Karl, Herb,

   I like this dual way of seeing it.  To those confused, perhaps it makes
sense to say that we can disagree where to draw the line in our
classifications, and this example seems to be right on the border.

"There are squirrels in the attic" (existential by both definitions. It
has a dummy subject and simply asserts the existence of something)

"In the attic are squirrels."  (existential for same reasons as sentence
above unless you also add the necessity of a dummy subject.)

"So sweet were her lips."  (copular by both definitions since it clearly
links a subject with complement as its main reason for being. The
inversion doesn't change that.)>

Does that sum it up?

Craig


To what Herb wrote, I would also add that there's some potential
> confusion with the term "existential," since it can refer either to the
> semantic force of the verb or to a particular syntactic form of the
> clause.
>
> The verb here clearly does have existential meaning. But the grammars
> that I'm familiar with reserve the term "existential clause" for those
> clauses formed with a dummy 'there' as the subject, as opposed to the
> canonical form where the logical subject is in the grammatical subject's
> position.
>
>  In that sense, this sentence has an existential counterpart, but is not
> itself an existential clause.
>
> Karl
>
>
> Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
>
>>Craig,
>>
>>The sentence is still existential for the reasons I gave earlier.
>>Basically it's a way for English to introduce a new NP, hence
>>indefinite, and avoid putting it in subject position.  What does go in
>>subject position depends on what the writer wants to accomplish, but
>>English requires something in subject position.  That apparent
>>disconnect contributes to the difficulty of defining subjecthood in
>>English, and in many languages, for that matter.
>>
>>What Karl and I were addressing has more to do with the syntax of
>>movement.  English allows the fronting of a number of types of
>>constituent.  Some then trigger, or allow, subject verb inversion and
>>some don't.  Here's a sampling:
>>
>>Triggers SVI
>>
>>Negative adverbs:  Never have I ever written a subjectless sentence.
>>Question words:  What were you talking to the class about?
>>Subject complement:  There's a fly in my soup.
>>
>>Does not trigger SVI
>>
>>Most Verb Phrase adverbs:  Yesterday I drove to Ft. Wayne.  (not
>>Yesterday drove I...)
>>Left dislocation:  Jack I met at 4Cs.
>>
>>Functionally, these all have a thematic purpose, which they share with
>>subjects in subject-initial sentences.  Whether or not they trigger SVI
>>is a syntactic matter, and, from the perspective of a historical
>>linguist, the result of sometimes odd historical changes in the grammar.
>>
>>Herb
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:19 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: What Is This? Herb's Analysis
>>
>>Herb, Karl,
>>   Does that take out the possibility of it being an existential clause?
>>(That would still give us subject/verb agreement.)  It seems to me the
>>primary function of the sentence is not so much to link a subject to
>>its complement, but to present the existence of the strip and to do so
>>in some detail. But that seems more from feeling than attention to
>>structure. Do existential clauses require a dummy subject? (It's
>>raining?  It's nice outside? There's a squirrel in the attic? There are
>>squirrels in the attic?) Is it a normal copular clause if we word it
>>"In the attic are squirrels" but existential with a dummy subject? >
>>    Craig
>>
>>Thanks for bringing that up, Karl.  I had decided not to go into the
>>
>>
>>>various triggers for subject-verb inversion in English, but fronting
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>a non-subject constituent typically does this and produces a Subject
>>>Complement + Copula (or similar verb) + Subject construction.
>>>Traditional and school grammars tend not to see these inversion
>>>
>>>
>>patterns
>>
>>
>>>as a unified phenomenon, and that's one of the things that leads to
>>>widespread confusion over what a subject is.  Your test illustrates
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>difference nicely.
>>>
>>>Herb
>>>
>>>"Running..." is in the position normally occupied by the subject, but
>>>it's not the subject; it's the subject complement. We have an inverted
>>>sentence structure here, for the reasons Herb so cogently spelled out.
>>>
>>>You can easily see this by changing the number of the NP that follows
>>>the verb. The verb must change to maintain agreement:
>>>
>>> Running from the back of his skull down to the front _are_ two strips
>>>of hair.
>>>
>>>Karl
>>>
>>>John E. Dews wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   As usual, I particularly enjoy Herb's perspective here (although I
>>>>also appreciate the different ways in which others have approached
>>>>this sentence -- it reminds me that there is no single, perfect
>>>>
>>>>
>>>answer).
>>>
>>>
>>>>   "Running from the back of his skull down to the front is a patch
>>>>
>>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>>white hair that opens up into his lips."
>>>>   If, as Herb suggests (as I understood it), the phrase in subject
>>>>position here is an adjectival participle, then I have another
>>>>question. Does this "bend" the basic tenant/tendency in English for
>>>>there to be a nominal in subject position? Or do we say that the
>>>>phrase is both adjectival and nominal in function (even though the
>>>>phrase doesn't seem to act/"feel" much like a noun phrase and is
>>>>nominal only in the sense that it is in subject position)? Have
>>>>
>>>>
>>syntax
>>
>>
>>>>studies shown this to be a common pattern in English? I can't seem to
>>>>find a reference for participle phrases functioning nominally/in
>>>>subject position. Our own Martha Kolln deals with participles
>>>>
>>>>
>>strictly
>>
>>
>>>>as adjectivals in her /Understanding English Grammar/.
>>>>  Sorry for so many questions, but I am intrigued (aren't we a
>>>>peculiar bunch to be intrigued by such things!). Thanks!
>>>>         Jed Dews
>>>>
>>>>*/"Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    A fascinating sentence, both image and structure, and an
>>>>    interesting set of analyses. So let's try another one. It's an
>>>>    existential sentence in which the original verb phrase becomes a
>>>>    participial phrase and replaces the subject "there", with a
>>>>    derivation, for those of us who like derivations, something like
>>>>
>>>>
>>>this:
>>>
>>>
>>>>    A patch of white hair that opens up into his lips runs from the
>>>>    back of his skull down to the front.
>>>>
>>>>    Since English tends! to avoid indefinites in subject position,
>>>>    this sentence is better expressed as the existential
>>>>
>>>>    There is a patch of white hair that opens up into his lips,
>>>>    running from the back of his skull down to the front. (I put in a
>>>>    comma simply to avoid confusion with running lips (sink ships?).)
>>>>
>>>>    This writer then has cleverly moved the participial phrase into
>>>>    subject position, maybe because some teacher once said not to
>>>>    start a sentence with "there is", giving us
>>>>
>>>>    Running from the back of his skull down to the front is a patch
>>>>
>>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>>    white hair that opens up into his lips.
>>>>
>>>>    The reasons for considering it an existential sentence are the
>>>>    indefinite postposed subject and the copula, further supported by
>>>>    the otherwise anomalous participial phrase subject.
>>>>
>>>>    The comma, I think, is unrelated to any of this. Rather, there is
>>>>    a tendency among inexperienced writers, and experienced ones as
>>>>    well, to insert a comma between a long subject and the verb.
>>>>
>>>>    Herb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    A ! student wrote the following sentence in an essay:
>>>>
>>>>    Running from the back of his skull down to the front, is a patch
>>>>    of white
>>>>    hair that opens up into his lips.
>>>>    The comma doesn't belong there, but I'm not sure why. Is the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"Running"
>>>
>>>
>>>>    phrase a gerund? If so, then I understand why the comma is wrong:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>it
>>>
>>>
>>>>    separates the subject from the verb However, the phrase doesn't
>>>>    behave like
>>>>    a gerund. Compare:
>>>>
>>>>    Running around the lake is a part of my daily routine. --> It is
>>>>
>>>>
>>a
>>
>>
>>>>    part of
>>>>    my daily routine. --> A part of my daily routine is running
>>>>
>>>>
>>around
>>
>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>    lake.
>>>>
>>>>    In this sentence, the "Running" phrase behaves like a true noun
>>>>    phrase in a
>>>>    linking verb sentence. My student's "Running" phrase doesn't
>>>>    behave like an
>>>>    NP. It feels participial, modifying "patch". If so, then the
>>>>
>>>>
>>comma
>>
>>
>>>>    would
>>>>    be correct. But it's not.
>>>>
>>>>    Any ideas out there?
>>>>
>>>>    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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>*****************************************************************
>>>>*John E. Dews *
>>>>* /Instructor, Undergraduate Linguistics/ *
>>>>*/ MA-TESOL/Applied Linguistics Program /*
>>>>*/ Educator, Secondary English Language Arts /*
>>>>* /English Department, 208 Rowand-Johnson Hall (Office)/ *
>>>>* /University of Alabama/ *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Brings words and photos together (easily) with
>>>>PhotoMail
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/PMall/*http://photomail.mail.ya
>>
>>
>>>hoo.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>>- it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. 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/