Re: THEORY: languages without arguments

Tim Smith wrote:

>So does that mean that one of these adjective-like reduced relative clauses
>_does_ have to be adjacent to the noun it modifies?  And can it either
>precede or follow the noun?
I don't know.  All of my knowledge of  Mohawk comes from Mark Baker's book
_The
Polysynthesis Parameter_ where he proposes his theory of non-configurational
languages (all nominals are adjuncts, agreement is triggered by pro in
argument
position), using Mohawk as his main example.  I could not find any examples of
a sentence separating them, but neither could I find any explicit statement
that they are ungrammatical.  He tended to skirt the issue.  Perhaps relevant
is the fact that phrases like "my-pet dog" (the way to say "my dog") cannot be
separated or rearranged.

>Also, what if a demonstrative or quantifier goes between two nouns,
>adjacent to both?  How do you know which noun it modifies?
I expect that this would be ambiguous, but I don't know.  Baker isn't
concerned
about that aspect of the language, and uses "pronouns" (verbal/possessive
agreement, no overt noun) a lot.  I used to think this was a problem with the
book since it leaves questions such as yours unanswered; but I have since
learned that he has been criticized for using too many nouns in his sentences
-- typically Mohawk sentences don't have more than one.

Marcus