Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: "Difficult" clauses

From:Aquamarine Demon <aquamarine_demon@...>
Date:Monday, May 14, 2007, 19:49
>> I think you missed my point. If a word is implied, then it's not there, even >> if it could be there. Adding a word that will not be there isn't really >> adding anything.
stevo<< I'm sort of walking into the middle of this thread, so apologies if I'm misunderstanding something. In my linguistics class this semester, we talked about deep structure in syntax. This is mainly important for understanding how transformation rules work, but I think it's also relative here. In English, it's possible for a speaker to omit the complementizer "that"; however, it is still there in the deep structure of a sentence, because it is the head of the complementizer phrase, and you can't have a phrase without a head. So yes, it is still there, even if it's not part of the actual spoken sample (because listeners still insert a "that" when interpreting the sentence). The Aquamarine Demon "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.