Re: ? how would you classify this language ?

David Peterson wrote:

>    gwalla@DESPAMMED.COM wrote:
>
> <<AIUI, that's SVO in both clauses. The relative pronoun is considered
> part of the main clause, while the relative clause has a "gap": in
> English, the argument that corresponds to the relative pronoun is left out.
>
> full sentence: That is what (I want).
>
> main clause: That is what
>                S    V   O
>
> relative clause: I want [...]
>                   S   V   (O)>>
>
> No.  The whole reason that they proposed gaps and movement was that
> their syntax didn't match up with the extent word order.  So when they
> talk about "word order", they mean surface word order--otherwise all
> languages would have the same word order (at least, according to some
> linguists).  And technically, there's another gap in this sentence--the WH-
> word has to move "covertly" to be in proper position.  (Or is that the
> empty operator...?  Geez, I've forgotten my old school syntax already..)
Who are "they?". I thought it worked like that because it meant you had
to do less fiddling around to compare languages with and without
resumptive pronouns.