Edith,
   I think there is a transformation in both, but one is wished for and the other is caused.
   It's not just relationships among the parts, but the unique kinds of meaning created by different kinds of words when they enter into these structures.
   We don't do those sorts of observations enough, which may be why grammar doesn't seem meaningful to most people.

Craig.
Wollin, Edith wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> Re: Correct?
Herb, I don't think that even looking at surface taxonomy forces these to be the same. As I see it, sentence patterns point to relationships amongst the basic parts. Because of that, I was never able to see that "He ate" and "He was eaten" were the same pattern. In a SVOCDO pattern, the action of the verb turns the DO into the OC. That is not the case at in the infinitive sentence.

Edith Wollin

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Mon 12/1/2008 11:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Correct?

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 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/