English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

Cerberus

19:01

It's ridiculous to arbitrarily decide to keep using a traditional term but change its meaning into something less useful, just out of spite.

4 mins ago, by Cerberus

@tchrist What you mean is a verb rather than a clause. What is the difference between a verb and a clause to you?

tchrist

> infinitive clause: A clause whose verb is in the infinitive form.

The infinitive clause is called a clause because it may contain such clause elements as a subject, object, complement, or modifier.

Verbs that can be followed by infinitive clauses (as objects) include agree, begin, decide, hope, intend, like, plan, and propose.

Cerberus

You have no answer, even after having been asked the same question twice; I therefrom conclude that I am right.

tchrist

Don’t be a burro.

1

Q: How do I identify "infinitive clauses/phrases" and "subjects"?

In sentences such as the following, there is (as I understand it) an infinitive clause and an infinitive phrase. Which part is the infinitive clause and which part is the infinitive phrase? And what is the subject? Examples: One thing to do about this is to stop feeding animals junk food. ...

Cerberus

Still no answer. You just don't know.

tchrist

An infinitive clause does not have to have a subject, but it can.

CLAUSE

Robusto

19:04

@tchrist Or children singing were heard by everyone in the room.

Cerberus

No answer. You lose.

tchrist

A verb is something like eat, ate.

Cerberus

@Robusto Yes, of course.

tchrist

Bullshit.

To eat cake is not a verb, it is an infinitive clause.

eat is the verb.

That is the difference.

A verb is a single word.

A clause has to have a verb.

It can have the other things that go with a verb.

That is the difference.

You lose.

Cerberus

Certain linguists burrow into some political position lacking an overview of the matter at hand, of language and terminology and philosophy of science as a whole.

tchrist

19:06

Go read the private life of the gerund. It’s all about people like you.

Cerberus

If you say I don't like children singing, then it's a (dominant) participle.

tchrist

Clauses include sentence-like constructions that have a non-finite verb.

Cerberus

The traditional definition is a finite verb and its arguments.

tchrist

She was asked X.

Cerberus

There is no need to change it, that's just confusion for the sake of confusion.

tchrist

19:08

the object of was asked is X.

X can be an infinitive clause.

> She was asked to value two important pictures.

Cerberus

I would probably call that the subject.

tchrist

X = to value two important pictures

> She asked him to value two important pictures.

Cerberus

And that is different. A non-clausal verb can have most of the same arguments a finite verb can.

@tchrist That is a completely different construction.

tchrist

X = him to value two important pictures

Cerberus

No.

tchrist

19:09

Clauses don’t need finite verbs, how silly!

Cerberus

That's two constituents.

Well, why don't you explain to me why the traditional definition is bad.

tchrist

It’s “She asked X”.

Cerberus

You don't even seem to recognise that that is the traditional definition.

tchrist

Because English is not Latin.

It leads to nonsense if you try to make it be such.

Cerberus

Not an answer.

tchrist

19:10

Yes, it is.

Cerberus

Nonsense, like which?

tchrist

You pretend that things people say are not grammatical.

And you are wrong.

Because they would not be grammatical in Latin.

So you force this nonsense on native speakers who are doing what is perfectly fine.

Cerberus

You're just repeating the things that the kind of linguists say I commented on above.

tchrist

Then I am in good company.

Cerberus

No, not at all.

tchrist

19:11

And you are not.

Cerberus

Political activists.

tchrist

More bullshit.

There is no politics here.

Cerberus

There is absolutely no reason at all to change the definition of clause. And it's just cruel to pretend it was never otherwise.

Which is what those people do.

tchrist

@JohnLawler I think this confusion arises out of thinking that a direct object must be a single substantive rather than a constituent. — tchrist 1 hour ago

@tchrist: Yes, I know. That's what the third grade teacher said, and who studies grammar after grammar school? — John Lawler 49 mins ago

We aren’t in third grade any longer.

Cerberus

The same political rant again. He always does that.

Doesn't truly have a deeper understanding of the whole matter.

Robusto

19:13

Calm down, you two. Do I have to turn this chat room around?

tchrist

It isn’t political. Now you are actually lying.

@Cerberus That is a facile lie. He has many, many, many published papers on linguistics to his name: show me yours.

waits

Robusto

Guys, guys, come on. Let's not get bent out of shape over which end of the egg to break.

It bugs me to see people I like fighting over the very, very minor arcana.

Cerberus

You're right, I don't care.

Robusto

You will both come to your senses presently and regret harsh words spoken in anger.

@Cerberus He can have that effect, coming off as extremely patronizing at times.

Cerberus

But w'evs.

Robusto

19:17

He's not 100% right, either. In most things I agree with him, but in others he's very pedantic and hidebound.

Cerberus

I am usually able to close the tab in time to prevent a rant from getting out.

tchrist

There is a huge body of work that supports phrase structure grammars and constituency parses. Ignore them at your own ignorance. They solve problems.

Robusto

And if you disagree with him, even in a minor way, he resorts first to sarcasm and condescension.

Unlike me. I never use sarcasm.

Cerberus

@Robusto Nor irony of any kind.

Robusto

@Cerberus You understand me perfectly.

Cerberus

19:19

Only when it's not film references!

Robusto

OK. You understand me perfectly, except in cases where you misunderstand me completely.

Cerberus

How about the countless cases in between?

And vice versa?

Robusto

They're countless, so I can't count them. If I can't count them, they can't be numbered. If they can't be numbered, how will I look them up to reference them?

Cerberus

It should be noted that I am in a very foul mood anyway.

tchrist

Phrase structure grammar

The term phrase structure grammar was originally introduced by Noam Chomsky as the term for grammars as defined by phrase structure rules, i.e. rewrite rules of the type studied previously by Emil Post and Axel Thue (see Post canonical systems). Some authors, however, reserve the term for more restricted grammars in the Chomsky hierarchy: context-sensitive grammars, or context-free grammars. In a broader sense, phrase structure grammars are also known as constituency grammars. The defining trait of phrase structure grammars is thus their adherence to the constituency relation, as opposed to...

Robusto

19:21

@Cerberus I think that was plain.

Cerberus

Even before all this, I meant.

tchrist

6

Q: What are the chief advantages & disadvantages of describing sentences with dependency vs. phrase structure trees?

What are the chief advantages & disadvantages of describing sentences with dependency vs. phrase structure (aka. constituency) trees? From what I've read, dependency grammar trees lack phrase nodes and mark everything as dependent on the verb. Phrase structure trees start with the highes...

syntax theoretical-linguistics syntax-trees phrase-structure

Robusto

Anyway, did you see what I did there? I moderated the chat, i.e., I promoted the virtues of moderation. Ergo, I am a moderator de facto.

Cerberus

@tchrist That question is wrong. Dependency grammar does not exist, its terminology cannot be legally used.

@Robusto That's sick.

tchrist

A large number of serious syntacticicans believe that one needs both dependency and PS relations. This is consistent with the scientific (rather than the mathematical) esthetic. — jlawler Jan 6 at 19:27

Cerberus

19:23

You're supposed to stir people up, incite discord!

Robusto

@Cerberus But I like cord. I use it to tie things together sometimes. If I used discord, things wouldn't stay tied together.

In any case, I have learned it can be unwise to pour gasoline on an open flame.

tchrist

2

Q: Why are phrase structure rules always inconsistent?

I've noticed that phrase structure rules have been very inconsistent over my studies. I've seen NP = (det)(adj)N ; NP = (det)N(PP); these definitions seem to change with context. Is it just because there's no strict phrase formalisms in language? Or am I missing something?

syntax grammar phrase-structure

0

A: Why are phrase structure rules always inconsistent?

There are many ways to describe a given language, even in a given formalism. I would think that at any time, a language is always inconsistent. Diachronic evolution seems a good reason to believe that. Latin has slowly evolved into Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Roumanian, Portuguese and French (what...

2

Q: Are sentences the only constituents that "sentence adverbs" modify?

For those who came in late, a "sentence adverb" is a word that modifies an entire sentence rather than just the verb or predicate. A sentence adverb communicates speaker attitudes about the proposition that the sentence denotes, or discourse information. So "fortunately" is a sentence adverb ...

syntax word-classes discourse

3

Q: Does finite VP exist as a constituent?

A central distinction between dependency grammars (DGs) and phrase structure grammars (PSGs, also known as constituency grammars) is the understanding of the initial division of the clause. Traditionally, PSGs divide the clause into a subject NP and a predicate VP. The predicate VP corresponds to...

syntax theoretical-linguistics verb-phrase

5

Q: In what situation a constituency-based tree cannot be constructed from a dependency-based tree?

I am confused regarding the distinction dependency- vs. constituency-based tree: to me they look like they encompass the same information but presented differently. E.g. in the Wikipedia example the constituency-based tree and dependency-based tree seem to contain the same information: Same i...

theoretical-linguistics syntax-trees parsing

1

Q: Dependency Grammar constraints

I study dependency grammar, DG and I have a question regarding constraints of DG. I do understand why do we need constituency grammars, CG and DG, however I don't completely understand the connections between them. Constraints of DG: 1) every constituent has only one governor. Very simple co...

grammar parsing dependency-grammar

Cerberus

@Robusto That knowledge probably only comes with age.

I have not progressed so far.

tchrist

Grasshopper, you may leave our monastery once you have plucked the constituency pebble from my palm.

Cerberus

I am ignoring your gasoline.

Try cheese.

tchrist

19:31

2

A: need to understand infinitive

To answer the last question first, Infinitive is a term from Latin grammar. It refers in Latin to one of several tenseless verb forms. Etymologically, infinitive means 'unending' (just like infinite); here the reference is to lack of tense. In other languages, infinitive is often used to descr...

> Executive Summary:

Infinitive clauses are very complex, and they use infinitive verb forms.
Infinitive verb forms are used in infinitive clauses (usually marked by to);
infinitive verb forms also occur with auxiliary verbs in verb phrase constructions (usually without to).

Cerberus

Infinitival phrases, is what I call those.

tchrist

> Infinitive can also refer to infinitive clauses of various kinds, which are subordinate clauses that use infinitive verb forms, instead of present, past, or participial forms.

Cerberus

And "infinitive verb form" is the ugliest and most bloated term ever for "infinitive".

Johan Larsson

nah, you can probably write it in enterprise style java

Cerberus

None of this is in accordance with terminology as used in traditional linguistics, as used in other disciplines, and as used in other places.

Haha.

Why don't you do that, then...

Johan Larsson

19:37

no time, the game starts soon

VerbManager.Handler.Manager.Instance.Resolve(infinitive)

pseudo

Cerberus

Ugh, the game...

Even my parents are watching, it is sad.

tchrist

@Cerberus What, “traditional” as in third century? BC or AD? This is definitely stuff that’s been in the professional literature for decades now.

Cerberus

20th century.

But I am done talking about this subject.

tchrist

I don’t think you ever started.

Johan Larsson

@Reg hol 2 crc 0

tchrist

19:43

0

A: Difference between "solicitor" and "barrister"

I am looking for a lawyer that contacted me about an inheritance.I cant even find him on line anywhere Can someone please help me

Somebody summon up a Law Lord for the poor girl!

I suppose Arioch won’t do.

Ten bucks says that said lawyer is Nigerian.

There’s something oxymoronic about “creating words that don’t exist”, isn’t there? Once something has been created, it now exists. People coin new words all the time, but most of them don’t make it out of the mint into general currency. — tchrist 43 secs ago

It’s like those for-collectors-only coins, you know?

Johan Larsson

@Cerb are you singing standing up?

Cerberus

I am sitting down typing now, but very soon I shall be showering!

And I have to go watch football with friends after all...

You at home?

Johan Larsson

yes

Cerberus

19:58

Relaxed.

Johan Larsson

@Cerberus ok, confirmed then /harassment

Cerberus

It is harassment, yes!

tchrist

*his

Cerberus

But I need to talk to this friend anyway before Monday. So now is a good time.

Johan Larsson

it just ended

Cerberus

19:59

What did?

Johan Larsson

harassment

Cerberus

Ah.

tchrist

Both possessive and accusative gerund complementizers are perfectly normal. There's another sense of children singing that means the same but has a different construction; from children (who are) singing, and that's plural. But if you add sweetly to the gerund, you get (The )Children singing sweetly is what I hear, and that's unquestionably sentential and singular. "Children singing" by itself is ambiguous between modified plural noun and singular clause; but one can prefer one interpretation, especially in a context where it doesn't make a difference. — John Lawler 14 mins ago

Cerberus

@JohanLarsson What did the harassment consist in?

@tchrist I disagree with his "unquestionably". But I am not surprised.

tchrist

The subject of is in “Children singing sweetly is what I want to hear” is clearly the entire gerund clause children singing sweetly.

While the subject of singing is children.

See, you have to use constituents. It just doesn’t work otherwise.

Nobody would use a possessive there. Nobody.

> Mothers nursing their children is better than feeding them formula.

Simple stuff: X is better than Y.

Johan Larsson

20:10

@Cerberus I nagged until you confessed you like to watch men playing with balls :)

Cerberus

20:26

@tchrist That proves nothing. There are enough plural things in English that nevertheless get a singular verb, like two years is very long etc.

@JohanLarsson Ewww never!

Football is so unhygienic, with all the kissing and hugging...

Mitch

21:43

@Cerberus ashamed. turns off TV with 5 minutes to go

Would it make you feel better if I weren't rooting for the Orange?

tchrist

@Cerberus Of course it proves the matter. If you pretend the subject of that independent clause (meaning, the sentence) is not the entire gerund clause as a constituent, then you have to pick a word: good luck with that. If you pick singing then you now have to explain what children is doing there, and I don’t think you can. If you pick children and so pretend that *children is is grammatical, then no one will take you seriously, since anybody knows that that’s a bogus construction.

Mitch

@Cerberus Mmmm... saganaki

►

tchrist

22:30

> Traditionally, part of a sentence can only be classed as a subordinate clause if it contains either an identifiable or an ‘undertood’ finite verb. In contemporary grammatical analysis, however, subordinate clauses may be classed as: finite (‘I think that nobody is in’); non-finite (‘He used to be shy, staying on the fringes at parties’); verbless (‘She will help you, if at all possible’).

Mitch

22:49

@Cerberus I'm so so sorry. More screaming in the street. and it'll continue.

Oops. gave it away. I didn't really turn off the TV.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…