●●生成文法総合スレ＜４＞●●

It seems we are not going anywhere ...

>>801-804
Iﾕm afraid you have missed something important, meow.
＞I've proved completely that not only subject but also other arguments can be antecedent of 自分
To show that there are exceptions is no falsification. (Of course it does pose a problem to be
addressed, and that's the true meaning of The exception proves the rule.)
We can only falsify a theory or a hypothesis only by showing that there is a more hopeful one.
Or are you claiming that a rule should have no exceptions, or a theory should explain everything?

＞my claim is that "not only subjects can be antecedents of 自分"
Here I completely agree with you. But how is this supposed to prove that in 自分が太郎に許せない
太郎 is NOT the subject? To show this, it must be the case that subjects CANNOT bind zibun, meow.
If you want to argue that here 自分 rather than 太郎 is the subject, it will be helpful if you can show
an example where it is obvious that zibun as a subject is bound by a nonsubject, meow.

I have also suggested above to limit the SO effect to co-argument relations.
Any "exceptions" to this formulation, meow?

Now, the other classic diagnosis for subjecthood is the triggering of honorification. Thus;
学生が山田先生にお殴りになれないこと
*山田先生が学生にお殴りになれないこと
How will you capture the parallelism between them and the following, without admitting the
subjecthood of the -ni argument, meow?
山田先生が学生をお殴りになったこと
*学生が山田先生をお殴りになったこと

Put together, zibun-binding and honorification facts STRONGLY SUGGEST that we should think of
the -ni argument as the subject, in sharp contrast to your argument so far that the -ni argument
(may or) may not be the subject as far as zibun-binding is concerned.

So, the same old questions:
1) What's your evidence that in the -ni -ga frame, -ga is the subject?
2) Without SO, how will you explain the data supporting SO?
Next time, I would like you to answer them without fail, please?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm ready to abandon my analysis in favor of your better one, if you
have one, meow.

>>807
Why don't you read >>798?
i) 　"λx . λy . yがxに会った"
ii)　「翔一 is the subject of the predicate 朋子に会った」

>>810
>i) 　"λx . λy . yがxに会った"
I didn't claim that. It's an example of how a denotation should look like.
I've already explained that in >>761.
>>761
>What I wanted
>to say there was not that 会う's denotation is "λx . [λy . yがxに会う]"
Now do you admit that your following statement was wrong?
>>780
>what you did in >>743 was to provide a formal-semantic
>formula on the assumption that a certain argument and not others is the subject, rather than to
>argue for that assumption itself, meow.

双六、いいぞ〜う！！
がｍばれ〜！！

Will you first answer my questions above?
Obviously, I keep answering yours and you keep ignoring mine (w
It's unfair, meow.

＞I didn't claim that.
But that's what you provided, isn't it? Like you said, you gave
＞an example of how a denotation should look like
and now you are claiming that the example should NOT look that way?
At least I can admit that I was misled ... meow.

＞I took it for granted that 会う's denotation could naturally be "λx . [λy . yがxに会う]"
... And yet
＞What I wanted to say there was not that 会う's denotation is "λx . [λy . yがxに会う]"
I don't see your point. After all, what do you think 会う's denotation should look like, and
which of x and y do you think is the subject, and why?
Depending on how you reply, I'm willing to admit that I was wrong in
>what you did in >>743 was to provide a formal-semantic
>formula on the assumption that a certain argument and not others is the subject, rather than to
>argue for that assumption itself, meow.

>>808
>It seems we are not going anywhere ...
I'm sorry for that.
I think it takes time for us to start communicating well becase of our different backgrounds.
>＞I've proved completely that not only subject but also other arguments can be antecedent of 自分
>To show that there are exceptions is no falsification. (Of course it does pose a problem to be
>addressed, and that's the true meaning of The exception proves the rule.)
You are the first linguist ever to ignore presented exceptions to his own theory justifying himself repeating
the proverb "the exception proves the rule". But whatever the proverb says, the logic says
(∃x s.t. ((¬Q(x)) Λ P(x)))⇒(¬(∀x, P(x)⇒Q(x))).
Anyway, I'm not interested in SO of 自分 binding itself. I just need to prove that ot only subject
but also other arguments can be antecedent of 自分.

>＞my claim is that "not only subjects can be antecedents of 自分"
>Here I completely agree with you. But how is this supposed to prove that in 自分が太郎に許せない
>太郎 is NOT the subject?
I didn't say the claim proves that 太郎 is not the subject. This claim is to prove that your argumentation based
on the assumption that only subjects can be antecedents of 自分 is wrong.
Do you admit your argumentation was proved wrong? I will prove my own claim (自分 is the subject and 太郎 is not)
when you admit that.

>I have also suggested above to limit the SO effect to co-argument relations.
>Any "exceptions" to this formulation, meow?
Do you believe the suggestion yourself? Are you sure? Very confident? If so, I'll consider that
because there proved to be a formal algorithm to generate a new hypothesis AUTOMATICALLY
when a hypothesis is falsified with exceptions.

>>813
>Will you first answer my questions above?
Would you tell me what question do you want me to answer first? It helps me.
>Obviously, I keep answering yours and you keep ignoring mine (w
I think it's not the fact but anyway I appologize if I've failed to answer many questions.

>>814
>But that's what you provided, isn't it?
No. It's just an example and it may be the other way round.
>now you are claiming that the example should NOT look that way?
>＞I took it for granted that 会う's denotation could naturally be "λx . [λy . yがxに会う]"
>... And yet
>＞What I wanted to say there was not that 会う's denotation is "λx . [λy . yがxに会う]"
>I don't see your point. After all, what do you think 会う's denotation should look like, and
>which of x and y do you think is the subject, and why?
By "how a denotation should look like" I meant lambda calculous and such, not the exact contents.
So that's ok if it's "λx . [λy . yにxが会う]" and not "λx . [λy . yがxに会う]". But I choose the latter
just because I think the latter, not the former, is what YOU would agree (to avoid unnessesary conflicts).

↑ (typo)
>>814
Oops, >>813

>>813
>Obviously, I keep answering yours and you keep ignoring mine (w
Although I never say it unless you say something like the above, I've felt you keep evading
questions by asking other questions. But I'll stick to the original ones until I'm convinced.

BTW, I think you like words such as OBVIOUSLY and STRONGLY
when you're just showing your subjective judgements.

>It's unfair, meow.
You're paranoid.

>>812
ありがとうございます。

>>809
>So, the same old questions:
>1) What's your evidence that in the -ni -ga frame, -ga is the subject?
I'll tell that later when you admit your argumentation has been falsified or I admit
all attempts of mine to falsify your argumentation falied.
>2) Without SO, how will you explain the data supporting SO?
I proved that SO can't be used as an evidence that -ni is the subject in the -ni -ga frame.
But SO in itself is not what we're discussing.

My questions can be found in:

>>757
＞How would you explain the fact that zibun-binding is possible in (3) but not in (2)

>>767
＞what determines whether a proposed denotation is correct or not?

>>769
＞what ruled out
＞3) *太郎は朋子が会いたい
＞but not
＞4)　太郎は酒が呑みたい

>>792
＞what is 太郎 in 太郎が自分の家で寝たいこと, in your terms

>>793
＞how can you decide "whether a certain argument is the subject or not,"

>>799
＞what is your alternative?

And you have answered none of them. Isn't it OBVIOUS that you keep ignoring my questions?

Perhaps the source of confusion is that you don't quite understand the meaning of falsification.
Let me put it this way: Exceptions indicate that something is wrong with the initial
hypothesis. Then one of the following two things must happen; i) to revise the hypothesis
(it is not falsified), ii) to replace the hypothesis with a better one (it is falsified).
See the difference, meow?

＞I will prove my own claim (自分 is the subject and 太郎 is not)　when you admit that.
It's you who are to falsify my claim with your own, so how can I be sure that mine is wrong
before I hear your argument?

＞So that's ok if it's "λx . [λy . yにxが会う]" and not "λx . [λy . yがxに会う]"
I take this to mean that you had no idea which of x and y should be picked up as the subject.
Sorry, I can't say I was wrong at this moment, meow.

＞I'll tell that later when you admit your argumentation has been falsified
Nope, you need to tell yours first in order to falsify mine.
I hope you are not just fooling around, meow.

＞SO in itself is not what we're discussing.
Your reasoning goes as follows: SO is wrong, so my argument based on SO is also wrong.
Thus our primary concern should be SO itself. In particular, since you are against SO, it is
natural to ask if you can falsify SO, and if yes, how. Remember, I suggested revising rather
than abandoning SO, so that you are in fact expected to falsify this revision, meow.
But let us forget about that and hear your story, please?

>>821
>And you have answered none of them
Since you listed quesions that I didn't answer,
it is a tautology to say that I answered none of them.
Do you admit that?
>Isn't it OBVIOUS that you keep ignoring my questions?
Not at all, because what you showed is nothng but a trivial tautology.

>>821
Thank you very much for listing questions I've not answered and I'm sorry for the trouble.
I answer these questions now that I know you want them first.
>>>757
＞How would you explain the fact that zibun-binding is possible in (3) but not in (2)
I've already explained why I ignore this kind of question by saying what we are discussing
is not zibun-binding itself but subjecthood and it suffices if I proved SO of zibun-binding cannot
be used as an evidence of subjecthood, which I did.
>>>767
＞what determines whether a proposed denotation is correct or not?
This question is a replay to a replay to your question why I supposed "λx . [λy . yがxに会う] "
and not "λy . [λx . yがxに会う] " for the denotation of 会う and is provided as a restatement
of the original question of yours although I don't quite understand why this can be a restatement
of the original question. Reading the first half of >>767, which includes this question, I thought
there must be serious misunderstandings between us and started confirming simple things first
to eliminate possible misunderstandings.
And now I'm explaining about the possible misunderstandings in >>761 to which the quesion is put.
When I'm done with the explanation, I expect the misunderstanding that makes you to put this question
is eliminated. But if you still have the same question, I'll answer. I think that's the right order.

(continued)
>>821
>>>769
＞what ruled out
＞3) *太郎は朋子が会いたい
＞but not
＞4)　太郎は酒が呑みたい
I'm answering this but let me make sure one thing because you just said
>>781
>See >>759.
as your theory's explanation of the data. Do your theory's explanation of this data is as follows?

　　→ga-conversion is applicable to objects whose case is not inherent. 朋子 in 太郎が朋子に会いたい
　　is an object but its case is inherent. So the conversion cannot be applied to this 朋子.
　　On the other hand, 酒 in 太郎が酒を飲みたい is an object and its case is not inherent.
　　So the conversion can be applied to 酒. Hence the grammaticalities of (3) and (4).

>>792
>>>787
>＞I don't believe in subject-orientation of 自分.
>Rather, you don't believe in the notion of a subject, do you?
>So what is 太郎 in 太郎が自分の家で寝たいこと, in your terms, meow?
You said "So what is ...?" but what this question is related to?
Is this quesion relevant to whther I believe in subjects of not?
I'll answer this question when I've understood
this question is really relevant to our discussion, Sorry.

>>793
＞how can you decide "whether a certain argument is the subject or not,"
by whether the argument is merged with a function of type <e,t> or not.

>>799
＞what is your alternative?
We are discussing not SO itself but subjecthood. I've proved that SO cannot be used
as an evidence of subjecthood at least in the way you used it
and this proof is logically complete.
I proved what I need to reject SO as an evidence of subjecthood
and don't need to explain the whole mysterious behaviors of zibun-binding.
(By the way, If you're interested in zibun-binding itself very much, please say so.
Then I'll consider discussing that topoic. It may be another interesting topic to discuss.)

Okay, I've answered them!!

>>822
>the source of confusion is that you don't quite understand
It's true that we're not communicating well but let's not put the blame on
the other's understanding ability but try hard to understand what the other say
and to make the other understand what you say, please.
We are both rational creatures.

>>822
>＞I will prove my own claim (自分 is the subject and 太郎 is not)　when you admit that.
>It's you who are to falsify my claim with your own, so how can I be sure that mine is wrong
>before I hear your argument?
I didn't say I'm falsifying your claim itself.
I said I'm falsifying an argumentation you provided to prove your claim.
Note the distinction between your claim and an argumentation of yours for your claim.
Now let me ask the same question again:
Do you admit that your argumentation that "because only subjects can be antecedents
of 自分 and 太郎 can be antecedent of 自分 in 太郎は自分の家が欲しい,
太郎 must be the subject in 太郎は家が欲しい"
is proved to be wrong?

>>823
>Sorry, I can't say I was wrong at this moment, meow.
Ok. Let me explain more.
>＞So that's ok if it's "λx . [λy . yにxが会う]" and not "λx . [λy . yがxに会う]"
>I take this to mean that you had no idea which of x and y should be picked up as the subject.
I have my opinion but what I give as an example of how a denotation should look like
can be anything that makes sense as a denotation in formal semantics
and thus can be something that I don't agree.
In a word, it's not irrelevant there whether I agree that the lexical item should actually
be assigned the denotation or not.

It is as if I used CFG to formalize things
and explained CFG to readers or llisteners who possibly don't know aboutt CFG
using an example saying
"... for example, "S=>NP VP, NP=>D N, VP=>V ..." is an example of CFG for the English Grammar"
and someone criticized me saying "You example grammar is wrong.."
I said "Well... it's just an example and, you know... I'm not claiming that the grammar is right,
you know... I just thought this is an example you could naturally understand..."
The someone replied "You said the grammar is naturally understood.
Now, answer. Do you think 'S=>NP VP' is a correct rewriting rule or not?"
Of course, when I'm not discussing English grammer.

>>823
>＞I'll tell that later when you admit your argumentation has been falsified
>Nope, you need to tell yours first in order to falsify mine.
No. Your argumentation is falsified just logically.
Also see the distinction of the argumentation for your claim and your claim itself
I explained in >>828.
I think our argumentation is going as follows:

　first, you provided a certain argumentation to support your claim.
　　I falsified the argumentation and asked if you're convinced.　　←WE ARE HERE NOW.
　　　if you're not convinced, either my proof is wrong or my explanation is insufficient.
　　　　if my explanation is insufficient, I'll explain more.
　I provide an argumentation that support my claim
　　somone criticize it.
　　　....

Why should I gave up my falsification now and skip to my argumentation?
I'd like to resolve things one by one.

>>823
>I hope you are not just fooling around, meow.
I hope you were not a stupid illogical dumb-ass who insults the other when
s/he can't object to the other logically, saying such as "you're just fooling
around" and all. I seriously hope.
(I use insulting words only in a direct reply to an insultation you did to me.)

>>796
>while calling all other arguments objects (= nonsubjects), meow.
Are you suggesting all compliments other than the subject are objects?

>>822
>Exceptions indicate that something is wrong with the initial
>hypothesis. Then one of the following two things must happen; i) to revise the hypothesis
>(it is not falsified), ii) to replace the hypothesis with a better one (it is falsified).
>See the difference, meow?
Are you saying that the presentation of an exception to a theory is not by itself
falsification of the theory? I'd like you to answer this question first. Thanks in advance.

>>833
Yes, of course, meow.
Frankly, I'm very surprised that you do not even know about sophisticated falsificationism,
about how older hypotheses were falsified by newer ones, not by counterexamples, in the
history of generative grammar.
The following is a quotation from http://www.law.keio.ac.jp/~hagiwara/note-16.html#8th:
＞唯一つの事実が理論を反証しない。理論は様々な競合理論より劣る場合に退けられる。
＞すべての理論が経験的観察によって反証されるのではない。
＞理論を反証するのは事実ではなく理論
See why I insisted on examining your alternative first, meow?

OBVIOUSLY, we do not share the same idea of falsification.
And if you still want to stick to your own rule, I'll be glad to accept it in subsequent exchange
in order to skip any more meaningless postings and turn directly to your argument. So,
>>830
＞　　I falsified the argumentation and asked if you're convinced.　　←WE ARE HERE NOW.
Yes, I'm quite convinced that you falsified it in accordance with your own rule.
You can now go on to
＞provide an argumentation that support my claim
meow.

>>832
Yes, but complements, I need no compliments, meow.

>>834
Don't be mad. We're just discussing and making sure, right?

'Falsification' is not a word you can use as you like
but a defined term in modern science.
You just don't know this defined term, i.e. what Karl Popper claimed about being scientific.
Do you? (I'm not blaming. I'm just making sure. Please answer.)

Falsification is nothing but the presentation of an exception
and what we do after a theory is falsified is not included in the process of falsification.
This is the commonly accepted attitude in science. It is not just my own arbitrary rule.

>>>832
>Yes, but complements, I need no compliments, meow.
Oops! and Good One. I laughed.

>>834
>I'm very surprised that you do not even know
Although in this particular case (falsification), it's not me but you who didn't understand
what falsification is regarded as in modern science, it's very likely that I don't know something
that you know. It's just not the case this time, fortunately for me.
By the way, I'm not very surprised that you do not understand what falsification is in science
because different people know different things.
I think it's not at all productive to say something like "very surprised you do not even know..."
each time you belived the other don't know something you know.

>>834
>sophisticated falsificationism
We are talking about falsification and not sophisticated falsificationism. Don't cheat.

I guess you checked the definition of falsification in a resource, realized that you've
misunderstood what falsification is and swapped the word "falsification" to another term
on the sneak.
Sophisticated falsificationism is nothing but one of proposed improvement over
Popper's falsificationism. What's commonly accepted as a test of being scientific is
Popper's falsificationism. If you just say "falsification" in the philosophy of scienec,
it is Popper's falsification and it never mean Sophisticated Falsification.
For example, Hoji Hajime, a very respectable linguist, rightly used Popper's falsificationisn
in his falsificationability paper to come.

You may have thought you can excuse saying "by falsification, I OBVIOUSLY mean
sohisticated falsification." but that cannot be true because you accused me of not knowing
what falsification is, saying something like "You misunderstand falsification. The presentation
of an exception is no falsification by itself. That's not what falsification means." You can't state
this way if you know what falsification is and the difference between sophisticated falsificationism
and Popper's falsificationism but just used the word 'falsification' to mean sophisticated
falsificationism for convenience, right?

Don't cheat and admit the fact.
Now I understood why you were so mad in >>834; to evade the fact that you're mistaken.

>>834
>See why I insisted on examining your alternative first, meow?
I answer if you ask me. I think you just want to criticize my theory no matter what
because you don't like the fact that your argumentation has been completely falsified.
That's childishm I must say. I don't discuss to win or loos or to feel superior or inferior
but to examine the truth.

>>（´∀｀）
Do you admit that your argumentation has been falsified in a strict scientific sense?
If you admit it, then I'd like to give my argumentation.

ほえ〜っと！
いや、なんだか勢いで出てきちゃったけど、みんなお元気のようでなによりー。
俺、もち英語がからきしだから、日本語カキコだよー。ともあれ、双六しゃんの
argumentationは、んな、出し惜しみせず、聞かせて欲しいよーと思ってるラカトッシュ！

>>835
I'm not mad at all, meow, but I'm sad that you are so carelss.
Do you understand that you are talking about just one version of falsificationism, i.e.,
Popperian naive falsificationism (NF)?
And did you notice that I mentioned the Lakatosian sophisticated falsificationism (SF), which is
the kind of falsificationism widely assumed in generative grammar?
I know about both of them, and why NF had to be rejected in favor of SF.
Now do you? And if not, check this out.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/lakatos_prediction.html
Read also Kuhnﾕs book The structure of scientific revolution, what he said there about falsification,
meow.

Anyway, I decided to accept your Popperian falsificationism for the purpose of our argument.
Let's see how your argumentation goes, meow.

>>838
I'm still surprised that you talk about generative grammar but didn't know about SF, meow.
Read Chomusuki-Shojiten, for example. And you have misunderstood me completely. I'm not
cheating at all, meow. I just took it for granted that you are familiar with SF, and I was wrong in
that. That's my fault, but I'd like to have your apologies for calling me a cheater. 逃走派しゃん
will agree that I'm not (w Now will you, meow?

But I don't know about the mentioned paper by Hoji.
Perhaps he is arguing against the sophisticated falsificationim in favor of the naive version there,
because he understands, unlike you, that other generative grammarians adopt the former and he
doesn't like it? I appreciate any info about that, meow.

しかし双六しゃんの口調は往年の誰かに似てるのにゃ
ひょっとして帰ってきたのかにゃ？　にゃはは

>>（´∀｀）
Hmm... Maybe I've insulted you too much. It's no wonder you're sad or mad.
I think I can say something in reply to >>842-843 but I'm now convinced
that our discussion is going nowhere. I will forget/ignore what I'm not satisfied with now
and would like just start my argumentation.
Is that ok with you, （´∀｀）?

>しかし双六しゃんの口調は往年の誰かに似てるのにゃ
>ひょっとして帰ってきたのかにゃ？　にゃはは
Honestly, 644 is the first post I made in this thread or in the logs. But who is s/he?

http://homepage.mac.com/ayaya16/

>>スレッドをお読みの皆さん
『朋子は本が欲しい』の主語は何でしょうか？私は「本」が主語だと考えます。
述語に対してガ格以外の格標識をとりえない項が唯一つだけあり、
その項と主語が一致すると考えるからです。
そう考える根拠を二つ挙げます。

1.
述語が二つかそれ以上の項を持つ場合は、何が主語かについて、意見は一致しないかもしれない。
従って一つの項しか取らない述語から考え始めましょう。
この場合はその唯一の項が主語であることに異議はないと思います。
項を一つしか取らない述語を観察すると、
主語にはガ格以外の格標識が割り当てられないことが観察されます（反例のご提示を募ります）。
ここから主語にはガ格以外の格は割り当てられない、と自然に考えられます。
もし、述語が自由に主語の格を上書きできるとするならば(inherent case)、
何故それが述語が単項の時に限って、決して起きないのかが
説明を要する事項として出てきてしまうからです。

2.
また、項の数に関わらず、どんな述語に対しても、
「ガ格以外の格標識をとりえない項」が常に唯一つだけあるということが観測されます。
私の説で考えれば、この現象は簡単に説明がつきます。主語は常に唯一つだからです。


以上の私の考えに対して、コメントや批判、質問等を頂けたらと思います。宜しくお願いします。

(English translation of 847)
>>ALL
What is the subject in (1) below?
　　(1) 朋子は本が欲しい
My Answer is, 本 is
because I think the subject is the argument that can take no other cases
than the nominative (there's always one such argument) and in 朋子は本が欲しい,
本 is that.

When the predicate takes more than one arguments, we may not agree on
which argument is the subject. So let's start where we agree on what is the subject.
That is, when the predicate takes just one argument.
We must admit that this argument is the subject.
When the predicate takes only one argument, no other cases than the nominative is
assigned to the argument. So it is natural to think that it is a common property of subjects.
(If predicates in general can freely assign cases to their subjects, why no unary predicate can?)

Even when the predicate takes more than one arguments, it is observed that there's
always one and only one argument that can take no other cases than the nominative.
This data can easily be explained in my theory: because the number of subjects is always one.

（´∀｀）sensei.
We missed you yesterday,,,,,,,

Anyway, >>848
双六-san, have you ever thought any possibility that Japanese might
have more than one subjects? I assume Japanese tends to have at least
one nominative Case-marked NP in a sentence, and this assumption would be
a reply to your question 1.

If you don't regard 'トムが足が調子が悪い' as good, I'm afraind we(and maybe
many syntacticians) can't go anywhere.

Remember this is not an insultation. I think you are a good and rational linguist.
I'm looking forward to your discussion.

「往年の誰か」というのはBOBちゃんにょろ。あっしはBOBちゃんは
時々ROMって、稀に書き込みしているとおもいますにょろ。双六さんは
BOBちゃんとは確かに別人物だろうにょろけど、基本的にチョム派対
形式意味論という構図になるのが似ていますニョロ。

問題の根底には「日本語における主語とはなにか？」という難題があります
にょろ。ここでカオモジさんと双六さんが意見が一致していないから
議論がすれ違うのだとおもいますにょろ。過去すれで「日本語には主語が
ない」のがあって、そこでだいぶ論じられた問題にょろ。「が-marked NP
＝主語」説というのが正しいかと言うとそうでないとも思うニョロ。
顔文字さんがいっているのは「自分の先行詞になれるもの」とか
「尊敬語の尊敬の対象になれるもの」とかの基準で主語を特定しようという
柴谷先生的仮定があるにょろ。

ところで柴谷先生はRiceに移ったニョロか？しりませんでしたニョロ．

>>849
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, I think トムが足が調子が悪い is a grammatical sentence.
My analysis for this sentence is as follows:

[S [NP トムが_i] [S [NP 足が_j] [S [NP [NP ti(の)] [NP [NP tj(の)] 調子が]] 悪い]]]
悪い is a unary predicate. That is, it takes only one argument.
調子 is the only argument of 悪い. (the subject)
トムが and 足が are not arguments of 悪い but an example of long distance dependency.

That is to say, I think the sentence is derived from トムの足の調子が悪い.
Let me know if there remains unanswered issues.

>Remember this is not an insultation.
I understand it, thanks.

　 ∋8ノノハ.∩ 　http://yoshiwara.susukino.com/mona/
　　 川o・-・）ノ　＜先生！こんなのがありました！
http://www.yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku03.html
http://yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku10.html
http://www.yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku08.html
http://yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku09.html
http://www.yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku06.html
http://yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku05.html
http://www.yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku01.html
http://yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku02.html
http://www.yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku08.html
http://yoshiwara.susukino.com/moe/hankaku04.html

>>849
(>>851と同じ内容です)
私は『トムが足が調子が悪い』をこう分析します：
　　[S [NP トムが_i] [S [NP 足が_j] [S [NP [NP ti(の)] [NP [NP tj(の)] 調子が]] 悪い]]]
　　　　『悪い』は一つしか項を取らない、単項述語です。
　　　　『調子』は『悪い』の唯一の項（主語）です。
　　　　『トムが』と『足が』は『悪い』の項ではなく、長距離依存の例です。
つまり、『トムが足が調子が悪い』は『トムの足の調子が悪い』から派生した表現だと思うのです。

だから『悪い』の『ガ格以外の格を取らない項』はやはり常に一つで、
『トムが〜』の場合は『調子が』だけであると思います。コメントありがとう。

>>850
なるほど。
ところで、細かいことですが
>「が-marked NP ＝主語」説
「『ガ』以外の格標識を取らない項＝主語」節ですね。
My hypothesis is that, for any predicate, there exists one and only one argument
that cannot take other cases than the nominative.

>>847
＞どんな述語に対しても、「ガ格以外の格標識をとりえない項」が常に唯一つだけある
As it stands, this sounds too strong.
1) 僕に君を助けてあげられないこと
2) 警察が太郎を犯人だと思っていること（the subject of 犯人だ、not 思っている)
3) 太郎が自分の車が自慢であること

かかりしゃん、次スレ頼むにゃ

>>855
双六氏ではないですが、（´∀｀）氏の例は、どれも埋め込み文です。
単文で考えると双六氏の基準でいいと思います。

1) 僕に君を助けてあげられないこと
1')* 僕に君を助ける。
1'')* 僕に君が助ける。
1''') OK 僕が君を助ける。
よって、「僕」が「助ける」の主語。1)は、「れる」による随意的格降下。

2) 警察が太郎を犯人だと思っていること（the subject of 犯人だ、not 思っている)
2')* 太郎を犯人だ。
2'')OK 太郎が犯人だ。
よって、「太郎」が「犯人だ」の主語。2)は、思考動詞の補文化による随意的格降下。

3) 太郎が自分の車が自慢であること
3')* 太郎が自慢だ。 vs. OK 自分の車が自慢だ。
よって、「自分の車」が「自慢だ」の主語。3)の「太郎が」は「太郎に」の随意的格上昇

1)、2)、3)とも随意的格変換のない文の方が自然。

＜アスペルガー症候群（自閉症スペクトラム）←脳の機能的疾患（遺伝が要因）＞
http://www3.ocv.ne.jp/~cochome/kaisetsu.htm#chigai
http://www.autism.jp/l-02-03-aspe3.htm
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Beautycare/5917/as/
●接し方のルールがわからず無邪気に周囲の人に対して迷惑なことをしてしまうこと
がある。人を傷つけるということには鈍感です。年配の先生に向かって「おばあさん
先生おはようございます」と明るい大声で挨拶する生徒もいる。こういった言動をす
る場合にも彼らには悪意はない。
●小さな声でひとり言を言ったり、考えていることを声に出して言うことがある。
●融通が利かないことも学校生活で問題になる。時間割の変更や突然の教師の欠勤と
いう事態で不安を感じたりかんしゃくをおこしたりする。あまりに規則に厳格なため
に、遅刻した同級生に延々と注意をしたり、修学旅行などで消灯時間をかたくなに守
り、他の生徒の顰蹙をかったりすることがある。
●行動･興味･活動のパターンが貧困で反復常同的なことも自閉症の特徴である。すな
わち、日常の活動の様々な面にわたって柔軟性のないルーティン（決まった手順や日課）
を押しつける傾向、これを慣れ親しんでいる習慣や遊びのパターンだけでなく、たいてい
は新しい活動にも押しつける。そしてルーティンや個人的な環境の細部の変化（家の中の
置物や家具の移動によるなど）に対する抵抗がみられることがある。
●揺れる木の葉を見続ける子どもは興味のレパートリーが狭いとも言え、視覚的な敏感さ
があるといっても良い。
●精神遅滞を伴うものと伴わないもので大きく分かれる。１００％果汁のオレンジジュー
スを思い浮かべてください。それにだんだん水を加えて薄めて行くと終いには水にごく近
くなる。一口飲んで「オレンジジュースだ！」とわかるものは自閉症、水に近いけれどな
にかオレンジの味が混じっているのがアスペや高機能・・。その濃度はさまざま。濃いオ
レンジジュースであったとしても早期の療育や周りの対応によって水に近づいていくこと
は可能。しかし間違えてはいけないのはオレンジジュースが一滴でも落ちている場合は
「純粋な水」にはなれないのです。