Dylan:
> On Saturday 29 June 2002 17:47, And Rosta wrote:
> > Chet:
> > > > What is the rationale for saying PRO has person, number and gender?
> > >
> > > It may have an antecedent and in GB-theory these are specified in terms
> > > of PNG.
> >
> > Can I direct you to the questions I asked Dylan when he gave the same
> > answer?
> >
> > > (PRO doesn't have to have an antecedent, however:
> > > (1) PRO to err is human.
>
> I didn't want to suggest it MUST have an antecedent - merely the fact that it
> CAN, and when it does it can serve as conduit for 'PNG' is taken to show it
> must support those features.
Yes, that was clear.
> > What is the subject in:
> >
> > (2) To clothe myself in silk lingerie is an exquisite pleasure.
> >
> > ? Is it ME or PRO?
>
> I suggest that (2) is _subjectless_!
I meant, what is the subject for PRO-proponents.
If (2) is subjectless, how come _myself_ is unbound, and how come
the clother must be understood as being me?
I gather that me and Chet & Dick would say (2) contains a covert ME
(and perhaps a covert FOR).
--And.
|