Editor for this issue: <>
For some time, I have been puzzled by a claim that I come across frequently in the formal grammatical literature, namely that SINCE grammatical relations are derived, THEREFORE they cannot be referred to by the grammar. Please note that my puzzlement is not concerned with whether grammatical relations are primitive or derived, nor with whether or not the grammar can refer to grammatical relations, but rather with the alleged causal relation between answers to these two questions. More specifically, my puzzlement is not concerned with why some people believe both that grammatical relations are derived and that grammatical relations cannot be referred to by the grammar, but rather with why they think the second belief follows necessarily from the first. To take what seems to be a parallel instance, valid at least for many versions of formal grammar: control (c-control, etc.) is a derived concept, but can be referred to by the grammar--so the causal link between derived status and inaccessibility to the grammar seems to be denied in other areas. I would be grateful for any enlightenment on this issue. Sender: Bernard Comrie Department of Linguistics GFS-301 University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-1693, USA. Tel. +1 213 740 2986. Fax +1 213 740 9306. E-mail comrieMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuebcf.usc.edu