Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T10:44:48.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Notes on Indefinites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Östen Dahl
Östen Dahl*
Affiliation:
University of Göteborg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of the Russian indefinites in -to and -nibud’ is analysed from the viewpoint of generative semantics. It is argued that the choice between the two suffixes is determined by the underlying structure of the sentence, where the ordering of quantifiers is of primary importance. The relative positions of quantifiers is also shown to be relevant for the semantic difference between the English pronouns any and every.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 33 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bach, Emmon. 1968. Nouns and noun phrases. Universais of linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 90–122. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Borras, F. M., and Christian, R. F. 1959. Russian syntax. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, J., and Thorne, J. P. 1969. The semantics of modal verbs. Journal of Linguistics 5.57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1947. Meaning and necessity: a study in semantics and modal logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1969. Topic and comment: a study in Russian and general transformational grammar. (Slavica Gothoburgensia, 4). Göteborg: Acta Universita tis Gotho- burgensis.Google Scholar
Dean, Janet. 1968. Non-specific noun phrases in English. (Report No. NSF-20, Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation, VII 1-43.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Computation Laboratory.Google Scholar
Galkina-Fedoruk, E. M. 1963. Vyraženie neopredelennosti v russkom jazyke neopre- delennymi mestoimenijami i narečijami. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1969. On the notion ‘related semantic entry’. Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 76–88. Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1969. Discourse referents. (International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Preprints, no. 70.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, Jerry A. and Katz, Jerrold J., 246–323. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1969. Some reasons why there can’t be any some-any rule. Lg. 45.608–15.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Auxiliaries as main verbs. Unpublished paper, MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1970. On declarative sentences. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by R. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum. Boston: Ginn-Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Rozental‘, Ditmar. 1968. Praktičeskaja stilistika russkogo jazyka. 2d ed. Moscow: Vysšaja Škola.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar