Joshua Katz

Jespersen (1860-1934:73-75) described what he called resumptive negation: “A second class [of emphatic negation] comprises what may be termed resumptive negation, the characteristic of which is that after a negative sentence has been completed, something is added in a negative form with the obvious result that the negative result is heightened. . . . In its pure form, the supplementary negative is added outside the frame of the first sentence, generally as a afterthought, as in ‘I shall never do it, not under any circumstances, not on any condition, neither at home nor abroad’, etc.” Such examples have, to the best my knowledge, received no attention in the modern linguistic literature with the exception of the discussion by van der Wouden (1997) and mention (without discussion) in (Lawler 1977), plus brief comments by Klima and by McCawley (see van der Wouden) . A somewhat similar type of example (1) is known from Ross’s (1967) “Slifting” paper, where it is presented with along with extensive p.c. comments from Larry Horn; later in passim mention appears in (Horn 1989) and occasionally elsewhere.

The final hymn of the Rigveda, 10.191, the last three stanzas of which are dedicated to saṃjñānam ‘unity’, plays in a remarkable way with the preposition/prefix sam(-) ‘with; together’ and the phonetic sequence mā̆n. Some of the words with mā̆n go back to Proto-Indo-European *men ‘think’ (mánas- ‘mind, intellect, thought’, mántra- ‘utterance, spell’, and mantraye ‘I utter an utterance, recite a spell’); others are forms of the adjective samāná- ‘common, the same’. This brief communication shows that the display of phonetic fireworks has analogs in our earliest hymns in Avestan and Greek, in which both reflexes of *men and etymologically unconnected words that have the same pattern of sounds are frequently found in the most “privileged positions”: the beginning and/or end of a section, poem, or entire poetic collection.

Maloberti, in “Why Libertarians Should Accept Positive Rights” argues that, as normally presented, libertarianism entails anarchism. He argues that libertarians should, therefore, accept a limited form of positive rights, which will allow for the creation of a libertarian government. In this paper, it is argued that the entailment of anarchism is not a problem for libertarianism, and that the form of positive rights endorsed by Maloberti is unfounded, ill-defined, and inconsistent with libertarian notions of individual freedom. It is further argued that Maloberti’s positive rights, as defined in his paper, cannot withstand the analysis prompted by Austrian value theory