Joe:
> > > En mi casa siempre los comemos calientes.
> > > In my house always them-masc eat-we hot-pl
> > > 'At my house we always eat them hot.'
> > >
> > >Here *calientes* 'hot' depends on *los* 'them', right? This is shown
> > >by the number agreement (unlike in Catalan *calent* 'hot', Spanish
> > >*caliente* shows no gender agreement).
>
> Dick Hudson wrote:
> > ## No, I think it's the other way round: "los" depends (as subject) on
> > "calientes", which in turn depends on "comemos". Of course "los" also
> > depends on "comemos", because "calientes" is an (adjunct) sharer.
>
> Does this mean that anything that has valence is automatically a head
> for something that doesn't have valence?
You mean assuming that two words are linked by a dependency? I'm not
sure what an official WG answer is these days, but I'd say that the
direction of the valent dependency is as you suggest, but that
above-the-line the valent head can be superordinate or subordinate
(or neither) to the valent dependent. If that's not clear I can reexplain.
> For example, the conjunction AND, would it be the head of its word string
> in "Chet and And"?
Not in WG. But I do think that "Chet" and "And" depend on "and" (there
was in my thesis a chapter or two on that, not all of which I have
repudiated).
--And.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|