Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE [9] (To Dave): ):A$ER with propositions

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: RE [9] (To Dave): ):A$ER with propositions
  • Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:42:11 -0700


Moon wrote:
> Dear Dave:
>
> You wrote:
>
> In Hebrew, if we leave the
> preposition where it is then it has to attach to something, hence
>
> (7) HABBAYIT ):A$ER HF)IY$ BOW (the house which the man (is)
> in it)
>
> but not
>
> (8) * HABBAYIT ):A$ER HF)IY$ B:
>
> However, it seems to me that if trace theory is correct, we should
> never see constructions like HABBAYIT ):A$ER HF)IY$ BOW
> because they would be inherently ungrammatical. Yet it's a
> perfectly good structure in BH.
>
> ........
>
> In any case, the resumptive phenomenon in Hebrew makes me
> question whether trace theory is on the right track.
>
> ****
>
> I think trace theory correctly predicts how English relative
> pronouns behave.

I don't. All the things that trace theory supposedly predicts seem
equally predictable from the subcategorization frames of heads,
thus making trace theory redundant and unnecessary. My own
version of TG uses a somewhat modified version of the older EST,
after x-bar but before trace theory. I believe the theory (due to its
over-dependence on English) took a wrong turn at trace theory and
has never gotten back on track.

If ):A$ER does not respect trace theory,
> then either trace theory is wrong or ):A$ER is not a relative
> pronoun moved out of the subordinate clause. You seem to
> believe that ):A$ER is a relative pronoun moved out of the
> modifying clause, but it does not respect trace theory and so
> there may be something wrong with trace theory.

Correct.

> But for me the fact that ):A$ER does not respect trace theory
> means that it is not a relative pronoun and it is not a moved
> element.

Andersen (1974) frequently calls ):A$ER a "nominalizer," but this is
only one of its observable functions. I think there are enough
examples where it behaves just like an indo-European relativizer
that it must be, at least in some places, a relative pronoun. YMMV.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page