At 01:50 AM 12/07/2000 -0500, Ed V. wrote:
>This time I have a question -- how would you explain the clause
>structure in the following sentence? "This was something we both thought
>would be worth the work.."
>Thanks,
>Ed V.

Ed:

Your sentence (1) has a complement clause inside a relative clause:

(1) This was something we both thought would be worth the work.

The relative clause is embedded in the main clause, and the complement
clause is embedded in the relative clause. This becomes clearer if we look
at the two embedded clauses minus the main clause ('This was something'):

(2) We both thought (that) 'something' would be worth the work.

If we then attach this as a relative clause to modify the noun 'something'
in the main clause, we get sentence 1.

What is interesting is that the relative pronoun (absent from 1 but
'understood' -- i.e., present in deep structure) serves as the subject of
the complement clause two levels down. Let's put it back for the sake of
illustration, and let's make it "which" to avoid confusion with the
conjunction 'that' ):

(3) This was something which we both thought would be worth the work.

The pronoun "which" stands for "something" in the lowest clause. A tree
diagram can nicely show the three levels of clauses.  Here's the best I can
do in an e-mail, showing main, relative, and complement clauses
respectively in successive levels of embedding:

(4) This was something
                  we both thought
                          (something) was worth the risk.

Sorry to run on, but it is a nifty sentence.

Dick

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/