Sidor om ämnet:   < [1 2]
Sentence or not
Trådens avsändare: Pedroski
Pedroski
Pedroski
Kina
Local time: 04:25
Engelska till Tyska
TOPIC STARTER
Problem? May 11, 2009

Hi Lai an
Do you have a problem with that sentence? If so: what exactly? If it doesn't look native to you, well: what does look native to you? This: 'A cat maie looke on a king, ye know.'?
I was only trying to point out the mistake Lengua 5B made. He is dwelling under a misapprehension. As far as I'm concerned this thread is over.
Should you not know what constellation means, try Webster's Online Dictionary.
Yes, I speak Dutch, among other languages.
If you would li
... See more
Hi Lai an
Do you have a problem with that sentence? If so: what exactly? If it doesn't look native to you, well: what does look native to you? This: 'A cat maie looke on a king, ye know.'?
I was only trying to point out the mistake Lengua 5B made. He is dwelling under a misapprehension. As far as I'm concerned this thread is over.
Should you not know what constellation means, try Webster's Online Dictionary.
Yes, I speak Dutch, among other languages.
If you would like to help me with my Chinese, please do!
Collapse


 
Lingua 5B
Lingua 5B  Identity Verified
Bosnien och Hercegovina
Local time: 21:25
Medlem (2009)
Engelska till Kroatiska
+ ...
The show goes on May 11, 2009

Pedroski wrote:

Hey Lingua 5B, please consider the following:

A clever idea. Do you maintain idea is an animate object?

He arranged the components into a very clever constellation, which functioned well.

The point being: there are no constraints on adjectives, except the ones your imagination, or lack of it, puts on them.

Please don't take offence, I'm only trying to help you.

[Edited at 2009-05-11 06:06 GMT]


No offense taken.

Imagination? I could argue on this statement forever, since you claim there are no constraints on adjectives other than my imagination, in which case phrasing could result in endless amount of obscure/ illogical syntagms. Then I could say:

This apple is very drunk.
Or
This shoe is very angry.

( Could perhaps work in poetry)

One thing is sure.. the kind of " testing" you suggested is not relevant.

Replacing a friend with a book, it can perhaps work in some semantic theoretical analysis, but when the sentence doesn't make sense, e.g.

" She likes my book who I think is clever", then the analysis is not valid.

The relative pronoun " who" must refer to animate nouns in the first place.

I'm only discussing here, no offense.

Back to the initial posting: You must go with subject extra-position in tree diagrams.

my friend/who

(who ) " I think ( my friend) is clever"

[Edited at 2009-05-11 19:30 GMT]


 
Neil Coffey
Neil Coffey  Identity Verified
Storbritannien
Local time: 20:25
Franska till Engelska
+ ...
Not such big concerns? May 12, 2009

Pedroski wrote:
Is there any difference between a 'who' relative pronoun and a 'who' interrogative pronoun?


Arguably very little. There are a few differences, for example, as an interrogative, "who" can be used with elements like "on earth", "-ever", whereas as a relative pronoun it generally can't:

Who on earth will come to your party?
*These are the people who on earth will come to my party.

Pedroski wrote:
What I don't like about what has been said is:

The moment you break up the NP 'who is clever', you are asking this 'who', which is part of the object of I think, to be 'who', the subject of the adjectival relative clause. This amounts to it being a noun and an adjective at the same time in the same sentence!


Well, having to force each word in the sentence into a single category is really just a preocupation of traditional grammar. If one category per word out of a very limited set is a criterion for your analysis, then you probably can't analyse this sentence adequately. But that's a bit like saying "I can't write a chemical equation to explain this reaction if I assume the only elements are earth, fire, air and water". The answer is "don't use such an inadequate model, then".

Modern syntax generally does allow things to be "in more than one place" or even "be more than one thing at once" because it recognises that you kind of have to in order to explain things adequately.


 
Pedroski
Pedroski
Kina
Local time: 04:25
Engelska till Tyska
TOPIC STARTER
Still confused May 12, 2009

Thanks for your reply Neil.
Do you get what I was trying to ask in my feeble way? If a who could have some kind of 'spin' or 'flavour' which identifies it clearly as relative or interrogative? It looks like that is purely determined by its position in the Surface Structure.
In my original sentence:
Tell me if I see this wrong: who was and remains the subject of 'who is clever'. It has simply been transposed to a new position. A bit like if I change:

'I like John'
... See more
Thanks for your reply Neil.
Do you get what I was trying to ask in my feeble way? If a who could have some kind of 'spin' or 'flavour' which identifies it clearly as relative or interrogative? It looks like that is purely determined by its position in the Surface Structure.
In my original sentence:
Tell me if I see this wrong: who was and remains the subject of 'who is clever'. It has simply been transposed to a new position. A bit like if I change:

'I like John' to 'Jo I like hn.' Only you shouldn't do that with single nouns, but it is allowable with noun clauses as objects.
I see a big difference between what I would term, for want of a better word, a 'real' relative clause: ie 'who is clever' where 'who' is the subject of the clause, and other sorts of relative clause, where the relative pronoun is actually the object of another verb. The result of the latter is not much other than two run together sentences, where the latter is not even really (not well-formed) a sentence. I haven't got very far in Government and Binding Theory, but it seems to me there is very little bond between 'my friend' and 'who'. At best a kind of weak hydroxy-ion bond to use a chemical analogy.
The original sentence is really the result of word economy, one who doing two jobs instead of one.

She likes my friend of whom I think that he is clever.

But word-saving then throws up problems: either you accept 'is clever' (Minimalists don't like Trace Theory) as the object of 'I think' or you postulate an empty category, ie a nothing as the subject of '_ is clever.' You may propose as many nothings as you wish. I shall never be able to refute them. You can always say 'Look Peter, there is a nothing!' Or we do just this: make of SVO
'bit of O' S V 'rest of O' and call it a relative clause!

[Edited at 2009-05-12 11:52 GMT]
Collapse


 
Sidor om ämnet:   < [1 2]


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Sentence or not






TM-Town
Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business

Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.

More info »
Wordfast Pro
Translation Memory Software for Any Platform

Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users! Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value

Buy now! »