Re: THEORY: third-person imperatives

>===== Original Message From Constructed Languages List
<CONLANG@...> =====
>Scripsit Thorinn:
>
>> Formally, that's a second-person imperative. The verb 'let' in this
>> use may have been bleached to give a meaning similar to a third-person
>> subjunctive, but that is still a matter of lexicon, not of syntax.
>
>I think the matter is arguable: when does such a bleaching leave
>the particle entirely grammaticalized?  My current Sprachgefuehl
>is that all sense of "let" = "permit" is gone from this construction.
*whispers*

Lexicon and syntax are not really separate components; "syntax" is
epiphenomenal to the combinatory usage of multi-word constructions, which are
stored identically to the way lexical items are stored, and there is no
absolute distinction between "lexical" and "grammatical" particles.

Down with Chomsky and modularity!  Up with Cognitive Grammar and related
theories!  Viva la revolucion!  Eat at Taco Bell!

*disappears*

Ed

--
****************************************************
Ed Heil ..................... edheil@mailandnews.com
****************************************************
     "Koy tse tl'an tse tum gen nekom payaw;
           ts'enra me hlay man yatam."
"The noble nation of Atlantis is greatest among men;
    And its reign shall extend unto eternity."
          (from a Linear P inscription.)
****************************************************