On Tuesday 12 Apr 2005 08:00 am, Richard Hudson wrote:
> Dylan - I think you're missing the point of the WG treatment of
> coordination.
You are probably right.
> You're right to say that the words inside the conjuncts
> are structured, but this is because they have ordinary dependency
> relations.
Which makes them different from word-strings in quotations, names,
numbers, foreign languages, ...
> All the usual requirements for dependencies apply to the
> words inside the wordstrings, and the only effect of the coordination
> is that dependencies that go outside the coordination have to be
> shared across the board.
Surely it must be, then, that the coordinator(s) enter into syntax to
mediate/control/enforce that sharing, as well as any semantic or
pragmatic effects/restrictions introduced by the coordinator itself. I
can't see how that can happen if the coordinator is not part of the
dependency structure.
Dylan
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
|