Dick,
I agree that they are different patterns, different structures, that derive from very different underlying structures. However, when one confines oneself to a surface taxonomy of the sort Quirk et al. and other, usually British-style grammarians use, then one may be forced to classify these together.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: December 1, 2008 1:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Correct?
Herb,
I wouldn’t say that “We wanted him to go home” and “We elected him (to be) president” are the same pattern. There are several different infinitive patterns, and these two sentences represent different ones. This becomes evident when we see that they more or less correspond with the sentences “We wanted that he would go home” and We elected him so that we would be president.” In other words, in the first sentence “him” derives from the underlying subject of the embedded clause, whereas in the second sentence, “him” is the underlying direct object of the main clause.
Dick
________________________________
Richard Veit
Department of English
University of North Carolina Wilmington
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Correct?
If you confine yourself, as most texts as well as the Quirk et al. grammar do, then you'll probably find something like an SVOO pattern and an SVOC pattern. The former is for ditransitives. The latter covers complex transitives, or object complement constructions. Because these models of grammar do not involve derivation, object + infinitive constructions will fall into this pattern as well. So, yes, "we wanted him to go home" and "we elected him president" have the same pattern. As to the treatment of nominative absolutes as containing an implied "be," you're right.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: November 30, 2008 8:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Correct?
What would be the negative implications, pedagogically, analytically, or otherwise, with 7th graders, of treating sentences like "We wanted him to go home" as containing a direct object and an object complement, rather than using the infinitive as the direct object in the same way we might analyze "We elected him president" ? Also, is it a faulty analysis to think of absolutes as containing an implied "be," the lack of which makes them a clause, and the insertion of which is a test for being an absolute? That is, are absolutes basically clauses with the "be" dropped?
Scott Woods
--- On Sun, 11/30/08, Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Atchley, Clinton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Correct?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 11:37 AM
In traditional grammar you find a similar use of objective case pronouns
when they function as subjects of infinitives in a sentence like "Bill
wanted him to go home." Here the infinitive "to go" functions
as the
direct object since what Bill wanted was the action of going to take
place. Bill does not want "him"; "him" is the agent of the
action of
the infinitive. It's quite common actually. "We consider him to be
completely honest." "The teacher let us decorate the room."
"We left
after seeing him break the record."
Clinton Atchley, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
Box 7652
1100 Henderson Street
Henderson State University
Arkadelphia, AR 71999
Phone: 870.230.5276
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.hsu.edu/atchlec
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Correct?
I agree that they are nominative absolutes, but I'll follow up on my
earlier comment on changes in the function of objective pronouns. This
is another instance of what were traditionally object pronouns taking on
pragmatic roles and marking focus. Like Craig, I would probably use the
subjective forms, but these are among the more acceptable uses of object
pronouns in non-object position.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: November 30, 2008 9:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Correct?
You are dead on as usual. I see now that calling them absolutes is a
much more logical analysis. The possibly understood "with" is great!
Thanks, Craig.
John
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Craig Hancock
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
John,
I would classify them as "absolutes", which I would define as
subject
bearing participle clauses. (Traditional grammar calls them phrases.)
My own preference would be for "he" and "I" in the
subject roles, but
these are also commonly introduced by "with", which could be thought
of
as understood here. "I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one
of the metal tables overlooking the pool, with him sipping his Mountain
Dew and me groping for pen and paper." Maybe the writer drafted it with
"with" and then took it out, leaving the objective pronouns.
Hope that helps.
Craig
>
What are the structures appended to the end of the main clause below?
> They
> feel like participles, but they have pseudo-subjects. Is it correct
to
> use
> the objective pronouns in these structures?
>
> *I slipped my backpack off, and we sat down at one of the metal tables
> overlooking the pool, him sipping his Mountain Dew and me groping for
a
> pen
> and paper.
>
> *I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> 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/
>
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/
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/
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/
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/
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/
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/
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/
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/
|
