To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The linguist is concerned with meaningful generalizations about language. In writing a generative grammar, an ordered set of rules that predicts the sentences of a given language, he looks for generalizations that can be translated into economical rules. Optimally a generative grammar uses a relatively small number of general rules to predict many different structures. This paper will focus on a particular group of sentences—those containing adjectives—and construct rules to generate them. The first section will be devoted to the formulation of rules that bring adjectives into containing sentences, and the second will discuss adjectival comparisons (some of which are covered by the earlier rules) in detail.
If the Nuclear Stress Rule of English is ordered within the transformational cycle after all the syntactic transformations, many apparent exceptions to Chomsky & Halle 1968 are predictable, for the stress patterns of certain syntactically complex constructions reflect those of the simple sentences embedded within them in deep structure. This preservation of basic stress pattern through the syntactic derivation provides a new method for determining underlying grammatical representations and deciding questions of syntax. The consequences for linguistic theory, in particular regarding the lexical vs. transformational hypotheses, are discussed.
The question ‘What is syntax?‘ has been asked many times. In the framework of traditional grammar it cannot be answered by a definition. Traditional syntax, the kind of syntax upon which all of us have been brought up, is not a theory but a craft. We were taught by practical example how to find (say) the subject or the predicate of a sentence and how to recognize a given form as a 3rd-person singular verb indicative present active. These technical terms were never properly defined; but with a sufficient number of examples for practice plus some rules of thumb, we soon acquired an intuitive grasp of what they meant, and were thus able to work with them satisfactorily. Sometimes classical grammar did offer definitions, but they were invariably poor and clumsy.
This paper is intended as a short linguistic contribution to the study of an important feature of Indo-European religious history: the sacrifice of the horse. There exists a copious and valuable bibliography on the subject, and I shall refrain from needless repetition of the materials and conclusions presented there. Only features of immediate importance for my comparison will be explicitly mentioned.