Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 7 Oct 1993 10:20:32 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 7 Oct 1993 10:20:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199310071420.AA03355@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2607; Thu, 07 Oct 93 10:17:56 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6761; Thu, 07 Oct 93 10:15:13 EDT Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 15:11:56 +0100 Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Subcategorisation To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 7 16:11:56 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET John answers me: +++++++> > I now claim that the distinction between set, masses and individuals is an > obligatory grammatical SUBcategory. The level of abstraction is another such > (I'm still wondering about this idea of 2nd level abstractions). What is the distinction between a "grammatical category" and a "grammatical subcategory"? >++++++++ I'm not sure if 'grammatical category' is well-defined or not, but what I would understand by it is something like a selma'o: getting the wrong one will deliver a text that will not parse as a sentence. By 'subcategory' I mean a classification which will not vitiate the syntactic parse, but would be rejected by a hypothetical analyser which considers subcategorisation frames. An important feature of subcategories is that the distinction can be neutralised, as I suggested in the example of xamgu at the end of the mail. ++++++++> I take your point, although it is a confusing one. I believe, however, that it is sound to say things like: le cmima cu cmima le se cmima The member-I-have-in-mind is-a-member-of the set-I-have-in-mind. even though the x2 of the outermost "cmima" (the second one in surface order) normally would be followed by a description beginning with "le'i" or the like. So although "le se cmima" is one or more sets viewed as individuals, this view does not make them other than sets, and sets at the "se cmima" level are the same sets as those at the "le'i" level. >+++++++ The point *is* subtle, but I believe it is important. It is certainly sound to say what you have said, but remember that it actually means The member-I-have-in-mind is-a-member-of ALL the sets-I-have-in-mind. I would be cautious about your statement 'normally would be followed by a description beginning with "le'i" or the like'. This is not incorrect, because of the 'normally', but I think it needs more explication. I've been thinking it out further, and I have an Essay on Subcategorisation which I shall send in the following mail. Colin