Hot answers tagged

5

The question is struggling with what school grammar (the type of grammar that many of us were taught in middle school) considers to be a clause as opposed to what theories of syntax consider to be a clause. According to school grammar, a complex sentence consists of two or more clauses, where a clause is generally understood to contain at least a subject and ...


4

x shouted "...", x said "..." etc. are called quotatives. Another term is verbum dicendi. There is a fairly extensive body of literature on quotatives in varieties of English. The quotative that has recently attracted a lot of interest is be like, as in And then I was like "no way, that can't be true". Another recent-ish one is go And then he went "...


4

As you correctly figured out, at nightand for his girlfriend start with a preposition followed by a noun phrase. This is called a prepositional phrase (= PP): The head (= the element which determines the grammatical properties and the main meaning of the phrase) is a preoposition, and the noun phrase is a complement that is selected by the prepositional head....


4

In this sentence, "get," just like "be" in other passive sentences, is the passivizer. That is, the active form of "I have never seen a fish get cooked like that" is (just like the active form of "I have never seen a fish be cooked like that") I have never seen someone cook a fish like that. Modern English has acquired a static/dynamic distinction, but ...


4

In many languages, for example Bengali, the word comparable to if is optional and frequently absent, whereas the word marking the apodosis (usually with a similar function to then) is mandatory, exactly the opposite way round to English. Of course, it's dubious whether then has an inherent connection with conditionals in English.


4

Basically, the definitions usually used in the syntax and semantics literatures are: If a linguistic form expresses evidential meaning, you are talking about the source that you got the information from, regardless of how sure you are about it If a linguistic form expresses epistemic meaning, you are talking about how sure you are about the information, ...


3

They are not constituents, but just parts of ones that are best called fragments. In full, as in for example "It is highly unlikely that Ed will turn up", they are extraposition constructions, in which the dummy pronoun "it" is subject and the content ("that") clause is in extraposed position, outside the VP. That Ed will turn up is highly unlikely. [...


3

Traditionally, linguists do not consider these forms to be a single constituent in English. Rather, it is thought that the entire that-clause is a subordinate clause embedded in another clause, called the matrix clause, as an argument of the matrix clause. For instance, if we have the sentence It is not the case that the sun rises from the west, then that ...


3

I think you answered your own question! "but" is used to […] indicate that the first clause is contrastive to the second in a way In your first example, "I am not a teacher" contrasts with "I am a student". In context, I'd imagine something like this: Alice, in a school: Excuse me, are you a teacher? I have some questions about the organization here. ...


3

Abkhaz, a northwest Caucasian language, has no cases but it is an ergative language. The alignment can be recovered from head-marking (on verbs).


3

The answer to this question has (again) to do with the argument vs. adjunct distinction. Often the term complement is used in place of argument, although the argument notion is more clearly defined. Arguments are usually noun phrases (NPs), whereas adjuncts are typically adverbs, prepositional phrases (PPs), or clauses. Sometimes, however, PPs and clauses ...


3

In traditional grammar a finite form of a verb is a fully specified verb form according to all verbal categories relevant to the specific language, like voice, aspect, mood, tense, person, or number. Non-finite verb forms are underspecified in this respect, leaving out some of the categories required for a finite verb form (typically tense, person and number)...


2

It turns out that this type of embedding is discussed (and marked with #: semantically or pragmatically anomalous) in Huddleston & Pullum's CGEL in the section called 'Processing factors', pp 1405-6. Also, Pullum tells me that such examples are never found. "Fred Householder asserted in a couple of book reviews in Language that English has a surface ...


2

What Lehmann is talking about is Hale's famous 1976 paper about the adjoined relative clause in Australia. It discusses (subordinate) relative clauses not being embedded, which spawned the opinion that there is no subordination in Australian languages (because for most 'subordination' and 'embedding' are synonimous indeed). In fact, Hale meant something like ...


2

Though BillJ is right in saying that full NPs have no case in English, I think your question would become valid if we replace the full NPs with personal pronouns: For me to attack him would be surprising. To understand the for-complement clause, it is necessary to look into a bit of history. For was not originally a complementiser in English. Sentences ...


2

Actually, the complementizer is usually called "for-to" (not just "for") to keep it apart from the preposition "for". I do not see a case for "on" or "of" as complementizers. Rather, these are prepositions whose objects can be for-to complements. The "for" part of the complementizer is deleted when it is immediately after a preposition, but it does show ...


2

Wikipedia defines the source and target domains as: Source domain: the conceptual domain from which we draw metaphorical expressions (e.g., love is a journey). Target domain: the conceptual domain that we try to understand (e.g., love is a journey). So in this case it's the other way around than you have described, with 'water / rain' being the source ...


2

there is some confusion in the other answers to this question. let me be clear: on any understanding of the term "complementizer," the word for is indeed a complementizer in the context you give. for heads a non-finite CP. allow me to give a sense of the sheer enormity of evidence pointing in this direction. the main thrust of the evidence is in ...


2

The part of your sentence in bold is not a clause, it is a present participle phrase which modifies the noun programmer, the phrase is an attribute of programmer. See here or here as for how to tell a gerund phrase from a present participle phrase. A clause has a subject of its own. A phrase, be it an infinitive or gerund, or participial phrase, has no ...


2

As for the order of things: "In conditional statements, the conditional clause precedes the conclusion as the normal order in all languages. (...) (Greenberg 1963: 84, #14) (https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/raraneu/universals-archive/501/) As for the question if there are words for "if", "then" and "else" in all languages: No ...


1

It's been a while since I've seen you. Traditional grammar classifies this "since" as a conjunction. But "since" can also uncontroversially occur as a preposition when it has an NP as complement, and there's no basis for assigning it to different categories according as it takes an NP or a clause -- or no complement at all. Compare: ...


1

The natural phenomena are the source, and the attack/action is the target, in this case. There are numerous examples in English of acts of physical aggression being compared to weather phenomena, specifically precipitation, so the conceptual metaphor could be WAR IS WEATHER or more specific, like VIOLENCE IS PRECIPITATION. Here are some other examples from ...


1

That "for" is a complementizer. If it were a preposition, it would take an object which could be pronominalized with "it" or "that", but *"John won't stay though I'd prefer for it". On the other hand, when it is a complementizer, pronominalization of the entire nominalized construction may be possible: "John won't stay, though I'd prefer that." Generally, ...


1

I personally would say that it is not a complementizer. For instance, if we compare the sentences: (1) Mark prefers for John to stay (2) John prefers to stay I personally want to think of (1) and (2) as having the complement clause to be about the same, because they are both "(for John) to stay" but (2) has the John implied because it is ...


1

There is some syntactic evidence first noticed by Jerry Morgan that certain apparent topmost clauses are more like qualifying adverbs. That involves the agreement of tag-question subjects with main sentence subjects. Even if there is a complement clause with an available subject, ordinarily a tag-question subject will not agree with it. So, for example, ...


1

The example sentence is okay, and in his comments, Lawler has explained why. To restate the matter, you have assumed the continuity of the parts of your example. It is usually a good assumption to assume that all the parts of a construction occur next to one another, but there are exceptions, and your example is one of them. The subject is a discontinuous ...


1

First, the example sentence is jarring because 'a few' can mean anything from 'only a small amount' to 'some'. I would expect to read 'few opportunities exist' instead (although I would doubt its truth). The verb 'exist' is very nearly copular. An infinitive phrase can function as a compounding noun phrase attached to a noun, or as a subordinate verb ...


1

The example is a classical linguistic question with the canonical example phrase "help him (to) write" (for an overview and more references, see, e.g., Pinson (2015)), but it is not a named subdiscipline of linguistics. You can look at it from different perspectives (e.g., historical, intra-linguistic variation, or semantics).


1

Though of course more language-specific information is needed, general criteria do exist. The finiteness of a clause is basically how non-nominalised it is (Givón, 2001), and, as is well known, the 'nouniness' of a constituent is gradient rather than absolute (Ross, 1973). Thus, the finiteness of the clause can be described as how few NP-like features it has....


1

It depends who you talk to, but I think there's some logic in saying that a clause is simply another name for a verb phrase. (Ignoring non-verbal clauses.) Two verbs mean two clauses. Infinitive arguments can have their own set of independent arguments and adjuncts. Here is a complex example, but I think it illustrates that there are two clauses quite ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible