Related to this.
Complementizers in the Matrix are currently raise-sem-lex-item which means they copy their complement’s HOOK.
I am currently working on embedded questions and on modeling the differences in the behavior of verbs like think vs. know:
(1) I think that Kim arrived
(2) *I think whether Kim arrived
(3) I know that Kim arrived
(4) I know whether Kim arrived
(5) *I wonder that Kim arrived
(6) I wonder whether Kim arrived
So far things work out with complementizers simply copying their complement’s SF up.
However, in order to model:
(7) Who do you think that arrived?
It appears that I need a semantically “active” that which doesn’t care what the SF value of its complement is but rather says: I take any complement but I myself introduce propositional semantics to the clause.
Is my reasoning correct? If so, I will proceed with what kind of problem I am having with copying up everything but the SF value in some cases. If not, how should I better reason about this? Am I at least right that (7) is grammatical? In the ERG, it looks like it is analyzed as some sort of relativized construction… (Who is the person about which you think that they arrived, some reading like that perhaps?)