Some Scope Creep: Difference between revisions
(split off Weird VPs) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<small>(But then how do we explain "why" {{t|shoe}} does not scope over its complement ({{t|kuq … súq sá}})? Laqme thinks maybe we really should just treat serials like {{t|shoe kuq}} as ''syntactically'' the same sort of thing as atomic verbs, and model serialization using type-shifting instead of movement. See [[Weird VPs]].)</small> | <small>(But then how do we explain "why" {{t|shoe}} does not scope over its complement ({{t|kuq … súq sá}})? Laqme thinks maybe we really should just treat serials like {{t|shoe kuq}} as ''syntactically'' the same sort of thing as atomic verbs, and model serialization using type-shifting instead of movement. See [[Weird VPs]].)</small> | ||
[[Category:Proposals]] | |||
Revision as of 19:07, 25 February 2025
Hoemaı's response to No Scope Creep was a suggestion to consider serial verbs separately from other cases. Some Scope Creep is a variant of that proposal which does exactly that:
- bu kuq jí sá means ¬(∃x kuq jí x), and
- ao kuq jí sá means AO(∃x kuq jí x), just like in No Scope Creep — but
- shoe kuq acts like an atomic verb, as in vanilla Toaq Delta, and so
- shoe kuq jí súq sá means: ∃x shoe kuq jí súq x.
- (In No Scope Creep, it means shoe jí ∃x kuq súq x.
So serials remain their old-school scope behavior, where shoe kuq behaves the same as a would-be compound kuqshoe.
(But then how do we explain "why" shoe does not scope over its complement (kuq … súq sá)? Laqme thinks maybe we really should just treat serials like shoe kuq as syntactically the same sort of thing as atomic verbs, and model serialization using type-shifting instead of movement. See Weird VPs.)