Hi Burkhard.
 
> (When-sentences do not belong here, they belong to the group of
> wh-sentences, which are regular sentences where one slot is filled by a
> wh-pronoun, which then goes to the front. So we can disregard them
> here.)
>
> Subclauses can do various jobs. They may fill slots in sentences, the
> subject slot, an object slot, adverbial slots, etc.
 
(1) When I have to answer the question is what worries me.
 
Here are two slot-filling wh* forms.  And the sentence is not
particularly ungrammatical; that is, I have heard some variants of it
from the mouth of native speakers.
 
> Subclauses can fill functional slots in mini-paragraphs, e.g.
> conditional structures:
>     If this is so,     topic slot
>     then xxx           conclusion slot.
> Etc.
>
> >I don't understand, Burkhard; can you explain why you are alluding to
> >these slots?
> Ok, I hope you do now.
Nope.  Repetition does not serve clarification. My point is that the
slot-and-filler metaphor does not contribute much clarity to grammatical
discussion about whether subordinated elements also have communicatively
subordinated position, which--from recollection--I believe was the point
of this discussion, wasn't it?
 
> >Hmmm!  I can't really imagine 'why' as a pronoun
> Whyever not? We've got these 9 wh-words (including 'how', "where the w
> has gone to the end"). What do they do? They fill sentence slots (or
> parts of them). All of them do this. So they belong to the same
> structural class. The difference is which slot each one fills. But this
> is the same with nouns, or adjectives, and so on.
 
What is the theoretical advantage one gains by adding these niceties?  As
a relativization relator, all wh*s have some attributes as pronouns but
could clearly not be replaced by standard pronouns.  The German
relativization relator that is derived from  the article although it has
characteristics of article and pronoun would probably be not classified
as either, right?  So what you're likely to gain in simplicity for one
language, you'd lose in simplicity as a feature of grammatical universality.
 
> >"Warum gehen wir?" would--if anything at all--stand for a
> >missing clause: "weil wir den Film sehen wollen" or whatever.
OK, make the case for "warum" being treated as a pronoun.  Do you mean to
say that any missing-element marker is to be treated as a pronoun?
 
> >If . . ., then . . . consists, logically, of antecedent and consequent
> >and is considered one hypothetical.
 
> Sure, but this is the semantic interpretation, I was discussing
> syntax. Syntax does not stop at the sentence level, but continues
> upwards for several more levels.
 
OK, before we follow the red herring <grin>, clarify for me, please, in
what sense it is appropriate to refer to the consequent as the conclusion
element.  I didn't understand that.  This notion that syntax extends
upward may be different among the different grammars.  To me, syntax
stops at sentence levels; the rhetorical echoes may be there elsewhere
but certainly do not admit of the same clear-cut analysis as the sentence.
 
> I prefer the letters. They don't suggest what the names suggest, e.g.
> that the C-slotfillers always means a 'conclusion', it may be some kind
> of summary - anything that 'concludes' a train of thought. And this is
> certainly the case with the then-part of the if-thing, hypothetical or
> real or non-real.
 
(2) If that were true, then I would eat my hat.
 
I have stated nothing conclusive or rounding off. It will be rounded off
in some sense when I can also supply the information, "He didn't eat his
hat" or "that turned out to be true."  Communicatively speaking, the
statement merely throws out the connection between two counterfactuals,
which leaves any concluding steps wide open.
 
 
> Well, yes and no. When we discuss focus, theme and rheme, old and new
> information and the like, this is no longer syntax proper, but is
> related to syntax, albeit loosely. To include communicative
> considerations can help making things clearer.
 
'focus,' 'theme,' 'rheme'--you got me; I'll bite.  What are they?
 
What's your grammatical background, BTW.  Your use of terminology might
seem clearer if I were to know that.  I'm still a follower of Chomsky et al.
with an ever so tiny nod in the direction of a certain eclecticism.
 
 
> And now for another beer :-)
 
I'll drink to that. <grin>
==Cheerio, Reinhold
 ============================================================================
                         Dr. Reinhold Schlieper
Humanities Department                              500 Shadow Lakes Boulevard
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University                            Apartment 139
Daytona Beach FL  32114                                Ormond Beach FL  32174
Phone: 904-226-6664                                       Phone: 904-676-9392
 ============================================================================