160
edits
Subclause Reform: Difference between revisions
m
Tweak wording
(Discuss some remaining issues with the proposal) |
m (Tweak wording) |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
This proposal isn't perfect. In particular, relative content clauses are subject to some of the same ambiguity as relative clauses: | This proposal isn't perfect. In particular, relative content clauses are subject to some of the same ambiguity as relative clauses: | ||
{{Example|Póq po kúe, ꝡë zao súq hóa}}{{Example|Júna po sío, ꝡä hao ráı}} | {{Example|Póq po kúe, ꝡë zao súq hóa}}{{Example|Júna po sío, ꝡä hao ráı}} | ||
These clauses could conceivably attach to either the DP outside the predicatizer, or the DP inside the predicatizer. Fundamentally, predicatizers and object incorporation both create verb forms in which multiple 𝘯Ps "pile up" at the right edge, which makes | These clauses could conceivably attach to either the DP outside the predicatizer, or the DP inside the predicatizer. Fundamentally, predicatizers and object incorporation both create verb forms in which multiple 𝘯Ps "pile up" at the right edge, which makes adjunction to 𝘯Ps problematic. | ||
But relative content clauses also create a new case of ambiguity: | But relative content clauses also create a new case of ambiguity: | ||