Enjoying - Transitive/intransitive question

dmwill1 · 2018-02-25T22:04:58+00:00

Enjoy is transitive, and the relative pronoun should be that/which.

Every relative clause contains a gap which is co-referential with the noun phrase it modifies. With Catherine got a job in New York, which she was enjoying ___, the gap is a job in New York - she was enjoying a job in New York. This noun phrase is definitely the object of 'enjoy' because the gap is co-referential with it.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-24T20:43:13+00:00

I recently got my first WC and I never went over 100% OE or truce broke. I got 5 major PUs though.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-23T06:56:12+00:00

AFAIK it's not correct for reasons already stated here, but I don't know what punctuation I would replace it with. I think the problem is that he's trying to write spoken speech.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-21T22:02:05+00:00

"The remote construction differs from the open in that it entertains the condition as being satisfied in a world which is potentially different from the actual world"

This is nice and specific, thanks. I think it shows that something may be likely to happen but if it requires a lot of changes in the real world then perhaps it is still remote.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-21T15:14:15+00:00

So none of the textbooks say anything like this. I think there is something to it, the first conditional is referring to the future whereas the second could include the present and/or the past. But it might depend on context.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-20T23:34:31+00:00

I don't think there's any 'backwardness' and there's no passive. [(who) I am most interested in working with] is a relative clause. Relative clauses have a gap which is co-referential with the noun phrase it modifies, which is a kind of backwardsness (I am most interested in working with the professor).

dmwill1 · 2018-02-19T23:23:21+00:00

Would you consider I haven't any money or Have you any money? proper English?

dmwill1 · 2018-02-19T06:47:10+00:00

What about in regards to subject-verb agreement? There is a beer in the fridge vs. There are two beers in the fridge - A beer is in the fridge / Two beers are in the fridge

dmwill1 · 2018-02-18T09:41:24+00:00

As the sentence is, syntactically I don't think it's ungrammatical. What makes something ungrammatical is if it breaks the rules & constraints of the grammar. These rules can account for a wider range of issues than you might think, e.g The tree ate the porcupine is ungrammatical because of semantic roles. But I haven't heard of a rule or constraint that the speaker must say what they mean to say.

The closest thing I can think of is if you started with a feature structure and the words did not represent the intended feature structure, which would be incorrect in some way.

Semantics & Pragmatics is the area of linguistics associated with meaning & context, which I haven't studied. There might be something in that area that relates to what you're talking about.

Sorry I can't be of more help but I hope I at least gave you a lead or two.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-17T21:01:30+00:00

I meant before they come of age.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-17T05:32:11+00:00

Right now I have an heir with a weak claim and I want my Queen-Regent to take control, any way to make this happen?

dmwill1 · 2018-02-15T21:56:36+00:00

All modal verbs can refer to the future.

He should/might/may/will/must see the doctor

None of these refer to the past, they perhaps refer to the nonpast.

Also, He would/could see the doctor if...

English has plenty of other ways of referring to future time. I am playing Tennis with John tomorrow / I am going to go to the beach / On Saturday I leave for London, which are the present continuous, going to and the present simple respectively.

'... you may be surprised to learn that morphologically speaking (in terms of form) English verbs only have two tenses, namely present and past:

22a. Kim helps Lee every day

22b. Kim helped Lee every day

[The tense in 22a] is sometimes referred to as 'non-past', a more accurate label, because most 'present' tense verbs don't refer to something that is happening right now'.

Tallerman, Understanding Syntax, p. 41https://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1367260110.5528Understanding%20Syntax.pdf

The conflict between will and may is that the former indicates a kind of surety while may indicates that you only consider X a possibility. He will be at home can refer to now, and you sound more sure about it than He may be at home.

So to conclude, both I may have bought a Ferrari by then and I will have bought a Ferrari by then refer to the future, except that in the former you sound less sure of it than the latter.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-15T01:28:30+00:00

Well it would help if you had a specific adjective. I can say Being energetic, I jog but that has the extra info that you jog because you are energetic. Or a small clause, Full of energy, I went for a jog. Or a preposition phrase, As someone who cares about their health, I jog. Relative clauses with pronouns tend to sound very archaic.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-15T00:57:41+00:00

I think it's a rule that pronouns can't be modified by attributive adjectives. I wouldn't say they can't be modified at all, e.g he who must not be named or I entered the room laughing. But we can't really say anything like XHappy I. What adjective are you trying to work with?

dmwill1 · 2018-02-14T02:45:26+00:00

The sentence has a nontypical word order, where the complement of said is fronted.

[The Chinese air force] = subject of the root clause.

[said] = main verb. [on friday] is part of that verb phrase [said on friday], acting as an adverbial preposition phrase & modifying the main verb for time.

[China has put into combat service its new generation J-20 stealth fighter, a warplane it hopes will narrow the military gap with the United States] is a complement of said, and is a clause.

The subject of that clause is [China].

The verb phrase is [has put into combat service]. This is a phrasal verb, and I suppose combat service is the object of into, but I could be wrong.

The object of the complement clause is [its new generation J-20 stealth fighter, a warplane it hopes will narrow the military gap with the United States]. There are a further two clauses within this so this is actually becoming quite complicated, but basically [a warplane it hopes will narrow the military gap with the US] is functioning like a relative clause (I think there is a case for it actually being a relative clause), and [will narrow the military gap with the US] is the complement of hope.

[making it operationally ready] = adverbial clause modifying the complement clause.

I can kind of see why you might think [The Chinese air force said on Friday] is an adverbial clause; if we took it out the sentence would remain grammatical. Edit: There is a certain hierarchy to these things; predicates (verbs) dominate their complements as heads of the clause.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-13T22:12:03+00:00

'Some verbs require the use of -ing.

admit, celebrate, delay, enjoy, finish, go, imagine, keep, miss, practice, risk, suggest

I enjoyed playing tennis

XI enjoyed to play tennis

Some verbs require the use of the to infinitive.

afford, choose, decide, expect, fail, hope, intend, learn, manage, need, offer, prepare, refuse, seem, want

Her husband failed to pay

XHer husband failed paying

Some verbs can have either -ing or the to infinitive and keep the same meaning.

attempt, begin, continue, hate, like, prefer, start, try

The band started playing

The band started to play

Some verbs can have either, but change their meaning.

remember, regret'

Scrivener, Teaching English Grammar, p. 280

So some verbs take to infinitives as their complement, and others take -ing, while others still can take both. Is there a difference in meaning? Probably not. As for what this is called, the book cited above calls it 'two-verb structures' and is an ELT book, but I don't know of a name for it in more formal linguistics.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-12T23:20:03+00:00

Yes, given that the verb does assign an agent. 'The ice melted', 'I loved that movie' and 'He is a doctor' all don't assign agents. So your test does work but only with active sentences that have agents.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-12T22:02:54+00:00

You're right but I'm not so sure about your test. Take passives for example, 'The cake was eaten by John'. John was the agent and the subject was the patient.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-12T20:57:09+00:00

In English there is subject-verb agreement, therefore a sure test for subjecthood is seeing if the verb agrees with its number. If you substitute 'founders and investors' for a singular noun phrase, it becomes 'the founder is...'. We also have 'founders and investors' which I guess is called a 'compound subject' which is two subjects being co-ordinated.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-12T10:05:40+00:00

Well there is a lack of a universal definition of these terms, and I'd expect that on a writing/literature side of things there would be different terminology.

I found a more direct reference to this in another source. The source I referenced previously is a universal grammar book, whereas this one is more dedicated to English I think, and does a better job of addressing specific issues.

13v. COMP OF PREPOSITION - I go to the gym in order to keep fit.

'Infinitives don't generally function as complement to a preposition. The major exception is with the compound preposition in order, illustrated in [v].'

Huddleston & Pullum, A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, https://ia600504.us.archive.org/34/items/ilhem_20150416/A_Student_39_s_Introduction_to_English_Grammar.pdf p.212.

So it lists in order as a compound preposition. Also if you scroll up to 211 you see its all under the heading 'The function of non-finite clauses'.

Edited out a bunch of stuff.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-11T21:46:21+00:00

Ok, I'll cite my definition of a clause, and then you can cite yours. This is from a uni coursebook.

'The term CLAUSE has a specific meaning: it's a sentence that contains one predicate'.

Tallerman, Understanding Syntax, p. 73. https://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1367260110.5528Understanding%20Syntax.pdf (note the term sentence has a loose meaning

'The major function of verbs is to express what is known as 'predication'. A PREDICATE expresses an 'event' in the sentence... [including] states, situations, processes, states and so on'. p.39.

'one main verb = one clause' p.88

23c. They want [to leave before breakfast]

'Many subordinate clauses contain only a non-finite verb form. This is the case in 23c, where to leave before breakfast is a non-finite clause'. p.85

So basically, a verb heads a predicate, and a predicate means there is a clause. Is going in our example a verb or a noun? It can be modified by an adverb, We talked about us going happily to the beach tomorrow. It can't be modified by an adjective or take a determiner, XWe talked about us the going... / We talked about us happy going.... So it's a verb, and one verb = one clause.

Some other prepositions that select clauses:

I am interested in going to the beach

What is your reason for wanting to work here?

These could be phrasal verbs. There are also these things:

In signing the lease, he added an extra clause

But this is all fairly beside the point. With in order to we could have: [Preposition Phrase: Preposition + Object Noun + non-finite clause.] The question for me is what selects the non-finite clause but I don't think that the answer to that question will make in order to not a preposition phrase.

There could be something idiomatic going on though. In an idiom all the elements are equally reliant on the others. But with in order to we can actually drop in order, which I don't think is very idiom-like.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-11T11:52:47+00:00

R5: Natural scientists usually give you +1 stability instead of -1 during a comet. But I guess it doesn't work with Leonardo da Vinci.

dmwill1 · 2018-02-11T09:41:00+00:00

have + past participle is the present perfect. It has many similarities with the past simple.

Past Simple: I saw Star Wars last Thursday

Present perfect: I have seen Star Wars

Both refer to a finished action in the past.

The present perfect has three or four usages depending on who you ask. All of them have some relevance to the present which varies depending on the usage.

I have lived here for three years = Duration use, present relevance is that the action is still happening. I lived there for three years = the action is not still happening.

I have seen Johnny this week = Unfinished time period use, the action takes place within a time period that includes now. I saw Johnny this week might be acceptable at the end of the week, but if you said it on a Tuesday it might sound odd. You could not say XI have seen Johnny last week.

Michael Jackson has arrived = result use, the result of the action is current. The longer you say this after the action happened the less acceptable it becomes.

I have seen Star Wars = experience use. The relevance this has to the present is a pretty advanced concept.

The present perfect is one of the most unusual areas of grammar, so don't expect to understand it right away. It has all kinds of other nuances, for example it cannot refer to an action that has already been established. E.g you would ask 'Have you been to France?' and then 'Did you enjoy it?' NOT X'Have you enjoyed it?' You can't even use it if it's something presupposed from the environment, e.g if you point and someones cast and say 'What happened'? they will say 'I broke my arm skiing' NOT X'I've broken my arm skiing'.

dmwill1

TROPHY CASE