13.2408, Disc: Do We Need a Replacement for *(...)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-2408. Mon Sep 23 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.2408, Disc: Do We Need a Replacement for *(...)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Consulting Editor:
        Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU		Anita Wang, EMU
	Lakshmi Narayanan, EMU		Steve Moran, EMU
	Sarah Murray, WSU		Marisa Ferrara, EMU

Software: Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>
          Zhenwei Chen, E. Michigan U. <zhenwei at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.



Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:45:23 +0000
From:  Yury Lander <land_yu at pisem.net>
Subject:  RE: Disc: Do We Need a Replacement for *

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:45:23 +0000
From:  Yury Lander <land_yu at pisem.net>
Subject:  RE: Disc: Do We Need a Replacement for *

Unlike Dan Everett (Linguist 13.2407), I almost completely agree with
Tim Stowell in that ''there is a real difference between a marginally
acceptable example and a completely unacceptable one''
(Linguist 13.2404). If Tim Stowell is right, however, then we need
two systems of notation: one (*) is for unacceptable examples and
another (indeed, gradual) (??? > ?? > ?  > ... > + > ++ > +++) for
MORE or LESS acceptable. I doubt, however, if such degrees of
acceptability are relevant for most syntacticians.

What can be relevant, however, is the DEFAULT form (or DEFAULT
semantics, since * and ? are also used sometimes in respect to
meanings), and this certainly looks for its own marker.

All the best,

Yura

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-2408