From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 17 02:01:26 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 02:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgHtz-0001eH-RM for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 02:01:07 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgHty-0001e9-If for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 02:01:07 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d4so129056nfe for ; Wed, 17 May 2006 02:01:03 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=qP+0qtGz5vOWPsMRbzkkG752dacSc8Pf51hyBgyDERVe2ldlzNVt5yzMps4XjdepStGJ0mILgv5PBPiZio6e3XKUkDGhLPO9QBMa4AftrjK5YfpsGdplbEkS/ucW5K1AXN88Q0sLx1M5g3vJ4TcF8VCsST5THAMAAF0bSBQm/Mc= Received: by 10.48.161.5 with SMTP id j5mr533687nfe; Wed, 17 May 2006 02:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.5? ( [81.7.46.33]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id c1sm1846517nfe.2006.05.17.02.01.02; Wed, 17 May 2006 02:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <446AE64D.5080102@v21.me.uk> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:01:01 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: X-bar, chomsky and lojban References: <57995.192.94.94.105.1147732061.squirrel@www.thebranchhearth.net> <446A29E5.2020409@v21.me.uk> <925d17560605161255qed5f1aeu4918d7b322f35bd0@mail.gmail.com> <446A3F84.4000006@v21.me.uk> <925d17560605161604u234fe121u7a9338e8c4ed9e9e@mail.gmail.com> <446A7B47.9070002@v21.me.uk> <925d17560605161926idd869edob46420890931876e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560605161926idd869edob46420890931876e@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: And Rosta X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 11581 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: and.rosta@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Jorge Llambías, On 17/05/2006 03:26: > On 5/16/06, And Rosta wrote: >> >> For syntactic reasons. I.e. KU is head of KU-phrase. LE >> is head of LE-phrase, which is complement of KU-phrase. >> Selbri is head of Selbri-Phrase, which is complement of >> LE-phrase. >> >> The rationale is that KU-phrase = the distributionally defined >> class normally called 'sumti'. Then KU-phrase can have any >> of a range of complements (LE, LA, KOhA, etc. etc.). > > KOhA and LA CMENE cannot take a {ku} though. Is the > idea that in those cases the KU-phrase is always realized > as null? > >> In the alternative analysis (in which KU is complement >> of LE), you would not be able to dispense with the >> class 'Sumti' and you'd have to define it disjunctively, >> as "LE-phrase, or LA-phrase, or KohA-phrase, or ...". >> Which is much more inelegant. > > Here's an argument for the alternative analysis in which > Selbri-phrase is complement of KU-phrase and KU-phrase > is complement of LE-phrase: > > Relative clauses can appear in three positions in a sumti, > as marked by the stars: > > le * broda * ku * > > If we take the relative-clause as a complement of the > KU-phrase then all three can be accounted for if the > Selbri-phrase is also a complement of the KU-phrase. > But if the Selbri-phrase is a comp[lement of the LE-phrase, > then relative clauses have to be sometimes complement > of the KU-phrase and sometimes a complement of > something else (either of the LE-phrase or of the > Selbri-phrase. A reasonable argument, though it loses some of its force if relative clauses can occur in other loci besides this three places -- i.e. in places other than within LE/KU phrases. This is because some other generalization is anyway needed to account for the distribution of relative clauses. Note, BTW, that multiplicable elements such as relative clauses would count as adjuncts rather than complements. I.e. an XP that contains an XP and an adjunct. This entails that in the normal case, adjuncts occur further from the head than complements. (A potential problem for treating the pre-ku relative clause as directly belonging to the KU phrase.) In some apparent exceptions to this generalization, it is sometimes the case that a complement -- typically when long -- has been shifted to an adjuct position (as in "I read _ today [every single one of the books you lent me]"). >> > I don't know if X-bar allows the head and the complement >> > to be infixed/circumfixed to each other, but if it does then >> > I think LE.../KU/ should be considered as one element and >> > the inner selbri as the other element. >> >> No, this is not possible. > > I don't like X-bar for Lojban then. :) X-bar, at the level of genericity I've been taking it at, seems to be a (bogstandard & unesoteric) universal of natural language. --And. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.