Talk:Bracketing paradox

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

The bracketing examples would probably look better with underbrackets, but I don't know if this is possible with TeX. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like:

\underbrace {[{\mbox{nuclear}}]} \underbrace {[{\mbox{physic(s)}}][{\mbox{-ist}}]}

?--Harris 12:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else by any chance have the book Understanding Morphology? I believe it has some good references regarding bracketing paradoxes that could be cited here. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 09:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This definition seems to conflate conflate ambiguity with bracketing paradoxes. I've edited it to be more specific. Rmalouf (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad examples unhappier and uneasier

The examples unhappier and uneasier are not good examples, at least for this native speaker of English, because I do not accept these as proper words. For me, using standard asterisk notation:

Joe is more unhappy than Mary.

*Joe is unhappier than Mary.

Joe is more uneasy than Mary.

*Joe is uneasier than Mary.

Anomalocaris (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more standard example is ungrammaticality, which has the same property: morphologically, un- is level 2 (no stress shift, etc), but -ity is level 1 (causes stress shift, etc); semantically, -ity has to attach to 'ungrammatical' to yield the right meaning. Feel free to change the ex if you want. Mundart (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]