[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: X-bar, chomsky and lojban
On 5/16/06, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
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.).
KOhA and LA CMENE cannot take a {ku} though. Is the
idea that in those cases the KU-phrase is always realized
as null?
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.
Here's an argument for the alternative analysis in which
Selbri-phrase is complement of KU-phrase and KU-phrase
is complement of LE-phrase:
Relative clauses can appear in three positions in a sumti,
as marked by the stars:
le * broda * ku *
If we take the relative-clause as a complement of the
KU-phrase then all three can be accounted for if the
Selbri-phrase is also a complement of the KU-phrase.
But if the Selbri-phrase is a comp[lement of the LE-phrase,
then relative clauses have to be sometimes complement
of the KU-phrase and sometimes a complement of
something else (either of the LE-phrase or of the
Selbri-phrase.
> 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.
I don't like X-bar for Lojban then. :)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
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.