Showing posts with label grammaticality judgements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grammaticality judgements. Show all posts

Monday, December 28, 2009

was was syntax

After re-reading my post below I had a moment of syntactic beguilement at my own use of the was that what X was that X construction:  Our group consensus was that what he really meant was that a linguistic topic was "interesting" if it helped him make his argument.

I imagined four relevant sentences; two grammatical/acceptable and two ungrammatical/unacceptable according to my own most excellent judgment*.  My challenge to you, dear reader, is to explain why sentences (1-2) are grammatical/unacceptable and why sentences (3-4) are ungrammatical/unacceptable.
  1. our consensus was that what he really meant was X
  2. our consensus was he really meant (that) X
  3. *our consensus was what he really meant (that) X
  4. *our consensus was he really meant was X
 *having been schooled by a prominent typologist, I avoid using the term "ungrammatical" in any strict sense, grammaticality judgments being such slippery things.

TV Linguistics - Pronouncify.com and the fictional Princeton Linguistics department

 [reposted from 11/20/10] I spent Thursday night on a plane so I missed 30 Rock and the most linguistics oriented sit-com episode since ...