On 30 November 2012 00:07, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 01:42:13 -0600, George Corley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>I have heard
>>that some syntacticians believe there are maybe a half dozen types of
>>adverbs that can have different syntactic restrictions, though AFAIK that
>>theory requires you to go down a particular generative rabbit hole that I'm
>>not sure I want to mess with myself.
> I should like to hear a bit more of this, if only to judge how moored it is to the world outside the rabbit hole!  But there are definitely some ways we should break down the adverb: as Stevo points out, disjuncts should well be something entirely separate.

Disjuncts could be very fun if there are ways of constructing complex
ones, a la relative clauses. If adjectives and adverbs are treated
separately, one could have a total of four different modifier classes
(or more with more different kinds of adverbials split out);
otherwise, just adjunctive vs. disjunctive modifiers. I would expect
disjunctive and adjunctive adjectives to end up grouped differently in
a configurational language- e.g., all disjunctives come first, then
all adjunctives, or adjunctives before a noun and disjunctives after.
Disjunctive relative clauses would provide the restrictive vs.
non-restrictive distinction that we have in English relative clauses.
And compound adverbials could be formed with some kind of "like x"
structure, with different kinds of "like" to indicate a disjunctive
phrase vs. an adjunctive phrase.

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:30:33 -0700, Daniel Myers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Perhaps you could split nouns into two different types - subject and
>>object - that cannot be used for the other role?
>>For example, "I drove the car" and "The automobile broke down" would be
>>allowed, but not "I drove the automobile" or "The car broke down".
> Hm.  This is sorta like something I had in mind, which is to try to split animate and inanimate nouns apart.  Say that only animate nouns can be agents, and to reinforce it insist on something completely different with sentences that might otherwise have an inanimate subject (don't allow casting inanimates to animates here).

What would solidify this for me is if there was some way of deriving
syntactic animates from syntactic inanimates (implying that the split
is not always 100% semantically sensible). Some kind of derivational
operator would be evidence that there really are two separate
syntactic classes, rather than just a split-alignment system triggered
by animate/inanimate genders. On the other hand, one could make an
argument that proper nouns really are a different class than regular
nouns because of, e.g., not being able to take adjectives, and run
with that. Now this is reminding me of my sketch of a language that
requires tons of voice transformations because of proper nouns not
being allowed to occur in any syntactic position except subject.

> Hey, wait a minute, that physical / mental split of the verb class is what Elkarîl does!

I really like this one because it clearly demonstrates the fact that
these different 'verb' types actually do occupy different syntactic
positions, as evidenced by the fact that a) one of each type can occur
in any clause without coordination (so they're not competing for the
same syntactic position like multiple English verbs in one clause
would be) and b) they occur with fixed relative order (though this
applies only because Elkaril happens to have configurational grammar)