Could you expand?
I read both citations of Warder and essentially this is what he is saying -
- at p.9, this is simply acknowledging the phenomenon that Pali is a zero-copula language. Where in English, the verb "is" must be supplied (eg The ball is red), the Pali equivalent "hoti" is optional. Is/hoti is a verb, and it is optional in Pali. See Warder at p.14 when he says -
(sometimes there is no verb in Pali in
this type of sentence : see above, last paragraph of the Introduction)
- at p.14, fn 2. Ahh, this is a bit more complicated. Warder belongs to the new generation of linguists who have departed from the ideals of the Port Royal Grammarians (see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port-Royal_Grammar
and http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary. ... al+Grammar
). Thus his critique of the belief that logical relations are that easily applicable to modern grammar, post 1900s linguistics. What he is rejecting here in fn 2 is the old description of subject-predicate based on Logic. He is not saying that it is not valid, but that it is incomplete and should be expanded to include another linguistic phenomenon. You need to turn to page 61 for a fuller description of the "nexus" and "junction" distinction he drew in fn 2. Classical subject-predicate grammar only deals with the "junction" but does not describe the "nexus". There is a difference between -
a) "..the ball that is red" or "...the red ball" (junction)
b) .. the ball, which is red (nexus)
in English, and the same distinction exists in Pali.
"Nexus" and "junction" may be familiar only to professional linguists. For us mortals, the more familiar terminology is -
"Nexus" = non-restrictive relative clause
"Junction" = restrictive relative clause