[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: X-bar, chomsky and lojban
Jorge Llambías, On 17/05/2006 00:04:
On 5/16/06, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> 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.