Consituents. Diagrams. Right.
First off, I have to begin this entry by telling you that I have no idea if any of what I'm about to share with you is right.
Why don't I know? I don't know because I'm still a student. So, we've been learning about dependency grammar in my syntax class. And, because it is good to turn in assignments that are legible, I've been experimenting with ways to do that. Today, I tried using my computer's paint program to sort out my diagrams that are due tomorrow.
I came up with this:
Pretty, right? Sure, its a little hard to read because it is so small, but you have to go with it. Here's the rub: Nothing is labeled. This is a problem. There is no point in having a diagram if nothing in it is labeled. (Also, without the label, I've not really done the assignment.) The other problem is I'm not sure if this makes it any clearer this way than if I did it by hand.
I thought I'd perhaps do one more diagram on the computer and see how that goes. If it turns out to still not be particularly clear, I'm giving up and going back to doing it by hand. Syntax isn't really my bag, but I like the idea that things are built up from relations like this. Somehow, that makes more sense to me. (Although, you shouldn't read that this is -the- way this sort of thing is done. Its more that this is what we're doing in this one class I'm taking right now.)
This sort of way of looking at syntax makes looking at languages that can have discontinuous constituents or languages in which word order is relatively free (which would make for discontinuous constituents.)
On a completely unrelated note, turkeys don't have sweat glands, so they have to pant in order to cool themselves down. Isn't that interesting?








