Re: THEORY: object raising

Hi!

"Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...> writes:
>...
> > > Henrik wrote:
>...
> > I don't think this is object raising, it's subject-to-object raising,
> > too, since in your first sentence, you applied that very raising operation
> > and in the second, a passive construction to the same original sentence,
> > namely
>
> Maybe I didn't understand the question then.  You asked for "object raising",
> and in all the standard syntactic literature, the construction I gave is
> called object raising.
I see.  Sorry for the confusing, I seem to have used the wrong term.

> The terms refer to the position *to* which an NP is moved
Yes, I mixed that up.

Indeed I mean raising from object position.

>...
>    a. Constantinople is difficult to sack.
>    b. It is difficult to sack Constantinople.
Yes, I though of this, indeed.  Unfortunately I don't know what tough
movement is, so I can't judge why it should *not* be the thing I was
searching for.  (And it is interesting to find that German has that
movement as well. :-))

> ObScure:  in Meskwaki, tough-movement constructions also apply to
> subjects.  Thus, the equivalent of "The Meskwaki are difficult to like
> the French" would be licit.
And this is 'It is difficult for the Meskwaki to like the French'?

None of my conlangs can do this.  Is there any reason for natlangs to
allow this?  (And raising, I mean.)

**Henrik