{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021484375, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005859375, 'mean_word_length': 4.857142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A note on ‘traditional treatments’ of Welsh

In Borsley (I984), I argued on a number of grounds that the complements of Welsh control and raising verbs should be analyzed as VPs and not as clauses with empty subjects. Fife (I986) finds a great deal that he dislikes in the paper. One point recurs throughout his discussion: the suggestion that there are 'traditional treatments' of the phenomena that are preferable to those I espoused. This suggestion deserves serious attention. Clearly, it is possible that linguists whose main concern is with current theoretical debates will overlook important insights in traditional work. In this note, I will consider three areas where Fife suggests that traditional analyses are preferable. In each case, I will argue that there is no basis for his view. I will also suggest that his discussion highlights the limitations of traditional treatments of Welsh syntax. One matter that I was concerned with in my paper was the mutation that is illustrated in examples like the following: