Oh... finally done with Watanabe!!! So what is Watanabe trying to say? that Classifier is a parametric manifestation of Number morphology and in a syntactic representation, Classifiers and Number morphology occupy same head position. Hence, Singular-Pural distinction in CL languages is just a matter of morphology and languages with CL can also have Singular-Pural distinction, like Japanese. Watanabe is saying CL is the head of #P because CL is manifestation of Number morphology and #P is the locus for that. So in CL languages, CL is the head of #P (if at all numeral is present) and number is in the Spec of #P and the argument he is giving for positing number in Spec of #P : modification in number like 'at least 3 books'. Then, # head udergoes agreement with Noun and move to Spec #P.
Then, in Section 4.1 on page 19, he talks about Complex CL constructions or Pseudopartitives like "2 boxes of books" and also that Complex CL and Massifiers are of same manifestation. However there is a difference in interpretation between the two if we take this assupmtion to be true of Assamese, for example: Assamese: two boxes of books
du-baakos kitaap
2-Box book (here it means 2 boxes full with books meaning amount)
kitaap-or du-ta baakos
book-Gen 2-CL box (here it means 2 boxes meant for keeping books)
But this kind of construction is not possible for count classifiers or true measure words:
tini-khon kitaap * kitaap-or tini-khon (3 books)
tini-litaar gaakhir * gaakhir-or tini-litaar (3 litter milk)
3-litre milk
According to him, a CL and 'de/bun' with mass interpretation is in complementary distribution and occupies Spec #P position. But, how to describe the Assamese phenomenon in this light?
Again there are some points in his dissertation like only Chinese massifiers allow adjectival modification, Count CLs donot. Supporting this argument, he says (on page 25), being functional heads ordinary classifiers resist adjectival modification. How? In Assamese, its not so.
There are such more questions... have mailed them to Ayesha, lets see what she has to say... so wait for Monday......
Passing Thought: came across this sight http://gigapedia.com/. I guess books can be downloaded from it. Great!!
Useful reading: Universal Quantifiers
"Quantification, The Nominal Mapping Parameter, and DP Structure in Korean and Japanese" is a simplified version of Watanabe. I find this CaseP projection a bit dicy from argumentation point of view. Watanabe justifies its projection and phrasal movement to it Spec position to satisfy EPP (Extended Projection Principle) feature. Confused!!!
Then, in Section 4.1 on page 19, he talks about Complex CL constructions or Pseudopartitives like "2 boxes of books" and also that Complex CL and Massifiers are of same manifestation. However there is a difference in interpretation between the two if we take this assupmtion to be true of Assamese, for example: Assamese: two boxes of books
du-baakos kitaap
2-Box book (here it means 2 boxes full with books meaning amount)
kitaap-or du-ta baakos
book-Gen 2-CL box (here it means 2 boxes meant for keeping books)
But this kind of construction is not possible for count classifiers or true measure words:
tini-khon kitaap * kitaap-or tini-khon (3 books)
tini-litaar gaakhir * gaakhir-or tini-litaar (3 litter milk)
3-litre milk
According to him, a CL and 'de/bun' with mass interpretation is in complementary distribution and occupies Spec #P position. But, how to describe the Assamese phenomenon in this light?
Again there are some points in his dissertation like only Chinese massifiers allow adjectival modification, Count CLs donot. Supporting this argument, he says (on page 25), being functional heads ordinary classifiers resist adjectival modification. How? In Assamese, its not so.
There are such more questions... have mailed them to Ayesha, lets see what she has to say... so wait for Monday......
Passing Thought: came across this sight http://gigapedia.com/. I guess books can be downloaded from it. Great!!
Useful reading: Universal Quantifiers
"Quantification, The Nominal Mapping Parameter, and DP Structure in Korean and Japanese" is a simplified version of Watanabe. I find this CaseP projection a bit dicy from argumentation point of view. Watanabe justifies its projection and phrasal movement to it Spec position to satisfy EPP (Extended Projection Principle) feature. Confused!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment