small-SUBJ AUXdog chase.PRE
will we talk more about how to understand the things in CAPs? I'm assuming SUBJ - is Subject, AUX - auxiliary (but not sure what that means in this context), and not sure aout PRES - maybe Present tense?
small-SUBJ AUXdog chase.PRE
will we talk more about how to understand the things in CAPs? I'm assuming SUBJ - is Subject, AUX - auxiliary (but not sure what that means in this context), and not sure aout PRES - maybe Present tense?
every sentence has a subject anda predicate."
so I learned this...but it also definetly never made sense to me, would part of the reason this continues be that the definition of subject isnt that bad, or is it just one of those rules we have to "be taught" and basically just "because"?
One way to tell if a lexical item is functional or lexical is to see if it isleft behind in "telegraphic speech
so only the lexical parts of speech would be left behind?
or where coinages are very rare)
is there any understanding of what might lead to an exception/entrance to a closed class? For example would it need to be more of a "usefulness" or perhaps a similarality with how other words in the language are structured (for example uvder just looks weird and hard to say to me)
Brief Discussion of their analytical/theoretical/typological relevance (“Why should wecare?” Or stated another way, “Why is this something to be solved?”).
how would you recommend doing this without becoming too grandiose?
funny story since most of the languages I've like studied/"learned" (I'm not bilingual so we are using quotes), put the versb at the end...soooo I kinda forget that that is not what english does and like that it should be weird...but I hear that and I go "oh yeah makes sense"
is this referring to specifcally spoken language?
(for example, the ability to walk) are built directly into our brains - theyare instincts. No one had to teach you to walk
so when people say that someone has to relearn to walk; or i know I've heard of people with degenerative conditions "forgetting how to swallow" and/or needing to "relearn" that, is thta more about reactivating that innate part of the brain? at least according to this theory?
ut instead either a constraint on·short-term memory 7 or a constraint on our mental ability to break apart sentences as we hearthem.
to me it seems almost like a parsing problem but not quite in the way that it's argued, as I took Japanese (which is mentioned in the foot note) and it would sometimes feel like you almost need to reparse or go back and re-assess how the words go together, and I think it seems like maybe this just isn't as common in English so it then becomes strange-- not because we forgot what we read but it was already considered "done" so why would we "go back" and re-check that. Like in the cotton shirt example, I just couldn't see that cotton and shirt were meant to be separate until they added more pauses/space, because I kinda process cotton shirt- oop one noun phrase and just didn't question that even when the sentence didn't make sense with that.
away from the richness of good prose and obscuring the beauty of language. Nothingcould be further from the truth.
I was actually shocked to learn that a friend of mine who really enjoys literature doesn't like linguistics, because of this reason! Like the authors, I think it makes language more beautiful!