tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3610472134237176223.post360059752789320982..comments2023-05-14T03:35:42.105-04:00Comments on LangLing: Categorical PropositionsLangLinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14326820272652746118noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3610472134237176223.post-19811798076880435432014-02-01T13:03:07.389-05:002014-02-01T13:03:07.389-05:00If we are not ready for a bit openness in this cas...If we are not ready for a bit openness in this case, it can only give the fast motivation for pedolinguistica, rather than giving us the virtue of the parity balance between choices. What a lexical definition like ‘interrogative pronoun’ can do for such a motivation is also very powerful here (The WP post on 31/01/2014 about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#What_do.2Fdoes" rel="nofollow"> ‘what do/does’ </a>), which seemed to be originated from the question about the grammatical implication on the ‘preposition stranding’ but ended up now for something else by its continuing comments.<br /><br />Here the intrinsic symmetry property of subatomic particles that is characterized by the verb valiancy function reflects the complement coordinates—one goes for the interrogative pronoun to its object while the other goes to its complement by undressing a bit as an intransitive marker. In the latter case, it is not on the interrogative pronoun object but on the adverbial complement. Which also means that if the verb is transitive, it has the form ‘What do/does the numbers refer?’ without the preposition stranding, but the preposition ‘to’ is an obligatory adjunct if the verb is intransitive. <br /><br />But how such a thing is possible in functional modification for the adverb ‘too’ is that it is not always in the sense of ‘also’ but in an adjectival modification as well.<br />Arrin Swampyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578125434856119976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3610472134237176223.post-3142283210521389322014-01-31T11:00:36.553-05:002014-01-31T11:00:36.553-05:00How is an adjective possible there?
Here is some...How is an adjective possible there? <br /><br />Here is something of its similar adjective form discussion on the interrogative adverb 'what' but not exactly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&diff=prev&oldid=593237384 <br /><br />If the question refers to 'what class do the numbers refer to?', the classification of 'what' is, yes, an adjective (interrogative adjective), but here in the discussion, it is still an integrative adverb if we are not to refer their functional structures. Could you explain how it is possible then? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3610472134237176223.post-88686414529881745432014-01-30T11:10:30.819-05:002014-01-30T11:10:30.819-05:00In that case, we have to limit our spins over issu...In that case, we have to limit our spins over issues and apply the universal implications and norms. In addition, if it is obvious or often regarded in the same way, we can only opt to go for a linguistics defense brief at this point, which we do only for the sake of the universal implications. My specialty is not on the syntactic theories, other than as a part of the among other things. But both the author of the post and the author of this quotation have their point of views on the subject in differing situations. Without contexts, it is difficult to know what is referred by a certain lexical emphases, or for its pragmatic equivalence. Sometimes the propositional denotation derives from the lexical semantics of adjectival, which is a bit complicated than the problem of itself from the perspective of the matter is always as an adverb. Arrin Swampyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578125434856119976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3610472134237176223.post-85360863238253347232014-01-29T19:49:22.365-05:002014-01-29T19:49:22.365-05:00Here is something that is very richly spoken if it...Here is something that is very richly spoken if it is only about the descriptive grammar but not about anything else: <br /><br />"Yet 'pragmaticism', too, proves very hard to apply fruitfully when it comes to actual description of meanings, especially in a cross-cultural perspective, because it has no vigorous framework for description and comparison, no firm grid in terms of which the endless vagaries of language use can be vigorously analyses and interpreted." <br /><br />But I am not sure if it is still the same widespread analogy of the high standard of rigor in domains such as in philosophy. The author is actually a well-known philosopher. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com