Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

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.