Filler-gap mismatches

[Carl Pollard]

>From sag at eo.Stanford.EDU Fri May  4 13:49:16 2001
To: Carl Pollard <pollard at ling.ohio-state.edu>
cc: hpsg-l at lists.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Filler-gap mismatches
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 10:49:21 -0700
From: "Ivan A. Sag" <sag at csli.Stanford.EDU>

>
> 5)a. Kim didn't think of the possible nasty consequences, or that
>      he might be wrong.
>
>   b. Kim didn't think of that he might be wrong, or the possible nasty
>      consequences.

> 6)a. Before you do that, please think of the possible consequences
>      and that you might be wrong.
>
>   b. Before you do that,  please think of that you might be wrong
>      and the possible consequences

5b and 6b are *, right?
>>

Yes, sorry, I forgot the *'s.

>
These contrasts are discussed in:

Sag, Ivan A., Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow and Steven Weisler. 1985.
Coordination and How to Distinguish Categories. {\it Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory} 3: 117--171.

> 7) ?Sandy could think of only that he might be wrong, and not of
>    what the actual consequences might be if he were right.

Interesting. Are intervening elements sufficient to make preposition
plus that-clause sequences acceptable?
>>

We discussed these examples back in the early 80's in connection
with some HP Labs implementation. As I recall, the folkloric
conclusion was that an English prepositional object cannot have
complementizer THAT as its first word [but WHETHER is okay, as in

8) The whole question of whether Dana is a gunrunner never came up.]

Ron, if you are still following this, did the account you referred to
explain (5), (6), (7), (8)?

Carl