Quantifiers basically occur adjacent to a nominal phrase. However, sometimes the quantifier and the nominal phrase appear apart in sentences. This phenomenon is referred to as quantifier floating (Q-floating). The most prominent approach to Q-floating is stranding analysis, according to which the quantifier and the adjacent nominal phrase together make up a single constituent, and in the course of derivation, the nominal phrase moves from this constituent to a higher position, stranding the quantifier in situ; in other words, stranding analysis considers the floating quantifier construction as the result of a transformation from non-floating quantifier construction. This paper addresses the structure of floating and non-floating quantifier constructions, provides evidence from Persian to indicate the independence of their structures, and argues for the oblige toriness of each structure. The floating quantifier is shown to be a late adjunct to a copy of its associated DP: in the derivation leading to quantifier floating, a DP moves from its θ-position and then receives a QP as an adjunct, and then it moves again to a higher position and strands the quantifier in situ.  According to Chomsky’s (2013) Labeling Algorithm, when QP is an adjunct to DP, the movement of DP and it’s leaving the QP behind is obligatory; to put it another way, floating quantifier construction is obligatory. As opposed to floating quantifier construction, in non-floating quantifier construction, QP is not an adjunct. In this construction, the DP is the complement of the quantifier head. Given Labeling Algorithm, this construction is obligatorily motivated, too. In addition, since quantifier phrase is the topmost nominal phrase in such constructions, it is a phase; and in order for the DP to move out of this phase, it needs to move first to the specifier position of the QP, but this movement is considered too short. For this reason, DP cannot move off the QP in non-floating quantifier constructions

Background: The term “floating knee” is used to describe the flail knee separated from the ipsilateral hip and ankle. Its various forms are expressed in the classification framework. The objective of this research was to review the authenticity of previous floating knee classifications.Methods: In a retrospective study, 74 patients (64 males, 10 females) with floating knee, the epidemiology of this trauma and the prevalence of its various kinds of fractures were studied in relation to the five existing classifications. The study was done in two educational trauma centers in Mashhad, in a two year period at one and 3 year period at the other hospital. The mean age of the patients was 25.6 years. Results: In classification of patients, there was some non-conformity with the previous classifications. In previous classifications there are some weaknesses such as not to have location for open fractures, cases with both injured epiphyses and cases that have more than two fractures around the knee. In the new classification ''the floating knee'' has been divided into three types: Conventional floating knee (A, B, C), Complex knee fractures (D, E) and variant floating knee (the hip and ankle ipsilateral fractures). Each subgroup is marked with one of the numerical codes (0, I, II) which determines the open or closed status of the fracture (s). In this research 12% of injuries were complex knee fractures.Conclusions: In the new classification, fractures’ types are classified as relatively comprehensive and simple and are coded.

Background: Ipsilateral fractures of femur and tibia, the so called “floating knee” are usually the result of high-energy trauma. They are associated with increased risk of local soft tissue injures around the knee including ligamentous injuries, delayed union, and more importantly, vascular injuries. We are reporting our experience with such fractures in a teaching hospital. Methods: A cross sectional study of “floating knee” injuries treated in Shahid Bahonar hospital of Kerman over a 1 year period (2003 to 2004) was performed. Seventy eight patients (69 males, 9 females), with a maximum follow-up of 2 weeks entered the study and are reported here. The injury type and, in particular, the vascular status of the limb in terms of prevalence and the fate of limb in first two weeks were the points of concern. Seventy eight “floating knee” patients comprised the study group that was divided into six groups in accordance with the limb vascular status. Group 1: Forty nine cases with normal pulses and normal capillary refill; group 2: Seven cases with low blood pressure and poor pulse, but intact capillary refill; group 3: Thirteen cases with no pulse and no capillary refill, and ischemic time of below 6 hours that had angiographic studies; whit severe crushing and vascular compromise referring 24 hours later who underwent amputation; group 6: Two patients who developed vascular compromise after fracture fixation. Each “floating knee” case was further classified according to the level and type of each bone fracture. Results: Out of 78 cases 18 had no pulse and did not regain any hemodynamic stabilization, and 13 had angiography and 5 went directly for arterial exploration. In general 15 cases (19.2%) of “floating knee” had vascular compromise, 8 of whom ended up with amputation. The vascular damage had no direct correlation with age, or anatomic location of fractures. Discussion: Simultaneous ipsilateral fractures of femur and tibia are associated with around 20 percent chance of vascular injury. Careful and immediate assessment of limb circulation is mandatory for any “floating knee” injuries.

This paper presents an overview of a study on the design and analysis aspects of the Lake Urmia Bridge in Iran. For years there have been several detailed investigations on this subject. Here, these alternatives are discussed and, then, results of analyses for a proposed solution, a floating bridge, are presented. These aspects include environmental loads, structure and the mooring system.

Background: Ipsilateral fractures of tibia and femur or’ “floating knee”, commonly occur as a result of high energy trauma. It is, therefore, associated with high of knee injuries. This articles looks at the prevalence of intra-articular knee injury in “floating knee” when the fractures are extra-articular, both in tibia and femur. Methods: During a 3.5 year period of time (March 2002-Oct 2005), 61, out of total of 76 cases of “floating knees” that had extra-articular femur and tibia fractures, had no history of prior knee problems, and the fractures of both segments had been internally fixed were studied. Each knee was examined for any possible ligamentous injury, following rigid fixation of the fractures, under the same anesthesia. The findings were documented and the patients were later followed for any new findings or complaints up to nine months after the incident. Results: The mean age in these 61 cases (57 males, 4 females) was 29.3 (18.46). Lachman and Pivot tests were positive in 5 and Posterior Drawer test in 3 cases. Valgus instability in 9 and varus instability in 6 other cases were detected. After the 9-months follow-up, knee pain was the chief complaint in 19 patients, while the MRI study which was done in 16 cases was positive for meniscal damage in 13 patients. Conclusions: Concomitant knee insults are fairly common in “floating knee” injuries. A thorough knee examination, following fixation of “floating knee” while the patient is still under anesthesia is essential. Further evaluation during the course of fracture treatment for any knee complaint is also recommended.