From: c stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:51:57 EST
on 2/25/02 9:30 AM, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
> While I am reading NT, I often notice that GAR S,
> where S is a sentence, does not necessarily related to the
> previous sentence.
> For example, given
> S1. Gar S2. Gar S3, S2 is often related to S1, with S2 and S3 are
> parallel (In my interpretation).
> Also, given
> S1. Gar S2. S3. S4. S5,
> S2 is not directly related to S1, but the whole paragraph S2 - S5
> is related to S1, with S2 stating the starting point for the following
> sentences (in my interpretation).
> Is my perception justified based on the grammar of GAR?
Yes it is justified and it shows very clearly the liabilities of doing your
analysis based on the notion that the sentence is the basic unit of
Replace the sentence with the more flexible notion of "constituent" and the
problem disappears. The " whole paragraph S2 - S5" becomes a single
constituent which is related to S1 by GAR. S1 can be renamed C1 and it is
connected to C2 by GAR.
One of the legacies of early-Chomsky is the inordinate preoccupation with
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
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