Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Such sentences are more consistent with a theory that takes sentence structure to be relatively flat, lacking a finite verb phrase constituent, i.e. lacking the VP of S → NP VP. In order to maintain the traditional subject–predicate division, one has to assume movement (or copying) on a massive scale. The basic difficulty is suggested by ...
In the locative inversion example, isikole, "school" acts as the subject of the sentence while semantically remaining a locative argument rather than a subject/agent one. Moreover, we can see that it is able to trigger subject-verb agreement as well, further indicating that it is the syntactic subject of the sentence.
Subject–auxiliary inversion (SAI; also called subject–operator inversion) is a frequently occurring type of inversion in the English language whereby a finite auxiliary verb – taken here to include finite forms of the copula be – appears to "invert" (change places) with the subject. [1]
In linguistics, negative inversion is one of many types of subject–auxiliary inversion in English.A negation (e.g. not, no, never, nothing, etc.) or a word that implies negation (only, hardly, scarcely) or a phrase containing one of these words precedes the finite auxiliary verb necessitating that the subject and finite verb undergo inversion. [1]
Pangram: a sentence which uses every letter of the alphabet at least once; Tautogram: a phrase or sentence in which every word starts with the same letter; Caesar shift: moving all the letters in a word or sentence some fixed number of positions down the alphabet; Techniques that involve semantics and the choosing of words
The b. sentences are strongly marginal or unacceptable because they attempt to extract an expression out of a wh-island. This occurs because both wh-words are part of a DP. It would not be possible to move the bottom wh-word to the top of the structure, as they would both interfere.
Many words should now be read as one word, rather than as a sum of their parts. E.g. <Knights> is pronounced (British RP) /naɪts/ and not /knɪghts/ (which would the pronounciation on the assumption that <k> = /k/, <n> = /n/, etc.,) which proves the difficulty in describing word length. I'm not sure what you mean by "issue".
Phrase structure rules break sentences down into their constituent parts. These constituents are often represented as tree structures (dendrograms). The tree for Chomsky's sentence can be rendered as follows: A constituent is any word or combination of words that is dominated by a single node. Thus each individual word is a constituent.