9

Iwasaki's formulation is unclear. What he means is that besides the one NP in a relative clause that is made into a relative pronoun (or ortherwise marked as being relativized), you cannot relativize a second NP in the same relative clause. For instance, relativizing "the book" in "John gave the book to the girl" gives the relative clause "which John gave ...


6

Your observation is correct and you're not missing anything. The original case information is simply lost with -DIK (and -(y)EcEK) participles. So is most of the original tense information by the way: -DIK is for relative non-future and -(y)EcEK is for relative future but finer distinctions are lost. If context is not enough to recover the lost information ...


6

Well, that's not the only way to look at the phenomenon, and it's not necessary to believe that there are gaps like black holes left in sentences or anything like that. But there's a point it makes. There are two great families of pronouns, both descending from Proto-Indo-European roots: Demonstrative pronouns and their allies, descended from the PIE ...


5

It's hard to tell from your picture, because some of the lines are not really visible. But I'm pretty sure your confusion comes from the fact that your teacher is wrong, in multiple, fundamental ways: [which belonged to the old sailor] is modifying (part of) the object NP. You saw [a gray horse which belonged to the old sailor]. So that S2 needs to be ...


4

What is different between English on the one hand, and such ancient Indo-European languages as Latin, Greek and Sanskrit, is that the latter had a very free constituent order: not only the order of constituents within the sentence was free, but even the word order within a phrase was almost unrestrained. (Incidentally, this why reading Latin poetry can be ...


3

Let's compare three theories of the CNPC "island" constraint: TG. Ross's description is phrased in terms of Transformational Grammar. In fact the original title of his dissertation, Contraints on Variables in Syntax, is an allusion to Chomsky's characterization of TG, since transformations are to be stated in terms of variables representing substrings of ...


3

Assuming that you refer to your recent related question, I'll elaborate some more on Greg Lee's answer (which I think already brings the main issue of the problem quite well to the point), hoping that this should clarify your question: The so-called Ross Constraints ("Constrains on reordering transformations") are a set of constraints from around 1967 ...


2

There are two things going on here. As it is correctly stated in the question, the primary use case of the -(y)En suffix is to modify the head noun when it's the subject of the embedded clause. Let's call it the use case A. Çocuğu uyandırma. Don't wake up the child. Çocuk odada uyuyor. The child is sleeping in the room. Evde uyuyan ...


2

It seems that the Mashi Wentong (1898) discusses fronting. "The “normal” subject is always called qici , while the topic is called zhuci, as can be seen in the analysis of sentence (4), where Zhuanyu is labeled zhuci, while later, in the commentary on shi 是, it is referred to as a “fronted qici”" (p. 66). Obviously, this is later than Ward, but perhaps worth ...


2

That's correct as stated in other answers. If you need to keep the tense information you can use a different structure: Gezdirmiş olduğum köpek uyuyor. Gitmiş olduğum köy güzel. These sentences carry the past tense information.


2

As pointed out by sumelic in the comments, my corpus is woefully incomplete, and I missed the important generalization. The preposition doesn't matter: "I already told you about the man to/with/about *who/whom to talk." The only reason all the examples I found used "to" is that most of the examples of pied-piped who/whom happen to use "to". So, obviously, my ...


2

I'll refer you to, first, @BillJ's comment above, which I agree with, then to McCawley's analysis in the The Syntactic Phenomena of English, which makes restrictive relative clauses modifiers of N' (N-bar) and non-restrictive relative clauses as modifiers of sentences. The syntactic relationship between a non-restrictive relative and the NP it goes with ...


2

The what clauses include the terms that you say they modify. In These words are what can be called weak determiners. the relative clause (with fused head) is what can be called weak determiners. Replace what with something/somebody that and it will become clear.


2

The high notes returned to his compositions towards the end of his life, [which suggests he was hearing the works that were taking shape in his imagination]. Yes, it is an adjunct, more specifically a supplementary (non-defining) relative clause. The antecedent of "which" is the entire preceding clause, thus "R suggests he was hearing the works ...", ...


2

I think you're right, and iirc this is what McCawley argues in Syntactic Phenomena of English. The antecedent of "which" in the appositive relative clause is the S "The high notes ... his life". Such relative clauses are placed as "adposits" immediate after the antecedents of the relative pronoun, so the relative clause goes after the sentence "The high ...


1

This is a good start and your calculation works out, but the standard literature wouldn't agree on your suggestion that Tom destroyed is of type t. The crucial point is that that the moved-away pronoun makes the phrase something that's missing an entity to become a sentence with a truth value, so in accordance with your lambda abstraction, which is expecting ...


1

The view which emerged from Lauri Karttunen's classic paper "Migs and Pilots" is that a relative pronoun is coreferential with the NP relative clause construction it occurs in. See Pauline Jacobson. I guess that would make it type e.


1

I agree that your example is a reduced non-restrictive relative clause. For evidence that appositives of this sort are reduced clauses, see McCawley's discussion of appositives. However, in the clause "(who is) one of the newest members", the expression "one of the newest members" is not in a coreferential position. It predicates something of "who". The ...


1

The difference between relative clauses and embedded question complement wh-clauses can be very tricky to identify. For example, all of the sentences presented contain embedded question complement wh-clauses, and none of the sentences presented contain restrictive relative wh-clauses. Relatives and questions use almost the same set of wh-words. There ...


1

In my opinion, since Japanese is a head-final language and since the verb comes at the end of a clause, a sentence-final noun would be enough to indicate that the clause is a pre-modifier of the noun. In English, the relative clause post-modifies its head noun and, even though a relative pronoun can be optional at times, there are certain clauses that ...


1

Here are my edits, mostly echoing comments already made: 1) The students who were absent, whose names I prefer not to mention, should do this practice... 2) We were walking, when suddenly a car stopped in front of us... 3) What you said -- you won't go there. Ok I got it... (conversation) 4) I was reading a book when he entered the room ...


1

I've given what i deem to be a reasonably standard phrase-structure tree for a that-relative clause, consistent with the principles of X-bar theory below (taking Jackendoff, 1977 as a concrete reference). I'm assuming the DP hypothesis here (i.e. that 'a book...' is headed by a determiner rather than by the noun), but it's easy to re-cast this in terms on an ...


1

It exists in Greek and Latin, and probably in most other Indo-European languages—at least in the ones I know: Dutch, French, German, Italian. In order to create an indefinite relative pronoun in Latin, one uses an extended form of the interrogative pronoun, doubling it, so quidquid instead of quid "what"; or one adds -cumque to the relative pronoun, so ...


1

After a bit of searching I can now partially answer my own question 1, about these constructions in Latin and Greek: apparently both have basically the same construction as English, using an indefinite relative pronoun (usually quisquis in Latin, ὅστις or ὁστισοῦν in Greek) and a verb in the indicative. Latin: hostem qui feriet, mihi erit Carthaginiensis, ...


1

I would not call this object-agreement because (to my knowledge) it also holds for non-object relative clauses, such as adverbial relative clauses (but not for subject-relative clauses, as I'm sure you're aware). It is simply an agreement marker that displays the person and number of the subject. Question 1: I don't know any other examples of other ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible