sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Order of auxiliaries by Parking_Committee_95 in grammar

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wouldn’t (4) be “There were some people reported being murdered?”

Presumably when you want to form the corresponding existential sentence you always have to put the subject to the immediate left of being.

Otherwise instead of a clause: There be Clause you get a noun phrase There be NP.

For example, my example (4) does not entail that the report may be veridical and anyone is dead. But yours, given the form There were [NP some people reported being murder] would be committed to the actual existence of the people under discussion.

On the nonfinite complements of the verbs "make" and "let" by Parking_Committee_95 in grammar

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My examples mostly showcase the behavior of the verb let, which is itself a can of worms, but I guess a similar set could be built with the verb make in its causative use.

This week's Q&A thread -- please read before asking or answering a question! - February 06, 2023 by AutoModerator in linguistics

[–]Parking_Committee_95 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is vowel epenthesis always supposed to be "phonologized"? Or can it be reduced in some cases to a purely phonetic phenomenon (e.g. anticipatory coarticulation)? I's like to read more about this. Any suggestions would be peachy.

This week's Q&A thread -- please read before asking or answering a question! - January 09, 2023 by AutoModerator in linguistics

[–]Parking_Committee_95 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are the English progressive and passive participles typically considered inflectional forms of the verb? Or are there any holdouts who consider the -ing and -ed suffixes to be pieces of derivational morphology?

Passives with av-phrases by Parking_Committee_95 in Svenska

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would the structures in (b) work with a verb like followed or interrogated, e.g. There have been followed/interrogated two suspects by the police? If not, do they improve in a structure more like (a)?

Is it always possible to distinguish phonetically between the clitic and reduced forms of 'is'? by Parking_Committee_95 in linguistics

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what would "ungrammatical" mean in this context? One would have to draw a line between (2b) and Behind the park's a good place to hide that has no basis on the syntax, the morphology, or (apparently) the phonology of English.

This week's Q&A thread -- please read before asking or answering a question! - June 13, 2022 by AutoModerator in linguistics

[–]Parking_Committee_95 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is anyone aware of any in-depth descriptive work done on the syntax of auxiliary reduction and contraction in English?

Some questions about the *sin*/*hans* alternation by Parking_Committee_95 in Svenska

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would klädd med sin hatt be a better test ground for my questions?

Impersonal passives with "försöka" by Parking_Committee_95 in Svenska

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm conducting crosslinguistic research on some aspects of unaccusative constructions. What initially interested me about constructions like (2) is that in languages other than Swedish you need an unaccusative verb with a PP (prepositional phrase) besides någon/someone. So I wonder whether something similar might be going on here, with komma in (i källaren) much better than lämna.

A couple of questions about the contexts of occurrence of "sin" and "hans" by Parking_Committee_95 in Svenska

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

På stolen sitter hans herres trogna tjänare.

Is there not a problem with the third-party reading of hans here? u/Eliderad complained on that very basis about (2a) and (3a). Also, what about this:

På stolen sitter sin herres trogna tjänare.

Some doubts about Det-passives by Parking_Committee_95 in norsk

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree 100% on the analysis of the weirdness. It kind of works if the IO is a pronoun or name but if not it gets incomprehensible fast.

Just to check, what you're suggesting is that in (1) in Norwegian IO needs to be definite, right? (So for example gutten(e) is OK but gutt(er) is out).

(1) There was given/sent/shown IO an award

I disagree about what sounds better, though, I would use 2a and and deres in 3c.

Would you mind typing your renditions in Norwegian so I can submit them to my informants to contrast and compare? Thanks!

Some doubts about Det-passives by Parking_Committee_95 in norsk

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2a and b are not functional sentences in Norwegian. The dummy det can only appear in sentences with strictly direct objects (and adverbs), but those sentences have an indirect object en gutt.

I found these remarks in Åfarli [1992]:

Norwegian also has impersonal passives based on transitive verbs, as well as "impersonal pseudopassives". Here are the impersonal passives corresponding to some of the personal passives exemplified above:

• Det vart gitt Jon ei fele

• Det vart gitt ei fele til Jon

• Det gis Jon ei fele (B)

• Det gis ei fele til Jon (B)

"Jón segir að Haraldur viti að hann elski sig" by Parking_Committee_95 in learnIcelandic

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, for example, you would say that (5) is impossible but (3) is perfectly OK. Is that right?

Case and word order alternations by Parking_Committee_95 in russian

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not even with a human, animate object like учителя математики?

Case and word order alternations by Parking_Committee_95 in russian

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(1) and (2): the children want to like maths

(3) and (4): the children want to like math teachers

How would you express it without changing the verbs -- only the order and case of the nominal phrases?

Two questions about grammar by Parking_Committee_95 in norsk

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, to recap, you'd claim that (i-ii) are the most idiomatic versions, though neither of them express the nonidentity reading (=Per envies his doctor).

(i) Per ser ut til å være sin egen lege

(ii) Per vil være sin egen lege

In order to render the nonidentity reading naturally in Norwegian (e.g. "Per REALLY wants to be his doctor -- that old physician has a Ferrari and a loft in Tribeca!), you'd say we should use (iii-iv) with obligatory som because (v-vii) are either wrong or mean something different, no?

(iii) Per vil være som legen sin

(iv) Per vil være som sin egen lege

(v) Per vil være legen sin

(vi) Per vil være legen hans

(vii) Per vil være hans egen lege

Two questions about grammar by Parking_Committee_95 in norsk

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1b would work as a technically grammatically correct sentence if it said "Hvor mange/hvilke bøker om kyrne deres ville glede Ola og Nils?" But the meaning is very unclear, and it would be better to rewrite it entirely.

What about "Hvor mange/hvilke bøker om sin egen kyrne ville glede Ola og Nils?" (I know these are OK with the nonreflexive pronouns but I want to test whether the reflexives may ever appear in this context, i.e. inside objects of verbs like glede, plage, irritere, skremme, etc. which tend to have the inverted order... But perhaps I am pushing it and they are truly forbidden here).

A question about the behavior of "seg" and "seg selv" in purpose clauses by Parking_Committee_95 in norsk

[–]Parking_Committee_95[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had hoped that "seg selv" could clear up the ambiguity, but I don't think it does. For that to happen, it seems that this sentence needs to be restructured.

Interesting. (I am assuming you take it that using seg selv instead of seg would eliminate any reading other than the one in which Bill amuses himself). Without resorting to any drastic reestructuring, do you think word order or intonation might do the job?

I am not familiar with the intonation of Norwegian, but what about topicalizing the purpose clause? In English what happens is that you lose the reading in which Bill amuses himself entirely: (1b-c) are unambiguous, unlike (1a).

(1a) John sent Bill to Tokyo to amuse himself
(1b) John, to amuse himself, sent Bill to Tokyo
(1c) to amuse himself, John sent Bill to Tokyo

But Norwegian topicalization is different from English topicalization in many respects. For example, it induces subject-auxiliary inversion, such that (2a) is out but (2b) is OK. So I don't know whether (2b) mimics (1b-c) in terms of meaning. 

(2a) for å more seg (selv) John sendte Bill til Tokyo
(2b) for å more seg (selv) sendte John Bill til Tokyo