I propose a modification of the notion ‘phrase-marker’, to permit nodes to branch upwards as well as downwards. The change for which I argue both simplifies linguistic theory and renders it more empirically adequate.

The Inga language relies on overt ‘case’ markers, rather than the relative position of, for example, the subject or object elements with respect to the verb, to distinguish the function of each. Since little restriction is thus placed on the order of elements by the syntax, a potential for a large number of permutations results.

Discussions of linguistic structure generally accept a distinction between rules of sentence structure and rules of sound structure, but there is very little agreement on further subcategorization beyond this general dichotomy. Indeed, recent discussion in the area of syntax and semantics has been dominated, at least superficially, by the question of whether it is possible and/or desirable to distinguish within the rules of sentence structure between syntactic rules and semantic rules, and perhaps to impose further subcategorizations on each of these; see, for example, the contributions by Chomsky and Postal to Peters (1972). Within syntax and semantics, however, there is probably much less disagreement than meets the eye: most would agree that a desirable goal for linguistics is to isolate and distinguish as many types of rule as possible, and to associate each type with a set of maximally restrictive formal and substantive constraints.

The to possessive may be defined as that phrasal possessive construction using to which interchanges with either an inflected possessive or an of possessive or both, and with a sentence using a form of the verb have. For example:

(1) father to the bride (to possessive, henceforth to-Poss)

(2) bride's father (inflected possessive, henceforth gen-Poss)

(3) father of the bride (of possessive, henceforth of-Poss)

(4) the bride has this father.

There are a large number of ‘adjectives’ in English that consist of a noun to which is suffixed -ed and which may be preceded by a modifier such as an adjective or a numeral (e.g. bearded, blue-eyed, three-legged). They have been treated at length in this journal (Hirtle, 1970), and I should like to continue the discussion of them by highlighting some problems raised by Hirtle, disagreeing with his main conclusion, and adding a few more problems of my own.