散步
发表于 2025-3-30 10:09:09
Karlygash Dosmagulova,Baltabek KanguzhinIn this article I address a number of questions concerning the syntax and semantics of’ seem’-class of verbs. These are all questions raised by the syntactic behavior of these verbs in the Romance languages.
Culpable
发表于 2025-3-30 15:19:17
http://reply.papertrans.cn/25/2413/241203/241203_52.png
NAUT
发表于 2025-3-30 18:03:24
http://reply.papertrans.cn/25/2413/241203/241203_53.png
说笑
发表于 2025-3-30 23:19:35
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57433-7These comments will be concerned only with Uriagereka’s analysis, not (for reasons that will become obvious as we proceed) with the implications he claims that ensue from it.
heirloom
发表于 2025-3-31 01:28:00
Karen Harrison,Rachael Mason,Lauren SmithIt probably is uncontroversial that the determiner cliticization paradigm discussed in this chapter obeys some locality restriction in terms of government (or a similar notion). Whether the locality condition is syntactic or phonological in nature may be an open question, but I have nothing to say about the second possibility.
荧光
发表于 2025-3-31 08:36:08
http://reply.papertrans.cn/25/2413/241203/241203_56.png
LITHE
发表于 2025-3-31 12:08:21
Experiencers and Raising Verbs,In this article I address a number of questions concerning the syntax and semantics of’ seem’-class of verbs. These are all questions raised by the syntactic behavior of these verbs in the Romance languages.
shrill
发表于 2025-3-31 16:55:54
http://reply.papertrans.cn/25/2413/241203/241203_58.png
共和国
发表于 2025-3-31 17:43:34
,‘Long’ WH-Movements and Referentiality,In the recent literature on Bounding and Government, a certain consensus exists on the necessity of distinguishing two types of wh-movement : ‘long’ and’ successive cyclic’., even though many fundamental aspects of this analysis are still moot; among these, the questions in (1) and (2).
Desert
发表于 2025-3-31 22:34:06
,Head Movement, Cliticization, Precompilation, and Word Insertion (Comments on Uriagereka’s Paper),These comments will be concerned only with Uriagereka’s analysis, not (for reasons that will become obvious as we proceed) with the implications he claims that ensue from it.