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: "Moon-Ryul Jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>
  • To: b-hebrew
  • Subject: RE [9] (To Dave): ):A$ER with propositions
  • Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 0:19:40


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. 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$ER is a relative pronoun moved out of the
modifying clause, but it does not respect trace theory and so
there may be something wrong with trace theory.
But for me the fact that ):A$ER does not respect trace theory
means that it is not a relative pronoun and it is not a moved
element.

Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Soongsil University,
Seoul, Korea




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page