🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SCHILLER.92Aug9155155@tira.uchicago.edu> schiller@tira.uchicago.edu (Eric Schiller) writes:
>As the one who started it off, I can only say that my
>point was directed toward the case marking and clausal
>structure of the construction with two nominals, both in
>the dative case, together with an infinitive. From the
>standpoint of linguistic theory, I don't think the inclusion
>or exclusion of the adverbial (nado) is particularly
>significant, at least as far as PSG, GB, Minimalist or
>autolexical accounts are concerned. 

On the contrary, it's extremely important.  Is this an instance of
dative "assigned" (checked, whatever) by infinitical inflection, in
which case it is something interesting and fairly novel?  Latin
infinitival inflection seems to assign accusative, and it's the only
other real case in the literature; the Irish cases being of dubious
verbality [sic].  Or is it a fairly banal case of dative assigned by a
modal, here null.  If the latter, which seems reasonable, it now appears
that for some speakers, at least, we must figure out why this null modal
lacks a past-tense form.


>
>Since case marking is directional in GB and its derivatives,

I don't know what this means.

>and Russian word order is discourse-based, I just wanted to
>see a full and explicit derivation of "mnye pomoch' yemu"
>or "mnye nado pomoch' yemu"?

In my years of experience in linguistics, I have learned that "explicit"
in linguistics jargon is a swearword, and about as helpful as any other
swearword.  Your basic linguist can profess never to be satisfied with
the explicitness of an adversary's formulations, look good, feel good,
and occupy an unassailable position.  It's high time to place "explicit"
(and the related term "rigour" [thanks to Pullum we must give this one
British spelling]) on a banned list for the next decade.  It is provably
unhelpful.

-David Pesetsky