Re: THEORY: NATLANGS: Pro-Forms

i don't think that you can say that "such" is an adjective in
english, definitely not based on formal characteristics (look at its
syntactic position.)  but as you say, let's not get into an argument
over whether it is formally an adjective; you're absolutely right
that it has a semantic role much like a pro-adjective.

that's cool.

(now i am wondering how to analyze "such" — normally quantifiers go
in spec-NP, but that's already filled by the indefinite article.
interesting.)

kit

On May 24, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Shreyas Sampat wrote:
> Kit La Touche wrote:
>> Maybe more possible, but as the purpose of proforms *seems* to be
>> to  allow grammatical sentences that don't repeat all the common
>> ground,  and adjectives are essentially optional, it would be of
>> small use:  consider, talking about 'the red dog', would you say
>> 'the pro-adj  dog' or just 'the dog'?
>
> Assume a spherical cow. SUCH A cow would...
>
> We do have noun-attached (I'm not going to involve myself in any
> arguments about whether it's an adjective or not, but it
> substitutes for them) pro-forms in English.
>
> --
> Shreyas