pronoun appeared to be attested nowhere in all Sabaic except in this text. G. M. Bauer (Yazyk yuzhnoarabiyskoy pis'mennosti, Moscow, 1966, 92) accepted the relatival interpretation, but describes it as a ‘late’ use; while M. Rodinson (‘Sur un pseudo-relatif sudarabique’, Actes du premier Congrès international de Linguistique Sémitique et Chamito-semitique, Paris, 1969, ed. by Caquot and Cohen, Paris, 1974, 290–1) and W. W. Müller (in an article for AION, 1975, sent to press before our discussions took place) were inclined to deny the existence of this relative and adopt the verbal interpretation.