Why Are We Settling For This In Clojure?
blog.softwarecurmudgeon.com1 pointsby williamdix0 comments
for all X, s.t. X is a grammatic category which can be the head of a phrase ; XP := X _
or for all X ; s.t. X is a grammatic category which can be the head of a phrase; XP := _ X
Then, modulo processes which change a sentence from its underlying form to its surface form, we would only see forms characteristic of head-first or complement-first phrase structure. PP(Prepositional Phrase) := P(Preposition)NP(Noun Phrase).
In such a rule, the preposition is the head. There is an assertion that languages have the property head-first or complement-first. In this case, the complement-first rule would instead be PP := NP(Noun Phrase) P(Preposition)
So in head-first languages, we would see: PP := P NP
The man is PP(in the house)
VP := V NP
I VP(ate the bird)
And in complement-first languages, we would see: PP := NP P
The man is PP(the house in)
VP := NP V
I VP(the bird ate)
The article states that if head-first and complement-first were robust, universal features of languages, then we would expect the evolutionary model to show that the appearances of word orders demonstrating these features are dependent on each other across language families. However, it does not show this across the language families. It only shows that certain word orders created by head-firstness or complement-firstness are dependent in certain language families.