Subject: RE: [lojban] Complements and adjuncts

From: "Colin Fine" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 09:49:24 +0100

I've been thinking more about complements and adjuncts, and I want to lay
out some meanderings.

First, a bit of theoretical background: in a prominent theory of grammar,
X-bar theory, there is a commonality to the structure of phrases across
different types of phrase (noun phrase, verb phrase etc) and across (all?)
natural languages. It is claimed that there is a two level structure, with
an X-phrase (noun phrase, for example) containing an X-bar, which in turn
contains an X. The significance of the two-level structure is that the X-bar
level contains items which are said to be crucial to the meaning of the X
(complements) whereas the X-phrase may contain optional modifiers
(adjuncts).

Thus Pinker (in The Language Instinct) discusses the phrase
The Senator from California from Illinois
which he analyses as
NP:[Nbar:[The Senator from California] from Illinois]

'The Senator from California' is clearly a unit - part of the meaning of a
senator is the constituency. This is an idea that Lojbanists are well
acquainted with.

What happens if we put this into Lojban?

In a sumti, we can formally mirror the layers clearly:
le xelflaka'i be la kalifornias be'o pe (ra'i) la ilinOIs

I suggest that this is not just a formal resemblance, but that a PE phrase
really is comparable with an adjunct, as opposed to the complement within
the selbri.

In a bridi, we do not at first sight have this option: we may not say
*ta xelflaka'i la kalifornias pe la ilinOIs
because PE phrases are not permitted in bridi. We are supposed to use some
construction such as
ta xelflaka'i la kalifornias gi'e se krati la ilinOIs
and that's find, except that we have to commit ourselves on the relationship
to la ilinOIs. (I suppose if we really don't want to we can always say gi'e
co'e la ilinOIs, but that is much more vague than the English. Perhaps he
xebna la ilinOIs).

But there is a formal parallel we can use to the sumti case:

ta xelflaka'i be la kalifornias ra'i la ilinOIs

This has the property (like the English and the sumti case), that it cannot
be permuted - xelflaka'i be la kalifornias is a constituent and cannot be
interrupted. The question is whether there is any semantic significance to
the grouping.

I guess what I am asking is whether
ta xelflaka'i be la kalifornias ra'i la ilinOIs
and
ta xelflaka'i la kalifornias ra'i la ilinOIs
are synonymous, or does the structural difference have a semantic correlate?

Since we have already had the opinion that any expressed tagged sumti join
the predefined terbridi in being complements, it is hard to see what
semantic difference there could be. But I would like to hear people's
thoughts on the matter.

****************************************************************************
****
Colin Fine
"Don't just do something! Stand There" - from 'Behold the Spirit' workshop
[email-masked]
****************************************************************************
****