Talk:Extended projection principle

The article 'Extended projection principle' would have more links to it if all the words were capitalised (as they should be anyway). There is a link in 'Control verb', for instance, that links to a 'this article does not yet exist' page, and there must be many more. I am unsure of the best way to do this, however. 128.240.229.67 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please follow up at Talk:Principles and parameters, since we have many such pages with the same capitalization issue for their titles. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See the Last paragraph, "In his dialogue De ente, Plato states that there cannot be a sentence without a noun [subject] and a verb. Aristotle teaches the same in Peri hermeneias 2: 'Thus, a verb without a subject will mean nothing'. -El Brocense, 1587. This is an early formulation of Chomsky's Extended Projection Principle".Is this citation relevant?binu (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

SVO counterexamples

Some SVO languages never allow a dummy subject. I know Russian and Esperanto are of that kind, and I suspect that the same applies to all Slavic languages. Examples:

• English it rains / it is raining, Russian дождь идёт ("dozhd' idyot", wfw. "rain goes"), Esperanto pluvas.
• English it is cold here, Russian здесь холодно ("zdyes' khołodno", wfw. "here cold"), Esperanto estas malvarme ĉi-tie.
• English it seems that…, Russian кажется, что… ("kazhetsya, shto…"), Esperanto ŝajnas, ke….

In none of these cases (or any similar ones) do Russian or Esperanto allow any equivalent to English it. In the first Russian example there is a subject, дождь, meaning "rain", but it is of course not a dummy one. The verb идёт could be seen as dummy, except that it carries the meaningful category of tense. In the 2nd example it could be argued that both the subject and verb are dummy words added by the EPP (except for the tense category); Russian leaves them both out (but the verb "to be" would reappear if the sentence were put in a different tense), Esperanto has the "dummy verb" estas ("is") but no subject.

Russian is optionally (but, I think, usually not, especially in the 3rd person) pro-drop. Esperanto isn't (except in the 2nd person imperative, where most languages, including English, are too). — Tonymec (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

To buy into the EPP, one has to have a narrow linguistic horizon. There are many languages in which subject-less clauses occur (not involving pro). The EPP seems to be mostly valid for English and a couple of other closely related languages (perhaps French), but there are many, many other languages for which it is not valid. How the EPP ever became a prominent notion in the theory of syntax is difficult for me to understand. --Tjo3ya (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Outlived?

See this sentence "--an addendum to the Projection principle (which it has outlived significantly)" .Written under the impression that the Projection Principle is no more.The sentence need to be corrected--binu (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)