538
edits
Syntax: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (→Movement) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Toaq could have been designed as SVO from the start, and have a surface structure that's closer to the deep structure. There are aesthetical arguments in favor of VSO. Having V right next to the complementizer makes {{tone|3}} and {{tone|5}} work nicely. Moreover, VSO grammar is similar to the logic notation <math>P(x,y,z)</math> for predicates and their arguments. | Toaq could have been designed as SVO from the start, and have a surface structure that's closer to the deep structure. There are aesthetical arguments in favor of VSO. Having V right next to the complementizer makes {{tone|3}} and {{tone|5}} work nicely. Moreover, VSO grammar is similar to the logic notation <math>P(x,y,z)</math> for predicates and their arguments. | ||
== See also == | |||
* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XEi-Cg29gAazLwEdjWmSzBYMKiXhDE2OuSQZL2YyUuo/edit?usp=sharing ''First Steps Towards a Compositional Semantics for Toaq''] and [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2022/10/08/not-quite-a-forest/ ''Not quite a forest''], both blog posts on Toaq syntax. | |||
== Notes == | |||
<references /> | |||