LINGUIST List 12.2593

Thu Oct 18 2001

Qs: NPs, NLP/Truth-functional Operators

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>


We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

Directory

  1. Tommy Wasserman, Noun phrases
  2. Vincent DeCaen, truth-fn operators

Message 1: Noun phrases

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:36:48 +0000
From: Tommy Wasserman <wassermanbredband.net>
Subject: Noun phrases

Dear listmembers,

In the descriptive grammar "Understanding English Grammar" of Per Lysv�g
& Stig Johansson (4th ed., 1993) I read:

"Phrases like [...] can all be identified as noun phrases on the basis
of the word class the head belongs to and by the nature and order of the
elements clustering around it. [...] Our use of the term noun phrase is
narrower than that in many other grammars, where it is applied to any
nominal element" (pp. 30-31).

To me, the above definition of the noun phrase seems reasonable and I
was surprised to hear that this view is in minority (according to my
teacher in linguistics). Is this true? What are the arguments for
respective view.

(On the following linguistic web-page of the linguistic dep. of the
University of Santa Cruz there is a treatment of possessive pronouns,
through which I am introduced to the Pronominal Phrase and the
Determiner Phrase - as I understand are distinguished from the noun
phrase:

http://ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge/ladusaw.html

My own example:

It is *my dog* (=Noun phrase, dependent form of possesive pronoun)
It is *mine* (=Determiner Phrase, independent form used when possessive
meaning is appropriate but where there is no visible content in the
Noun-phrase.)

With kind regards

Tommy Wasserman, Swedish student of linguistics
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: truth-fn operators

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:18:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaenchass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: truth-fn operators

The syntax and semantics of the so-called "consecutives" in biblical
Hebrew (modal coordination) have forced me into a "strictly
compositional" approach to truth-functional operators, mood, negation
and tense. I'm wondering if there is recent work kicking around on a
compositional approach to truth-fn operators for natural language. for
example, if-then could be represented by bits: 1011. i want each
morpheme to contribute one bit to 0000, such that 1011 is derived by
composition: 1000 + 0010 + 0001 = 1011. Thanks.

Dr Vincent DeCaen <decaenchass.utoronto.ca>
c/o Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, 4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor
University of Toronto, Toronto ON, CANADA, M5S 1A1
Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative, www.chass.utoronto.ca/~decaen/hsei/
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue