From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue May 16 14:38:22 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 18583 invoked from network); 16 May 2006 21:38:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m31.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 May 2006 21:38:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 May 2006 21:38:22 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg7FD-0001sT-P4 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 16 May 2006 14:38:19 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg7Ei-0001mb-HP; Tue, 16 May 2006 14:37:49 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 May 2006 14:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg6nK-0000Pw-AK for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 14:09:30 -0700 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fg6nI-0000Po-8R for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 14:09:30 -0700 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a27so18016nfc for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 14:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.205.17 with SMTP id c17mr162751nfg; Tue, 16 May 2006 14:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.5? ( [81.7.46.33]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id d2sm285596nfe.2006.05.16.14.09.25; Tue, 16 May 2006 14:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <446A3F84.4000006@v21.me.uk> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 22:09:24 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <57995.192.94.94.105.1147732061.squirrel@www.thebranchhearth.net> <446A29E5.2020409@v21.me.uk> <925d17560605161255qed5f1aeu4918d7b322f35bd0@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560605161255qed5f1aeu4918d7b322f35bd0@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 11572 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: And Rosta From: And Rosta Reply-To: and.rosta@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: X-bar, chomsky and lojban X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=L5gvqThe3SNpA4JLX4hkG7RNEL7Yp7peSPklibwtg1CiBZcSyg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25990 Jorge Llambías, On 16/05/2006 20:55: > On 5/16/06, And Rosta wrote: >> >> 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.) > > Is there any reason to prefer the terminator to the "initiator" of the > phrase as head? 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. --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.