Jorge Llambías, On 09/10/2012 02:18:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:32 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
>>
>> My version:
>> Binder, with two complements, binding a bindee, which is generally an
>> argument-place complement (tho not in case of jek, ji'uk). The binding
>> relation is expressed in the phonological form of the binder and the
>> argument-place.
>>
>> Your version (if I understood right, which I probably didn't):
>> Binder has three complements, one of which is a variable. It generally
>> binds complements of predicates; complements of predicates are variables.
>> The variable has multiple forms, all of the same shape; each form cliticizes
>> to the form of the syntactic word the variable is a complement of.
>> Syntactically it's one entity, but phonologically it gets expressed as many
>> different forms, of the same shape.
>
> My version would be: Binder has two complements (each one a formula),
> and it binds zero or more variables of its complements.
>
> Variables are not syntactic objects by themselves (they are not
> words). Which variables a formula has, and which variables a binder
> binds, is determined by the phonological form of the syntactic
> objects.
I understand your version, but it is a misanalysis: if language works one way and you say Xorban works another, even though it can be analysed as working a different way that is consistent with the way language works, then I conclude yours is a misanalysis, i.e. I conclude that Xorban does not work the way you say it does. The binding relation is syntactic, because it's semantically interpreted. Indeed it's one of the two fundamental relations of logical form (which is the syntax of a loglang). The binding relation must therefore hold between syntactic objects. I don't think Xorban has or needs variables, but if variables do enter into the binding relation then they are syntactic objects in their own right -- they are words. In my analysis there are no variables, but argument-places are words in their own right, because they can be bound. The phonological form is determined by the syntax.
> An atomic formula is a word and has one or more free variables (and no
> bound variables).
>
> An operator may add to, remove (i.e. bind) or leave unchanged the free
> variables of its complement formula(s). Which of those things it does
> depends on which operator it is. For example "fV" will add (mormally
> one) free variable to those of its complement formula, "na" will
> neither add nor remove any free variables from its complement formula,
> "rV" will remove (bind) any free variable(s) from its complement
> formulas that coincide with the variables expressed in its
> phonological form. So the formula resulting after the application of
> an operator can have more, fewer or the same number of free variables
> as the operator's complement formula(s). Variables bound within the
> complement(s) of an operator are invisible to the operator and are
> unaffected by it.
If you're going to start stating and formalizing the rules of syntax, this would be one of the first ones to tackle.
--And.