Classical Continuum

Annotations

/CHS/article/display/6216

Below where you refer to a "separate force" you may want to say something like "separate illocutionary force" vel sim. to make it clear what sort of force you have in mind. Read more

/CHS/article/display/6216

You may want to temper the phrase "absolute lack of semantic stability." I agree that for the interpretation of DE context and co-text are essential, but that does not necessarily mean that there is no semantic stability. The last sentence in this paragraph reveals as much. If it's possible to… Read more

/CHS/article/display/6216

It would be helpful for the reader to be able to jump directly to example (t16) from this point in the text. It would also be a good idea to expand on the assertion that a clause with DE can become a relative clause. Read more

/CHS/article/display/6216

I haven't followed up with the literature cited in n. 11, but there are strands of contemporary linguistics that have sought syntactically rigid divisions. I am thinking in particular of the area of syntax known as cartography. I don't like it much myself, but many scholars subscribe to its tenets. Read more

/CHS/article/display/6216

"For example, why do we usually label δέ “particle” and καί “conjunction,” when the connective functions of the former and the adverbial ones of the latter are amply exploited in our source texts?" One answer to this question is that the particles involve presuppositions and the conjunctions involve a syntactic… Read more

/CHS/article/display/6216

Does "not modify content" mean the same thing as "does not affect truth conditions"? If so, you may want to use the latter phrasing since it is has wide currency. Read more