[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John E Clifford, On 01/10/2012 17:00:
What I missed in your display was what exactly was meant by a binder. You present it as an operator with two complements,
Plus fV, with one complement, which can bind vV.
not noting what was required of these complements. That what is involved need not be a vowel is quite irrelevant to the issue that the term-dependence is indicated somehow. I'm sure it is in some definition of "binder" and "complement", but I haven't found that anywhere yet (I am also unclear about how it might be worded without a reference to variables of some sort, whether or not they are vowels).
The semantic interpretation of Binder/Bindee relations varies according to the word-class. One sort is quantifier--variable binding. Another sort holds between fV and vV. I'm not sure about what sort is involved with gV (aka jekV). Some of these interpretation rules involve defining equivalences among logical forms (e.g. fV--vV binding), so I see them as being within the scope of the grammar, but I don't see them as being part of syntax, which is the combinatorics of the components of logical forms. --And.