English Language Learners

Damkerng T.

14:00

Haha!

Anonymous

Well, the basic idea is this: in subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI), the subject and auxiliary switch places. "I do eat pie." "Do I eat pie?"

Damkerng T.

trying to search for my shouldn't've...

Anonymous

When you negate it: "I do not eat pie." → "Do I not eat pie?" The same thing happens. Do and I switch places.

Anonymous

You can contract do not into don't: "I don't eat pie." → "Don't I eat pie?"

Anonymous

Here, don't appears to be an auxiliary--a single word! It switches places with I.

Damkerng T.

14:01

Oh, I remember that. I didn't fall into that trap.

But obviously, many did.

> "Do I not eat pie?"

Anonymous

Yeah, some learners think "Don't" = "Do not", so they can write *"Do not I eat pie?"

Anonymous

But contraction takes place before inversion.

Damkerng T.

In the back of my head, there was a voice saying, "Did you not?"

I'm not sure whose voice is it. Maybe Morgan Freeman. :-)

Anonymous

And of course, that's fine. "Did you not eat pie?" asked Morgan Freeman.

Damkerng T.

(Now I'm thinking of it, I can hear him again.)

Anonymous

14:04

But this is evidence that -n't is an affix in modern English. Of course, it's obvious that historically it was simply a reduced form of not

Anonymous

The etymology is very transparent, so speakers are very aware of a relationship between -n't and not, regardless of whether you tell them about it

Anonymous

But in that paper, using this evidence and other evidence, they show that -n't is an affix

Anonymous

In other words, do and don't are two inflectional forms of a single verb

Anonymous

In contrast, 've is a clitic

Damkerng T.

Eh?

Anonymous

14:05

"Eh?" to which?

Damkerng T.

@snailboat They asserted that?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Yep. It's pretty well demonstrated, in my opinion

Anonymous

I just gave you one of several pieces of evidence.

Anonymous

Another is that, as an affix rather than a clitic, it's selective about its hosts.

Anonymous

've is not. You can stick it on whatever--it's just a phonologically reduced form of unstressed have which depends on another word phonologically but is syntactically independent

Anonymous

14:07

Whereas -n't is not syntactically independent

Damkerng T.

I'm not sure I can follow you completely.

Anonymous

One moment.

Damkerng T.

Because we can say "Don't I eat pie?", "n't" is an affix?

Anonymous

That's one of several pieces of evidence which, when taken together, point in that direction.

Anonymous

Here's the paper: babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/ZPCliticsInfl.pdf

Damkerng T.

14:09

JSTOR!

Hmm... Clitics can attach to material already containing clitics, but affixes cannot.

Anonymous

If you want to read it on JSTOR, the link in that PDF works. You should be able to read it there with a free MyJSTOR account

Anonymous

But the PDF is fine, I think.

felipe.zkn

Should I say "I suggest you to eat there" or "I suggest you eat there"?

Anonymous

@felipe.zkn The latter is better.

Damkerng T.

nods

felipe.zkn

14:14

@snailboat Are both forms correct or is there a formality preference in the first?

Damkerng T.

We suggest ideas, not people.

Anonymous

@felipe.zkn The form is "I suggest [ ~~that~~ you eat there ]". It's a finite subordinate clause, so the appropriate (but optional) subordinator is that, not to.

felipe.zkn

Thank you very much, @snailboat. Great answer.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I found it!

2 days ago, by Damkerng T.

Really strange, considering that we even have something like "wouldn't've".

Anonymous

A-ha!

Damkerng T.

14:24

See? :-)

Anonymous

So by this analysis, wouldn't is a negative inflected form of would, and 've is a cliticized form of have attached to it

Anonymous

But you can't do it the other way around: "would have not" can't be replaced with "would'ven't", because -n't is more selective about what it attaches to

Damkerng T.

In other words, wouldn't've is possible.

But if that speculation is correct, wouldn't've'd would also be possible.

I think 'd is clitic.

Bad shift key!

Hmm... Is just've possible?

Anonymous

Let's say 'd is a clitic. (I agree that it is.) Then that means it's a cliticized form of had.

Damkerng T.

I know that some people write it that way, but it doesn't look kosher to me.

@snailboat Yes. Agree.

Anonymous

14:29

So it can only occur when had is unstressed, right? Not when had is lexical

Anonymous

Since cliticized forms are extremely reduced forms of unstressed wordss

Damkerng T.

A-ha!

Anonymous

Now, let's look at "I would not have had a chance."

Damkerng T.

Speech is always involved.

Anonymous

The first have is an auxiliary, so it can be reduced. The second have is not--it's a lexical verb.

Anonymous

14:30

That means it bears stress and can't take the cliticized (extremely reduced) form.

Damkerng T.

What I really thought for wouldn't've'd was actually wouldn't've'd been.

Anonymous

"She would not have had been"?

Damkerng T.

late

Anonymous

"She would not have had been late"

Damkerng T.

Yes.

Anonymous

14:31

What is the role of each verb, have, had, and been?

Damkerng T.

been is the main verb.

Obviously.

Anonymous

Sure. That leaves have and had. What are they?

Anonymous

They must both be auxiliaries then.

Damkerng T.

I think of all the rest as aux.

Anonymous

But you can't have multiple auxiliary haves in the same clause.

Damkerng T.

14:32

Hmm...

Anonymous

If you have have have in one clause, the latter has to be a lexical verb.

Damkerng T.

Then how would you explain it?

Anonymous

Because you can't double up on perfect auxiliaries.

Anonymous

I would explain it by calling it ungrammatical.

Damkerng T.

I see, it's ungrammatical.

Anonymous

14:33

There is only one slot for a perfect auxiliary in a clause. One moment

Damkerng T.

See what happened when I tried to hack the language. :-)

Anonymous

The relevant section of CGEL is uploaded on a Language Log page

Damkerng T.

Neat!

Anonymous

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=897

Anonymous

Take a look at the chart of possible strings of auxiliaries.

Damkerng T.

14:34

Wow, nice! Thanks. reading...

Anonymous

Those are slots, so in some cases different verbs can fill the same slot.

Anonymous

Have can fill exactly two slots: the perfect auxiliary slot, and the lexical verb slot.

Damkerng T.

This one is interesting: will have been being taken

Anonymous

The latter bears stress and can't take the cliticized form, so wouldn't've'd is not a possible reduced form

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I don't think that LL entry says so, but in CGEL they note that that construction has only entered the English language over the last hundred years. Notably, it has two forms of be in sequence. Some speakers are still uncomfortable with it, I think

Anonymous

14:36

But it's fine for me.

Damkerng T.

It sounds fine to me, and I was surprised that it sounds fine to me.

Perhaps because I'm fine with: She is being nice.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I wonder how your hacking of the language differs from what I do when I attempt to explain the same thing :-)

Anonymous

After all, talking about "cliticized forms" and such isn't something you get from natively acquiring a language.

Anonymous

Aren't I hacking it, too? :-)

Damkerng T.

To me, hacking (a language) means poking (it) around in an unusual way.

Anonymous

14:40

I do think you have to acquire language (natively or otherwise) before you try to hack it to pieces, though, 'cause your competence in the language guides you as you try to put stuff into little boxes

Damkerng T.

Usually non-native speakers do that.

I would recommend otherwise.

Anonymous

I get what you're saying there

Damkerng T.

Because our brains can't really remember things selectively.

But it's fun! :-)

Anonymous

Hehe, it is!

Anonymous

Sometimes, though, trying to take apart a language reveals the gaps in your understanding.

Damkerng T.

14:42

That happens quite often to me.

Anonymous

I'm sure you've had that experience, too

Anonymous

Ah!

Damkerng T.

Sometimes, even a simple phrase can reveals the gaps too.

Anonymous

Oh, sure.

Damkerng T.

I've just found one this evening (my evening). :-)

Anonymous

14:43

What phrase?

Damkerng T.

>BANNER : Are you here to kill me, Ms.Romanoff? ’Cause that’s not going to work out for everyone.
NATASHA : No, no. Of course not. I’m here onbehalf of SHIELD.

I just realized that I've never translated that "work out" before.

So, when I tried to think of a good answer for the OP, I couldn't come up with a good explanation on my feet. :-)

It's difficult to rephrase "work" or "out" or "work out".

So I know that I don't really know the meaning deeply.

But I understand the phrase perfectly.

Anonymous

It's noncompositional.

Damkerng T.

"work out" can be thought of as a unit, I believe.

In any case, I added my little opinion to FF's answer. I hope that it's helpful.

Anonymous

Yes, when something is noncompositional, there's something about it you can't figure out from its constituent pieces, in this case work and out. Either the meaning is funny, or the syntax, or . . .

Anonymous

I don't know what question we're talking about, by the way.

Damkerng T.

14:48

This one: ell.stackexchange.com/questions/21135/…

Anonymous

Thank you

Damkerng T.

For what? Pasting a link is not a big deal. :-)

I owe you much more than this.

Anonymous

Ah, it's just a social nicety--I wasn't thinking of anything in particular when I typed it

Damkerng T.

You are always nice, and kind, and caring.

Anonymous

In my semi-formal style here, I actually type "thank you", but in real life I almost never say that entire phrase--the most I say is "Thanks!"

Anonymous

14:52

I'm not a particularly formal person most of the time

Damkerng T.

Me (n)either!

Anonymous

But we all shift registers :-)

Anonymous

I have one friend who always says neither, but she spells it "meen either"

Damkerng T.

It seems a bit like that. :-)

Anonymous

Maybe she thinks the /n/ is funny. I never asked.

Damkerng T.

14:53

Haha!

Kinda cute!

Anonymous

I mimicked it once, and another one of my friends about took my head off for spelling it like that.

Anonymous

This was when I was maybe twenty years old.

Damkerng T.

Haha!

Anonymous

Come to think of it, my friend probably doesn't spell it that way anymore.

Anonymous

I just remember because I like nonstandard spellings, so they stick out in my memory.

Anonymous

14:54

@DamkerngT. I feel like I'm not nice enough.

Anonymous

Probably the worst is the feeling you get when you tell someone they're wrong.

Anonymous

I still haven't figured out the right way to do that.

Damkerng T.

I'm sure you are. And it's more than enough for me. :-)

To me, you can be just blunt.

Anonymous

Again, are can only take its cliticized form 're when it is unstressed

Anonymous

In that position, are bears stress and cannot be reduced: "I'm sure you are."

Damkerng T.

14:56

Oh, I see. That's true!

Anonymous

Phonological requirement.

Damkerng T.

I couldn't speak that are unstressed.

Sometimes I noticed this: closed w/o comment (auto)

I'm curious about this (auto) condition.

Anonymous

That flag is raised automatically by Community when a post is closed without any comments.

Damkerng T.

Ah, I see.

Anonymous

A moderator will clear it sooner or later. You can ignore it or leave a comment if you think you have something useful to add (to explain why it's been closed).

Damkerng T.

14:58

nods

Anonymous

I don't think leaving a comment automatically clears the flag, though.

Anonymous

Every time I leave a comment on JLSE after closing a question, I still have to clear the flag manually.

Damkerng T.

I don't think so, either.

Anonymous

We're accumulating lurkers. Hello, lurkers!

Damkerng T.

Oh, have you seen my examples for the case "It is in my contemplation that ..." yet?

Anonymous

14:59

@DamkerngT. You can show me if you like.

Damkerng T.

I found 5 of them on Google Books. go looking...

19 hours ago, by Damkerng T.

> It is a little bit out of my field, but it is my contemplation that the public of the United States is going to benefit by superior service.

This is one of them.

Nico

Hi! I'm about, but mostly working on something else (signed: one of the lurkers :))

Anonymous

Ah, that does seem like your hypothetical example where it's like dream. Although it doesn't seem like the OP's example in the question we were discussing

Anonymous

@Nico Yay!

Damkerng T.

:D Hello @Nico!

Nico

15:02

Unfortunately, this weekend is busy with work.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Yes, it's like dream, but isn't it like the tea example?

@Nico Hard work brings success!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. It is like your hypothetical sentence, but I think that in the OP's example the structure is different: A that B = B, because A

Damkerng T.

Eh? I don't think the OP's sentence has because.

Anonymous

Semantically

Nico

@DamkerngT. lifehacker.com/5988460/…

I think it's a nice article

and I quite agree with it.

Damkerng T.

15:05

@Nico LOL -- A nice counter-argument!

Anonymous

In any case, if you think that both the of-phrase and that-phrase were complements, then what are the semantic roles of both?

Anonymous

> contemplation [of A] [that B]

Nico

This a better link: calnewport.com/blog/2011/11/11/…

Anonymous

That structure isn't comprehensible to me

Anonymous

So I can't tell what they would be.

Damkerng T.

15:06

I grouped it as "It is our [contemplation [of A]] [that B]."

Anonymous

Then that would not be like your dream example

Anonymous

Anyway, you'll have to explain what you think each part is semantically in your interpretation.

Damkerng T.

I'm not sure I could use the terminologies properly.

Let's say that contemplation ~ dream

Anonymous

> It is our dream of A that B.

Anonymous

This is also incomprehensible to me, if our dream of A isn't a constituent clefted from B.

Damkerng T.

15:08

> It is my dream of the future that ELL will help many more learners.

Anonymous

= [ My dream of (the) future ] is [ that ELL will help many more learners ]

Damkerng T.

I agree with the the.

Anonymous

Hooray!

Damkerng T.

And the interpretation.

Anonymous

> Perhaps nowadays it is our ~~demure contemplation~~ dream of the Imperfect that the West and the East can meet in mutual consolation.

Damkerng T.

15:10

Yes, something like that.

That's the way I read it the first time I saw it.

(I had to type that r several times.)

Anonymous

= Perhaps nowadays [ our ~~demure contemplation~~ dream of the Imperfect ] is [ that the West and the East can meet in mutual consolation ]

Damkerng T.

I would reverse it: X is our dream. But roughly, yes, it's quite similar to the original.

Anonymous

> [ That ELL will help many more learners ] is [ my dream of the future ] .

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

> Perhaps nowadays [ that the West and the East can meet in mutual consolation ] is [ our demure contemplation of the Imperfect ] .

Damkerng T.

15:13

nods

Anonymous

Hmm, that doesn't work.

Damkerng T.

Oh! Why?

Anonymous

> [ That the West and the East can meet in mutual consolation ] is perhaps nowadays [ our demure contemplation of the Imperfect ] .

Damkerng T.

We can nix that that.

Anonymous

You can't delete a subordinator from a subordinate clause at the beginning of a sentence.

Damkerng T.

15:14

Shouldn't it be deleted when it is reversed?

> It is my dream that X.

> X is my dream.

Fantasier

X is a clause.

So we can't take that out.

Damkerng T.

> I suggest X.

Anonymous

> 1. It was certain [ that we would die ]
> 2. It was certain [ Ø we would die ]
> 3. [ That we would die ] was certain
> 4. *[ Ø We would die ] was certain

Damkerng T.

X can be a clause, I would say.

Hmm.

Fantasier

If X is a clause, you won't normally put that before X, I think.

Damkerng T.

15:17

Which X? (Now we have too many Xs.)

Anonymous

Darned variables.

Damkerng T.

:D

Fantasier

X in "It is my dream that X." clearly is a clause.

Damkerng T.

So is the X in "I suggest X".

> I suggest we eat out.

Anonymous

> I suggest [ that／Ø we eat out ]

Damkerng T.

15:18

But I agree with "*[ Ø We would die ] was certain".

Anonymous

Because a subordinate clause at the beginning of a sentence needs an overt subordinator

Anonymous

(Can you think of a counterexample?)

Damkerng T.

thinking...

Fantasier

I was about to talk about the why again, but I think it can wait.

Damkerng T.

Talk away.

I think we can do multitasking.

Anonymous

15:21

When you hear "We would die" at the beginning of a sentence, it sounds like a main clause.

Anonymous

But when you hear it at the end: "It was certain [ we would die ]", it's clearly not

Anonymous

The signal there is not really necessary for the listener, so it makes sense that we can omit it.

Anonymous

(Although these requirements are not strictly related to logic. This is an after-the-fact justification.)

Damkerng T.

Can we say things like: To be or not to be is the question.

Anonymous

At the beginning of a sentence, you need the signal to let you know it's not a main clause

Anonymous

15:23

@DamkerngT. To be or not to be, that is the question.

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

You un-dislocated it! :-)

Damkerng T.

Hehe. I tried to hack it a bit.

Anonymous

It's a coordination of non-finite verb phrases. It's not very usual

Anonymous

But in any case, it has the subordinator to.

Damkerng T.

15:28

continue thinking...

15 mins ago, by snailboat

> [ That the West and the East can meet in mutual consolation ] is perhaps nowadays [ our demure contemplation of the Imperfect ] .

Anonymous

I don't know, my brain is kind of crashing on parsing this sentence

Damkerng T.

> The West and the East can meet in mutual consolation.

Anonymous

Okay, that seems like a good main clause

Damkerng T.

> This is perhaps our demure contemplation of the Imperfect nowadays.

Anonymous

What?

Damkerng T.

15:29

This refers to the previous sentence.

Anonymous

Yes, but I don't understand it :-)

Damkerng T.

> This is perhaps our dream nowadays.

In any case, I believe that this is not a common sentence. Not now, not then.

It has a feeling of philosophy.

So we need meta-thinking to make it work.

Cerberus

Hello, people and molluscs.

What are you contemplating?

Anonymous

Hello!

Damkerng T.

We are contemplating a contemplation sentence.

Anonymous

15:35

> Perhaps nowadays it is our demure contemplation of the Imperfect that the West and the East can meet in mutual consolation.

Anonymous

From The Book of Tea (1906).

Cerberus

Hmm.

Anonymous

I agree with "Hmm."

Cerberus

The that clause must be a complement to contemplation here?

Damkerng T.

Nobody knows.

Cerberus

15:37

> It is my contemplation that John and Margaret can be a match made in heaven.

I would not use such a complement to contemplation myself, but perhaps it is old fashioned?

Anonymous

That was my original guess.

Cerberus

Right.

And the modifier of the Imperfect makes this seem even less...current.

Anonymous

I think the author was well read and informed by an older literary style, perhaps containing language that was old even in 1906

Cerberus

We need context.

Anonymous

I can supply that if you give me a moment.

Fantasier

15:39

We have

Damkerng T.

It's on the web.

Not sure about the link.

gutenberg.org/files/769/769-h/769-h.htm

Anonymous

archive.org/stream/bookofteajapanes00okakrich#page/26/mode/2up

Anonymous

There, too

Anonymous

> For Teaism is the art of concealing beauty that you may discover it, of suggesting what you dare not reveal.

Fantasier

> Wut

Damkerng T.

15:44

It's the art of two things, if I understand him correctly.

Fantasier

Yeah but

"it" ?

Anonymous

@Fantasier It refers to "beauty"

Damkerng T.

Teaism is the art of concealing, and of suggesting.

Ah, I just got Fantasier's question. :-)

Cerberus

Oh I was already reading it.

Fantasier

@snailboat Shouldn't it be "of concealing beauty that you may discover" (without it?)

Cerberus

15:45

@snailboat I read that as in order that.

Anonymous

@Cerberus Me too

Cerberus

But I see a couple of other iffy things.

Fantasier

Hmm...

Cerberus

One of which being that the Emperor is called the Sun of Heaven.

Is that correct?

Anonymous

@Cerberus The author's native language was Japanese, but he was a well-educated reader and writer of English

Cerberus

15:46

I have never heard this before.

@snailboat Yeah I suspected as much.

Damkerng T.

I couldn't find that sentence.

Anonymous

It's just a little bit earlier.

Damkerng T.

> At last the Yellow Emperor, the Sun of Heaven, triumphed over Shuhyung, the demon of darkness and earth. The Titan, in his death agony, struck his head against the solar vault and shivered the blue dome of jade into fragments.

Cerberus

A typo?

Damkerng T.

That is the only use of the Sun of Heaven.

(in my version)

Anonymous

15:48

Let's see.

Cerberus

Yeah that's what I read.

Anonymous

Yeah, it's Sun.

Cerberus

I am looking at the scanned version in Google Books.

Anonymous

By the way, this is a scary Pikachuu: encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/…

Damkerng T.

Hmm... looks a bit like Godzilla.

Cerberus

15:50

> the eye-sight

This sounds dubious.

> The Taoists... The Buddhists...

The Taoists may pass, but The Buddhists, in that order?

Damkerng T.

Isn't it similar to The Christians?

Anonymous

What's wrong with The Buddhists?

Anonymous

The eye-sight is funny, though.

Anonymous

I wonder if Sun of Heaven is a misspelling or an intentional pun

Fantasier

It think it's a misspelling.

Anonymous

15:54

But the same sentence uses solar and is generally sky-ful.

Damkerng T.

Son had never been spelled sun before?

Cerberus

@snailboat So do I.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Well, we're talking a gap of hundreds of years here.

Cerberus

@snailboat Not sure how to explain it. At least I would correct it in modern prose.

Damkerng T.

Yes, so I'm not very sure to claim misspelling.

Anonymous

15:57

@DamkerngT. Well, sun wasn't an accepted spelling of son in 1906.

Damkerng T.

nods -- I see.

Anonymous

But if you say "had never been", you're considering spellings from hundreds of years before, and yes, you can find examples where it was spelled that way long ago

Anonymous

They're just not relevant in this case

Damkerng T.

Back then, reading ancient texts was probably the way he studied.

Anonymous

And it's 天子 (tiān zǐ)

Anonymous

15:59

Which means child of heaven

Anonymous

(Son of Heaven)

Damkerng T.

Son of Heaven, yes that's a common term for Chinese kings.

Cerberus

Yeah it's never Sun.

Transcript for