From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 16 18:24:59 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 May 2006 18:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgAmH-0006ue-2F for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:24:41 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.184]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgAmF-0006tv-4h for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:24:40 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d4so83699nfe for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:24:25 -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=k+cOgk91AVrErhXw21q8YVU8PShVOJvo3EB3tOxTFloAOndF2G7c73zV1db4VvW5ickGA3JMs1pQ24waeLkY1gwyVSlY/Kudb3hmWAMJNMyaAUFuVc+iyaTQ0RbgD90mSsTfT6iQ8tNvcI+g7cMXkd9SrZ1r5+NZhtf0k2mj+M8= Received: by 10.49.88.4 with SMTP id q4mr313427nfl; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.5? ( [81.7.46.33]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id p20sm470952nfc.2006.05.16.18.24.24; Tue, 16 May 2006 18:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <446A7B47.9070002@v21.me.uk> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 02:24:23 +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> In-Reply-To: <925d17560605161604u234fe121u7a9338e8c4ed9e9e@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: 11576 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 Jorge Llambías, On 17/05/2006 00:04: > On 5/16/06, And Rosta wrote: >> >> One needs to be complement of the other. I.e. either a LE >> takes a KU phrase as complement (with the rest of the sumti >> within the KU phrase), or a KU takes a LE phrase as >> complement (with the rest of the sumti within the LE phrase). >> My intuitions tell me the latter would work better. > > Because of the syntax or of the semantics? In other words, > if instead of > > lo broda ku > le broda ku > loi broda ku > lei broda ku > > Lojban had for example: > > lo broda ku > lo broda ki > lo broda kau > lo broda kai > > so that the semantic component of the gadri was given by > the terminator, would it make more sense to have the > initiator as the head? 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.). 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. > 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. -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.