Timeline for confusion around what constitutes a complex sentence
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15 at 1:24 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | @BillJ No, downvotes are an essential part of how this site runs for raising the signal above noise. | |
| Jun 14 at 12:29 | comment | added | BillJ | I didn't say that supportive do is a 'separate clause'. It's simply the initial verb in the matrix clause. It's catenative because it functions like any other auxiliary and takes a non-finite clause as complement. | |
| Jun 13 at 18:31 | comment | added | Mitch | It's unclear to me what you're calling a 'clause'. Do you mean 'phrase' or 'constituent'? | |
| Jun 13 at 17:10 | comment | added | Keelan | In the traditional analysis of do-support, do is the realization of a T head which selects for an untensed VP with the main verb as head, both in the same clause (a CP). This is different from catenative verbs like agree to V, where agree has moved from V to T and selects for a clausal complement. This is precisely because do has no lexical content. If do were a catenative verb, we would expect that do-support is not needed for catenative verbs, contrary to fact (*he helped not cook). | |
| Jun 13 at 6:44 | history | edited | BillJ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 13 at 6:38 | comment | added | BillJ | @Keelan Because auxiliaries, including supportive do, are just as much catenative verbs as lexical ones. | |
| Jun 12 at 21:49 | comment | added | Keelan | Why do you treat do-support as a separate clause? | |
| Jun 12 at 18:13 | history | answered | BillJ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |