Niccacci & semantics
ButhFam at compuserve.com
Wed Feb 10 06:50:04 EST 1999
when comparing systems and discussing problems people need a common playing
field, which is why problems develop when quoting some people:
niccacci is basically lacking a semantic dimension to his linguistic model.
notice that in his model he must collapse nominal clauses together with
x-qatal clauses !
he does not have a semantic framework for dividing these. he does not have
a semantic distinction for differing 'predication frames', frames that may
both generate an 'argument' at the start of the surface clause.
[friedrich did the same for old aramaic.]
until niccacci can distinguish the semantics of x-qatal from verbless
clauses i would continue to caution students in their use of him.
i find that trying to generate surface output along his theoretical lines
produces a psychologically impossible/improbable language.
[verbless: he is at the store. (fine)
verbal: went-he to the store. (fine)
x-verbal1: he is a wented-ing-to-the-store-kind-of-guy??? [this is not the
normal semantic function of BH x-qatal]
x-verbal2: to-the-store is a wented-ing-kind-of-guy???
better, semantically and syntactically with room for pragmatic discussion:
have a predication frame that allows fronting/pre-verb placement of
in other words, a generative model of language exposes niccacci's 2 'lists'
linguistic theory must deal with syntax, semantics and pragmatics. deleting
one dimension is not a step forward.
More information about the b-hebrew