Bruce,

Hmm, I'd not thought of that: that the singular "role" might also 
contribute to the strangeness of the construction. This question 
began as someone else's, and so I do not have those other callouts. I 
can get them though.

I thought at first the problem might be that "request" really needed 
a NP object, which someone else has suggested to me off-list. But 
AHD4 offers "requested to see the evidence firsthand" as an example 
of the use of the verb, and "requested to see" sounds perfectly 
natural. Why is "requests to see" idiomatic and "requests to assume" 
odd? Is it the collision of the how we use "request" with how we 
understand "assume"?

With respect to your analysis of "role," even were we to expand the 
telegraphic original, and render "role" plural instead, isn't the 
result still unsatisfactory in some fundamental way? --

      The developer requests to assume the roles.

And why is it that if we change the construction, so that "request" 
is no longer the verb, the noise vanishes? --

      The developer sends a request to assume the role.

Somehow "a request to assume the role" works (okay, it's not 
wonderful, but it works), while "requests to assume the role" does 
not.

I'm so baffled by this . . .


Odile




At 6:32 AM -0700 9/13/12, Bruce Despain wrote:
>Odile,
>Can you give some of the others in the series, some that read fine, 
>to compare with?
>Your suggestion that "requests" is the origin, seems plausible: the 
>primrose path is that the word is a derived noun in the plural with 
>developer serving as the subject of the underlying verb.  This would 
>then be a NP title heading: the requests that developers make to 
>assume role(s).  It is not until the final s is found lacking that 
>the interpreter is obliged to back up and try again, or admit that 
>many requests may have the same role in common.  In either case the 
>situation described is unfamiliar and the first NP is tried again, 
>this time with requests as a verb. 
>Bruce
>
>--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>From: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Unidiomatic construction?
>Date:        Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:27:51 -0700
>
>The following callout is one of a series (all telegraphic style) that
>describe the actions depicted in a complex figure --
>
>     Developer requests to assume role
>
>The sentence is perfectly parallel with the others, all of which read
>fine. This one alone seems awkward. In fact, to my ears, it does not
>sound idiomatic.
>
>Why?
>
>Has it something to do with restrictions on the way in which we use
>either "request" or "assume"? Restrictions which we may not
>consciously recognize as native speakers, but which we abide by
>nonetheless? I don't think it's a structural thing. Or am I missing
>something on that score?
>
>I can't puzzle it out. I'm hoping someone here can enlighten me.
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>Odile
>
>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/