|
Post by Dave M on Jun 10, 2008 15:51:19 GMT
> Usually ellipsis occurs when we omit something that would have been repeated <
Oh, I think it can be wider than that. We say lots of things which are ungrammatical, or even senseless, unless we invoke a bit of ellipsis:
I didn't like the car she arrived in. - makes no sense at all unless we allow "that". What if I'm wrong - ditto, "will happen".
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 10, 2008 16:39:56 GMT
I'd argue that in I didn't like the car she arrived in nothing is being elided. English allows the attaching of a dependent clause to its antecedent without a relative pronoun, when the antecedent is understood to be the object of the dependent clause. This is sometimes called a contact clause. We can also use that, who, or which, but it is not necessary.
Historically, the contact clause developed from a construction of two independent clauses, not from a dependent clause where the relative pronoun was omitted.
What if I'm wrong - ditto, "will happen".
That's a better example.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 10, 2008 17:49:00 GMT
> English allows the attaching of a dependent clause to its antecedent without a relative pronoun, when the antecedent is understood to be the object of the dependent clause < OK, English allows us to say I don't mind you smoking when the object is "understood" to be the smoking! Just because we're so used to omitting the "that" that the pattern is commonplace and we've given the resulting type of clause a name, doesn't mean that it makes grammatical sense without the missing element being understood. I reckon it's still a form of ellipsis. (Incidentally, spot the "understood, but analytically ungrammatical" construction I used there, too!)
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 10, 2008 18:09:10 GMT
Just because we're so used to omitting the "that" that the pattern is commonplace and we've given the resulting type of clause a name, doesn't mean that it makes grammatical sense without the missing element being understood. I'm saying there is no missing element. You seem to be implying that I didn't like the car she arrived in is ungrammatical unless we understand that there's a missing relative pronoun. Perhaps you are hypothesizing a deep structure where the relative pronoun exists, and it is deleted in the surface structure? I think it's simpler just to state that English grammar allows a dependent clause to be attached to its antecedent with no material in between. This is completely grammatical. The relative pronoun is optional. It's not that "we're used to omitting that" - as I said, historically there never was a relative pronoun in this construction.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 10, 2008 18:17:42 GMT
Yes, I reckon I'm seeing the deep structure, goofy. I'm always a bit worried by the idea that "English allows" - who says?
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 10, 2008 18:24:26 GMT
Linguists say things like "English allows" when they're describing the grammar. For instance, English allows the adverb to go between the subject and the verb (He seldom speaks) but not between the verb and the object (*He speaks seldom English).
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 10, 2008 18:24:34 GMT
The student did not ask to be taught the wider issues, but asked what the speaker meant. As I said, I'll always explain the wider issues to anyone who is advanced enough to appreciate them. Usually they are interested and grateful. (As you show) sometimes, we really do need to use a wider interpretation than that given by the analysis of grammar. I have never denied this. I rarely analyse grammar in public - only to help someone who is struggling to grasp a concept, which I perceived was the case here. Sue
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 10, 2008 18:35:13 GMT
I'm teasing you, Sue! I should imagine your students are delighted to have you explain things, and it's your job, after all, to educate rather than answer questions rigidly. (Incidentally, why can I say what I just did, without having to say "delighted to have your explaining things" ? )
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jun 10, 2008 19:15:00 GMT
Dave M, I was about to comment on your interesting string of punctuation, but I see you've changed it! (I find, with "delighted to have your explaining things", that I am trying to link 'explaining' to 'things' as a noun. I suppose these explaining-things could be textbooks or teachers, but it won't parse any sensible way for me!) Susan.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 10, 2008 19:36:47 GMT
> it won't parse any sensible way for me! < If I can say I'm mystified by his eating cream; I hate her droppig atches and so on, I'm sure I can be mystified by your explainiing things! I was just wondering why we can readily accept "to have you explain things" - when the student will not "have" Sue herself at all.
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jun 10, 2008 19:59:41 GMT
Yes. But I'm still misleading myself reading your other phrase, even though I know what you mean and I agree with you! Hopefully we can be demystified by someone's explaining things. (I can't parse this either.)
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jun 10, 2008 22:13:12 GMT
I'm teasing you, Sue! I should imagine your students are delighted to have you explain things, and it's your job, after all, to educate rather than answer questions rigidly. (Incidentally, why can I say what I just did, without having to say "delighted to have your explaining things" ? ) I think we're getting hung up on this and looking for it where it doesn't/wouldn't exist. You're trying to turn delighted to have you explain things into the -ing word preceded by the possessive construction. Why? The problem, to me, arises when someone uses an -ing word and fails to recognise that the -ing word is a verbal noun/gerund, rather than a participle, which should be preceded by the possessive.
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 10, 2008 22:13:33 GMT
I'm teasing you, Sue! It's too late in the term for that, oh cruel one! This is our last week of "teaching" and I'm soooo tired! I'll spare you the details.I should imagine your students are delighted to have you explain things, ...(Incidentally, why can I say what I just did, without having to say "delighted to have your explaining things" ? )
Bearing in mind what have means, you cannot have my explaining! You can have my explanation, but my explaining is not able to be had. You might appreciate it, and then you could say that "the students appreciate your explaining things". your students are delighted to have you explain things You can get away with that in informal contexts, but it doesn't bear analysis! Sue
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jun 10, 2008 22:36:35 GMT
I don't see anything wrong with that construction at all, informal or otherwise, but don't ask me to analyse it. Even your students are delighted to have you explaining things seems perfectly acceptable to me, in the right context. As I said in my previous post, I can't see why we're trying to examine the quote in the light of possessive + gerund. It doesn't lend itself easily to that construction.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 10, 2008 23:08:24 GMT
Hi Geoff
I think I was trying to get at what lay behind the acceptance of "do you mind my smoking?" but not of "do you mind me smoking?" - that the object of "mind" is the smoking in the first, but "me" in the second.
In "delighted to have you explain things", what is the object of "have"? It seems to be "you" - which should rule out the construction, if we follow the same argument we used with the "smoking" example.
|
|