From: c stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 17:54:29 EST
on 2/22/02 1:39 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> Iver argues that PRWTON
> does not modify/qualify/limit "any word in the sentence" but rather "the
> verb which is not explicit but clearly understood through the context ..."
> . . . I still don't think any "deep structure" is required to
> understand how PRWTON is working here . . .
Yes what we seem to have here is some crypto-early-Chomsky ('59, '65)
mediated through some of E.A. Nida's early works on translation theory mixed
in with who knows what else from the Byzantine world of linguistics . . .
perhaps some "Elephants and Bananas"*
I am willing to accept Carl's solution without a fight. I just said that
"One might be tempted . . . " to see PROTON as limiting an implied EISTIN
clause. Being tempted and actually succumbing to temptation are different
two cheers (not three),
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
*See archives for '96-'97 where you will find Micheal Palmer's lucid
comments on early Chomsky & Nida, search for "Elephants and Bananas."
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:19 EDT