Yes I agree on all but (3), which I think is ungrammatical (as well as
anomalous) because ACT isn't allowed to have a subject complement: He
acted strangely/*strange. (OK, "He acted mad" is ok, but only in the
theatrical sense, which isn't relevant for (3).) I missed this message
from Ben - I've not had time to lurk properly on the Linkgrammar list
recently. Are you going to post your reply there?
Dick
On 10/03/2014 19:33, And Rosta wrote:
> Ben Goertzel, On 10/03/2014 15:49:
>> (0) The dog Joe thinks John hit died
>>
>> (1) * The dog I screamed when Dave hit died
>>
>> (2) * Joe seemed likely that John would go
>>
>> (3) * It acted likely that John would go
>>
>> (4) It seemed likely that John would go
>>
>>
>> I wonder how the difference between 0 vs. 1, and the difference
>> between 2-3 vs. 4, are handled in word grammar?
>
> (0) vs (1): (1) violates a constraint that the link from "hit" to
> "dog" is not valid if the path from "dog" to "hit" contains a 'tensed
> adjunct', i.e. an adunct ("when") with a tensed complement ("hit").
>
> (2) vs (4). I don't remember how exactly Dick analyses (4), but (2) is
> out because no rules generate it in the first place. In (2), the
> "that" is licit only if its accompanying "it" is present.
>
> (3) is not ungrammatical, just semantically anomalous. "Act" requires
> its subject to be the actor in the acting. "It" is either meaningless
> or coreferential with "that (John would go)"; either way, it's not
> something that can be conceptualized as a plausible actor.
>
> --And.
>
> .
>
--
Richard Hudson (dickhudson.com)
|