Natalie,
   That's a very subtle question. Traditional grammar doesn't treat infinitive and participle headed structures as clauses, so it is difficult from that perspective to see that they sometimes take subjects. In "I saw the house burn" or "I saw the house burning", I would treat the whole structure after "saw" as direct object.  In "I made the house burn", burn seems more to me like object complement (in traditional terminology) because it parallels "She made the house a home." The action of making on object "house" brings burning about.  The problem with "let" and a number of other verbs, like "find" and "discover" and "imagine", is that it's hard to see them as at all causative.  "I let the house burn." "I found the house burning." "I discovered the house burning." "I imagined the house burning."  In all of these, though, what follows "the house" seems very much like a complement. "I let the house", for example, seems to be missing something. "I saw the house" does not.
   I have a problem with "object complement" as a term because it implies that the object licenses the complement.
   "I let her" seems to require something to complete it, but that has everything to do with the nature of "let" or "allow". The assumption is that the "I" had the power to stop it, but chose not to exercise that power. Calling it "object complement" makes sense in traditional terminology, but it is the verb that requires it.
   These basic sentence patterns are very important, but not every verb seems to fit them neatly.
   I hope that doesn't just jumble the issue.
Craig

Natalie Gerber wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 
Dear Herb, Don, Bill, and all,
 
Thank you very much for these clarifications regarding the coincidence of the infinitive with the base form of the verb; they are quite helpful for me beyond the immediate example. I wasn't certain, though, whether or not my analysis of the original sentence, I let her take comfort in the long odds against me, was correct.
 
Is the direct object simply "her" or is it "her take comfort in the long odds against me"? How is "take comfort in the long odds against me" correctly analyzed? as an object complement? or is the entire structure an infinitive phrase, with an agent, that serves as the direct object?
 
Thanks,
Natalie

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Spruiell, William C
Sent: Mon 5/4/2009 1:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: yet another complicated sentence structure



Don,

There's a class of theories that would view "her" as linked to an underlying subject form, but I don't think any current approaches would consider it a subject form itself (since it would have to be "I" to count as a subject, and the verb of which it's a subject would have to be capable of agreeing with it).  It's definitely the *agent* of "take" (different theories use different labels for that, but "the person or thing performing the action" is the rough idea), but it's not a subject.


Bill Spruiell


-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Don Stewart
Sent: Mon 5/4/2009 12:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: yet another complicated sentence structure

Herb,
Thanks for a splendid lesson on infinitives! I especially was enlightened by
your explanation of "Thy kingdom come."

As for the role of "her" in the sentence "I allowed her to take comfort...,"
my understanding is that the infinitive "to take" has both a subject, "her,"
and an object, "comfort," and collectively they form an infinitive phrase
working as the direct object of "allowed."

The part that has always puzzled my is why the subject of the infinitive is
in the objective case. And further, if you're supposed to have a predicate
nominative after a linking verb, what happens with "I knew the thief to be
he/him"?

Don Stewart
_______
Keeper of the memory and method
of Dr. Francis Christensen

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:47 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

  
Natalia,

Perhaps we need to begin with the fact that the infinitive is a tenseless,
base form of the verb, identical, except for "be" with its present tense
forms apart from third person.  So the infinitive is not always marked by
"to."

English has a couple of classes of verbs that take infinitives without
"to".  Modals are the most obvious of these.  May, might, can, could, will,
would, shall, should, and must, the grammaticalized modals, all take
infinitives without "to."  One of the most common errors committed by ESL
learners is to insert "to" after a modal.  A second class is verbs of
perception, like "feel," "see," "hear," "smell", "watch," etc.

       I felt wind blow.
       I saw the house burn.
       I heard the door slam.
       I smelled the trash burn.
       I watched the shark swim by.

Then there are also a few idiosyncratic verbs, like "help," "let," and
"make" that take infinitives without "to."  These, however, vary in their
ability to take "to."
"Help" works in

       I helped cook dinner.

However, if the object of "help" is longer, as in

       I helped some friends of mine from Chicago to find an apartment in
Muncie.

"to" becomes more likely.

"Let" doesn't allow "to" at all, and "make" rarely takes it.

Then there are semi-modals, like "need," "ought," and "dare."  In
non-assertive clauses (questions, negatives, conditionals) these can take
infinitives without "to," although some of them will sound a bit formal.

       Need we leave now?
       We need not leave now.
       Ought we leave now?
       We ought not leave now.
       Dare we leave now?
       We dare not leave now.

But "need" and "dare" can also behave like normal verbs:

       Do we need to leave now?
       We don't need to leave now.
       Do we dare (to) leave now?
       We don't dare (to) leave now.

This doesn't work with "ought," probably because its modal use derives from
its older status as the past tense of "owe."

As you can see, there is a good bit of variation in how these various verbs
work, across dialects and registers, and it's actually a little messier even
than it looks above.

The "to" infinitive develops from the preposition "to" and becomes a common
infinitive form in Late Middle English, although forms with it appear in Old
English, as in the petition from the Lord's Prayer:

       To becume thin rice
       To come   thy  kingdom
       Thy kingdom come

where "to" still has something of a directional sense.

Herb




-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
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/