From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 16 12:37:36 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 May 2006 12:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg5M6-0004FG-1b for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 12:37:18 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg5M4-0004F8-1w for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 12:37:17 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a27so536nfc for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 12:37:14 -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=QMR7FlSbuBUPIXmx1doYTsPl8KXphLk24JkHWyJD4j8QvmgLqsW0LsI9BLTXNlyrIN4ay1BE/Lv9AXtrQ8+AC/6Oqmvf25eiezKTZMlq7SWoFYDKulfessoWaf12tKvdo0umSkX/cxo65vv/S4Lmv2MA4i2LZEI/h6HP4ty790w= Received: by 10.49.23.1 with SMTP id a1mr112154nfj; Tue, 16 May 2006 12:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.5? ( [81.7.46.33]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id p20sm211568nfc.2006.05.16.12.37.10; Tue, 16 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <446A29E5.2020409@v21.me.uk> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:37:09 +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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: And Rosta X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 11569 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org 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 > On Mon, 15 May 2006 bill@thebranchhearth.net wrote: > >> Does anyone know if the Lojban grammar is consistent with the X-bar >> theory put forth by Chomsky. If you mean X-bar theory in its most generic sense (= headed phrases) then IMO the answer is: Basically yes, but iff elided terminators are syntactically present even though unpronounced. (The terminator would be head of the phrase it terminates.) If you mean X-bar theory in some narrower theory-specific sense, then IMO the answer is: Almost certainly not, but this is uninteresting. I once had a student do a dissertation on a dependency grammar analysis of Lojban syntax (essentially equivalent to generic X-bar). It was instructive to compare his analyses with the baroque & inhuman trees he drew on the basis of the official grammar. I'll see if I can find time to hunt down the electronic copy I once had. --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.