Re: [lojban] Re: X-bar, chomsky and lojban

[bill@thebranchhearth.net]

coi aleks,

Thanks much for the link and your insights. I will look into it further as
time presents itself.

Regards,
Bill

> coi bil.
>
> I can't say so for certain, but it seems quite likely that it does. I
> can't think of any grammatical parts that don't break up into two
> smaller pieces eventually leading to a specifier/adjunct/complement
> plus a head.
>
> Based, of course, on my limited understanding of the theory from
> Wikipedia and some knowledge of grammar. My other clue is in the
> formal definitions of the language. I can't seem to find the original
> website it's from anymore anymore, but the dictionary I have lists
> out what parts combine how in a structure that could be pretty easily
> broken down into a tree. I can email out the PDF if anyone's
> interested. CLL has a grammar that's more formal and quite a bit less
> readable.
>
> http://www.xahlee.org/lojban/hrefgram/chapter21.html
>
> mu'omi'e .aleks.
>
>
> On May 15, 2006, at 6:27 PM, bill@thebranchhearth.net wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Does anyone know if the Lojban grammar is consistent with the X-bar
>> theory
>> put forth by Chomsky.
>>
>> As far as we know, all natural languages are consistent with X-bar
>> at the
>> deep structure level.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
> 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.
>