Re: Disambiguation of argument reference

On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:35:59 +0100, Tim May <butsuri@...> wrote:

>What I'm thinking about presently is basic argument structure, without
>any complications of adjectives, adverbials or relative clauses.  With
>full case marking, you might think this would be simple.  However
>it's in the nature of LC-01 morphology (as I conceive of it) that any
>noun can be seen as a nominalization off a verbal root, and can thus
>take an array of arguments of its own.  (It's because I'm fairly
>committed to a Head-Modifier NP structure that I'm thinking of VSO,
>because arguments to a noun really have to be considered modifiers.)
>If these're simply marked for case, ambiguity can arise as to to what
>head a noun is an argument.
>Well, excuse me for babbling here.  I hope I haven't said anything
>hopelessly wrong-headed - just thinking out loud.  Anyone have any
>thoughts on the matter?
Good question. I don't have anything to add to what's been said, but I've
been following the discussion.
What I ended up doing with at least one syntax is limit participles to one
expressed argument, core only, which always follows (or precedes for the
reverse). For anything more complicated, a relative clause is required. The
finite verb is limited to 2 expressed core arguments, one of which is the
participle and the other is marked as subject, so there's no ambiguity. Not
the kind of nifty thing you're looking for, though.

Jeff J.