English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer

Not for the faint of heart or those easily triggered by Englis...
Aug 29, 2022 10:38
@Robusto. Indeed I am
Aug 28, 2022 20:35
Hello
When reading for pleasure, I often find myself parsing the text I am reading, trying to understand its syntax. This I do to understand the meaning of the text; indeed, parsing has helped me to better retain information. But it is not convenient whatsoever, and in all honesty it takes the pleasure out of reading.
In spite of that, I find it difficult to link what I am reading - the bare words and phrases - with any actual meaning if I do not parse the text.
Is this a problem any of you have faced - if not, are there any recorded cases of this problem? Are there people whose brains cann
Aug 27, 2022 19:43
Hello
When reading for pleasure, I often find myself parsing the text I am reading, trying to understand its syntax. This I do to understand the meaning of the text; indeed, parsing has helped me to better retain information. But it is not convenient whatsoever, and in all honesty it takes the pleasure out of reading.
In spite of that, I find it difficult to link what I am reading - the bare words and phrases - with any actual meaning if I do not parse the text.
Is this a problem any of you have faced - if not, are there any recorded cases of this problem? Are there people whose brains cann
 
Aug 25, 2022 06:42
In spite of that, I find it difficult to link what I am reading - the bare words and phrases - with any actual meaning if I do not parse the text.
Is this a problem any of you have faced - if not, are there any recorded cases of this problem? Are there people whose brains cannot link syntax with semantics?
Secondly, how can I rectify this problem? I have only had this problem for a year; before that, I had little difficulty understanding what I was reading. I am sure there are better ways of retaining information than parsing (which can often be headache-inducing).
Aug 25, 2022 06:41
When reading for pleasure, I often find myself parsing the text I am reading, trying to understand its syntax. This I do to understand the meaning of the text; indeed, parsing has helped me to better retain information. But it is not convenient whatsoever, and in all honesty it takes the pleasure out of reading.
Aug 25, 2022 06:41
Hello everyone. I do not know whether or not this is suitable for this chat, as it relates to a personal problem of mine; however, I think this is the best place to post it.
 

 Discussion between Lambie and Ben

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
Ben
Sep 13, 2021 19:40
I think it would be best for us to end this conversation here, since it seems that neither of us will ever be convinced by the argument of the other. Good day (or evening). (Again, apologies for the curtness.)
Ben
Sep 13, 2021 18:35
In .
Ben
Sep 13, 2021 17:59
CGEL may not deal with these constructions in very much detail, but various other sources do. In all probability, in 'He has committed I don't know how many crimes', many (if not most) native speakers would probably opt to hyphenate 'I don't know how many', thereby making it (as you have said) an adjective. But it is not a requirement that 'I don't know how many' be hyphenated, and when it is not hyphenated (as in the question), it is probably not an adjective.
Ben
Sep 13, 2021 17:48
The syntax of such constructions is still a matter of considerable controversy. On the one hand, some sources (such as CGEL) contend that 'I don't know' in the sentence 'He committed I don't know how many crimes' is an irregular modifier of 'how many crimes', and that the syntactic function of 'I don't know how many crimes' is that of direct object; while others argue that 'I don't know many' is a complex determiner of 'crimes' (M. Guimaraes), with 'crimes' being the latter. I have yet to see any sources that argue that 'I don't know how many' has the role of an adjective, but... (2/3)
Ben
Sep 13, 2021 17:48
Could you explain to me why you think 'I don't know how many' is an adjective? What makes your analysis correct, and CGEL's wrong? (Apologies for the bluntness.) It may well be that CGEL's analysis is wrong, or at least not a definitive source on this matter.
Ben
Sep 13, 2021 17:48
@Lambie, after searching the Internet for some time, I chanced upon several papers that deal with these types of constructions, which are called 'syntactic amalgams'. To my knowledge, these constructions were first analysed in detail by George Lakoff (a former professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley) in 1974; he defined 'syntactic amalgams' as 'sentences which have within them chunks of lexical material that do not correspond to anything in the logical structure of the sentence; rather they must be copied in other derivations under specifiable semantic and pragmatic conditions'. (Thread, 1/?)
Ben
Sep 13, 2021 17:48
See also @BillJ's answer, which is almost identical to mine, except that he doesn't cite CGEL and phrases it in his own words.