from a review...

[Stanley Dubinsky]

Actually, the conclusion itself is not correct.  Bill Davies and I
address that mistaken notion on pp. 261-264 in our chapter on
"FUNCTIONAL ARCHITECTURE AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES"
in Davies and Dubinsky (eds), 2001. Objects and other subjects.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Cheers, Stan

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 9:59:54 PDT you said:
>I have always enjoyed these excerpts from Chomsky (1986: Barriers), pp. 46,
>50.
>
>Hence, on the assumptions we are now examining, the subject of an NP must be
>regarded as falling in the category of adjuncts, not arguments, with regard
>to the ECP.  This is not unreasonable. . . . The preceding discussion shows
>that a variety of consequences flow from the assumption that subjects of
>noun phrases can in principle be extracted by wh-movement but not over a
>wh-island.  Unfortunately, the relevant facts do not appear to be very
>sharp.	Further empirical evidence is required, but the logic of the
>situation is rather clear.
>
>The conclusion seems correct, though the facts are hardly crystal clear.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dean
>
>
>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 22:00:59 -0700 sag at csli.stanford.edu wrote:
>> FYI.
>>
>> This is from Mario Montalbetti's (LINGUIST List) review
>> of Zagona (2002) The Syntax of Spanish:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> A word to pre-empt inevitable attacks. It is very likely that the native
>> speaker of Spanish will object to some grammaticality judgments. This is
>> only natural, given the ample dialectal diversity in Spanish. To get stuck
>
>> here would be a pity. First, because as Chomsky (1995) has pointed out in
>> his (in)famous fn7 on p203, there is no grammaticality. And second,
>because
>> it would be yet another unfortunate case of not seeing the woods because
>of
>> the trees. In any case, I expect judgment differences throughout the book
>> to be minimal.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Dang! So how do I evaluate it?...
>>
>> -Ivan
>
>
>