Well, maybe that's the problem. I'm not as well-versed in this
aspect of syntax as you and Bruce are, so this particular point is not
really hitting home with that satisfying clink of comprehension and
insight one so likes to have.
Here is the larger context that Bruce asked for --
1. System admin creates role
2. System admin sets role permissions
3. Developer requests to assume role
4. [ProductX] returns role session credentials
5. Developer updates /app folder using role credentials
These terms all have specific technical meanings, of course.
Which is why it must be "requests" (and not "asks,"
for example), and it must be "assume." The developer is
actually calling a function called "AssumeRole."
I'm not seeing the confusion between "developer requests"
(NP + V) and "developer requests" (NP) that you and Bruce
are talking about -- I mean, I see that it could be either, but in
this context, I'm not seeing that the meaning shifts back and forth
between the two.
For me, if this item could be recast as "Developer sends
request to assume role," the awkwardness melts away. Of course,
this change also changes the verb structure, doing away with the
construction that both of you are commenting on. So maybe that's it
after all. It's interesting too that "has requested to"
(which, as you say, calls out the fact that this is a verb phrase) in
place of "requests" also smooths away that clunky
feel.
So maybe you two have nailed it.
Odile
At 4:21 PM +0000 9/13/12, Hancock, Craig G wrote:
If "requests" is potentially a noun,
as Bruce suggests, then an auxiliary would smooth it out: "The
developer has requested to assume the role." That works for me.
"The developer asks to assume the role" would be the most common.
"Developers' requests to assume the role" would be common for noun
phrases since "ask" isn't used in a noun role. To use the word
choice common for noun phrases in a place where a clause is being
constructed perhaps sets off interference. Putting the auxiliary in
front of it would clue us in that "requests" is verb, not noun,
and smooth that over.
Craig
From: Assembly for the Teaching of
English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Odile Sullivan-Tarazi
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Unidiomatic construction?
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/
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/