Martha,
   I have been thinking about this post since you sent it. You point out that "let" and "allow" have "essentially the same meaning", but I am not sure they have the same grammar. Is it possible that "allow" is sometimes di-transitive? "We allowed Sally some comfort." "We allowed the kids an extra dessert."  As you know, in a di-transitive sentence either object can be subject in a passive version. "Sally was allowed some comfort." "Some comfort was allowed to Sally." The fact that Sally can be part of a "to" prepositional phrase would be an argument for indirect object. None of this works for "let".  *We let Sally some comfort. *Sally was let some comfort. *Some comfort was let to Sally. (It may almost work, but at least seems awkward.)
   If that's the case, then is "allow" also di-transitive when it takes an infinitive?  That seems tricky to me. "We allowed Sally to take some comfort." "We allowed the kids to have an extra dessert."  It seems to me to act not quite like "let" in these instances and not to be equally constrained. ?To take some comfort was allowed to Sally. *To take some comfort was let Sally. ?To have an extra dessert was allowed the kids. *To have an extra dessert was let the kids. Sally was allowed to take some comfort. ?Sally was let to take some comfort. The kids were allowed to have an extra dessert. ?Sally was let to have an extra dessert.
   I DO think "let" is complex transitive in the sentence in question. I'm not as sure about "allow" in the same slot. At any rate, I think they are different enough to caution against using "allow" as a substitute for "let" as a test.
   I suspect I may be stirring settled waters, but I'm wondering if there's any solidity to these musings.

Craig

MARTHA KOLLN wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Dear Natalie,

In my grammar description, based on sentence patterns, I have no problem in calling the infinitive in your sentence an object complement.  I must also admit that the infinitive in sentences like this one and some of those that Herb discussed are my biggest problems in trying to keep the description of sentence structure orderly and systematic.

One way to decide if the infinitive fills the object complement function (as opposed to acting as a modifier of the direct object--i.e., as part of the d.o.) is to test the sentence for passive:

I let her take comfort . . .

Your sentence with "let" is especially tricky, but if you substitute "allow"--essentially the same meaning--the passive is idiomatic:

She was allowed to take comfort . . . .

Here's the question that I ask:  How many elements, sentence slots, follow the verb, one or two? Here's a pair to consider:

The police found the man dead. (two elements: d.o. and o.c.)  [Passive: The man was found to be dead.]  
The police found the dead man.  (only one: the d.o.) [Passive: The dead man was found.] 

The passive of the Sub + V + DO +OC pattern produces an interesting phenomenon:  A transitive verb followed by a subject complement.  Once you recognize the verb as passive, you can figure out that despite the SC the verb cannot be a member of the "linking" category.  Why?  Because linking verbs cannot be transformed into the passive voice.

Just some thoughts, Natalie. I do agree with your "object complement" assessment.

Martha



On Mon, May 4, 2009 08:19 AM, Natalie Gerber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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/