David Lim wrote:MAubrey wrote:If you were more familiar with the literature for both Categorial Grammar and LFG, you would already know that neither framework makes psychological claims on the basis of their formal architecture. That is, they do not view the formal representation itself as even remotely being connected to what is going on in the brain (See, for example, Joan Bresnan, Lexical-functional syntax, pages 43ff.).
I know that! What I am saying is two separate things. One, that I believe there is a formal system that best describes natural languages. Two, that people innately learn languages by unconsciously constructing formal rules, which may be inaccurate or incorrect, but which approximate the actual formal system. This explains why native speakers can often tell immediately which phrases are invalid even without being immediately able to explain why. Anyway never mind if you still disagree.
Okay, well, then, if you know that, then I'll assume that you also know that both Categorial Grammar and LFG disagree with you then on language acquisition, too...
David Lim wrote:By the way, I always acknowledge my mistakes once I know them, and you should not say that I have a history of doing otherwise. Thanks for suggesting that chapter in Herodotus. I have read it and don't see anything relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you should point out where you are referring to? If perhaps you were referring to the following:
[Hdt.2.120.5] "ὡς τῶν μεγάλων ἀδικημάτων μεγάλαι εἰσὶ καὶ αἱ τιμωρίαι παρὰ τῶν θεῶν"
"παρα των θεων" modifies "εισι", even as LSJ also implies: "of persons in authority, “αἱ τ. εἰσὶ παρὰ τῶν θεῶν” Hdt.2.120".
Yes, that is the clause in question. Unfortunately, for your purposes, though, LSJ implies nothing of the kind. And I'm at a complete loss as to how in the world you think that it could even remotely do so. Perhaps you didn't notice that LSJ puts this PP in the lexical entry for the noun τιμωρία and not in the one for the verb εἴμι?
I hope you can understand that when I see you do something like this (or, for example, your "alternative explanations" for Stirling's examples), why I might develop the impression that you make the text jump through some simply amazing hoops to make it fit your pre-understanding. Perhaps it is true that you're good at acknowledging your mistakes when you know them. However, over and over again you seemed determined to avoid knowing them at all cost. You force examples into your system a priori.
Let's do this visually. If I understand you correctly, you're claiming the structure of μεγάλαι εἰσὶ καὶ αἱ τιμωρίαι παρὰ τῶν θεῶν is as follows (ignoring any bickering over labels, there is no agreed upon approach to phrase structure--the point is that you want the PP at the clause level rather than in the NP):
Whereas I say that it should look like this with the PP as a daughter of the NP.:
From my perspective viewing this prepositional phrase as modifying anything other than the noun phrase makes this clause semantically incoherent.
So, why isn't it?