Unsubordinated verbless partitive clause?
Bruno
road.
How do you explain what's going on between the commas in this
sentence? It feels like a partitive relative clause ("some of whom
were badly wounded"), but it's got no relative pronoun or verb. I
haven't been able to find any discussion of this sort of thing in the
Cambridge Grammar.
Joachim Pense
Is it an absolute nominative?
Joachim
Joe Fineman
My intuitive parser says that "badly wounded" modifies "dozens of
soldiers" & that "some of them" is a parenthesis.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to :||
||: get there. :||
Nathan Sanders
Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Bruno <barbar...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Dozens of soldiers, some of them badly wounded, trudged along the
> > road.
> >
> > How do you explain what's going on between the commas in this
> > sentence? It feels like a partitive relative clause ("some of whom
> > were badly wounded"), but it's got no relative pronoun or verb. I
> > haven't been able to find any discussion of this sort of thing in
> > the Cambridge Grammar.
>
> My intuitive parser says that "badly wounded" modifies "dozens of
> soldiers" & that "some of them" is a parenthesis.
That's not how I interpret it. To me, it has the same basic structure
as something like:
Dozens of soldiers, their commander urging them forward,
trudged along the road.
Dozens of soldiers, enemies right behind them, trudged along
the road.
Dozens of soldiers, their packs full and heavy, trudged along
the road.
with the whole unit modifying "dozens of soldiers". That is:
[[dozens of soldiers] [some of them badly wounded]]
[[dozens of soldiers] [their commander urging them forward]]
[[dozens of soldiers] [enemies right behind them]]
[[dozens of soldiers] [their packs full and heavy]]
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> In article <ubpzktvar....@verizon.net>,
> Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
This seems to have something in common with what used to be called WH-
IS deletion. Each of the above needs a BE-form to make a full
relative: [some of whom were badly wounded], [whose packs were full
and heavy]. In some cases you can delete both the relative and BE:
[some badly wounded], [packs full and heavy]. But the possibility of
dropping BE while replacing the relative pronoun with a straight
anaphoric is unusual. Also some of these can be readily moved to pre-
subject position (Their packs full and heavy, dozens of soldiers
trudged along the road.) which would be quite impossible with the
versions marked as relative (*Whose packs were full and heavy,
dozens...).
Ross Clark
Adam Funk
Personally, I'd say there is an ellipsis [1] of "being" in there:
"Dozens of soldiers, some of them [being] badly wounded, trudged along
the road."
I'd also like to know what this construction is called in English; it
seems analogous to the Latin ablative absolute.
[1] Or perhaps a phonetically empty or trace constituent in some
formalisms.
--
Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp
out of the blue, no explanation. (Cox 1984)
Joe Fineman
> On 2008-08-22, Bruno wrote:
>
>> Dozens of soldiers, some of them badly wounded, trudged along the
>> road.
>>
>> How do you explain what's going on between the commas in this
>> sentence? It feels like a partitive relative clause ("some of whom
>> were badly wounded"), but it's got no relative pronoun or verb. I
>> haven't been able to find any discussion of this sort of thing in
>> the Cambridge Grammar.
>
> Personally, I'd say there is an ellipsis [1] of "being" in there:
> "Dozens of soldiers, some of them [being] badly wounded, trudged
> along the road."
>
> I'd also like to know what this construction is called in English;
> it seems analogous to the Latin ablative absolute.
I was immediately attracted to this hypothesis, but on reflection it
seems discordant, for two reasons:
(1) In English at any rate (I don't know how it is in Latin), the
absolute construction almost always comes first.
(2) It usually if not always constitutes a condition on or a reason
for the truth of the main clause, not a mere comment or addendum:
A quorum being present, the meeting may be called to order.
The weather being inclement, we retreated to the parlor.
Also, the insertion of "being" in the example given seems mildly
unidiomatic to me. It is at odds with my wish to parse "wounded" as
modifying "soldiers" directly, not thru predication.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: People change and forget to tell each other. :||
Nathan Sanders
Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Wounded" couldn't possibly modify "soldiers" directly: It isn't the
dozens of soldiers who are badly wounded; it is only some of them.
Consider the following syntatically similar:
Dozens of soldiers, none of them badly wounded, trudged along
the road.
Here, it's very clear that the soldiers aren't wounded!
Richard Wordingham
"Nathan Sanders" <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in message
news:nsanders-24562E...@news.newsguy.com...
What about, 'The soldiers not wounded trudged along the road'?
Would you deny that 'wounded' qualified 'soldiers'?
The semantics are clear enough. 'Some of them badly wounded' is a
continuative, rather than attributive phrase qualifying 'dozens of
soldiers'. Being continuative rather than attributive, it gets set off by
commas. 'Wounded' is modified twice - 'badly' modifies the degree and 'some
of them' its scope. The reduction of scope forces the continuative phrase
to be continuative rather than attributive. The challenge, is it not, is to
fit all this into a formal framework.
Richard.
Nathan Sanders
"Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, I would. "Not wounded", however...
Nathan Sanders
"Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The semantics are clear enough. 'Some of them badly wounded' is a
> continuative, rather than attributive phrase qualifying 'dozens of
> soldiers'. Being continuative rather than attributive, it gets set off by
> commas. 'Wounded' is modified twice - 'badly' modifies the degree and 'some
> of them' its scope.
I forgot to address this part.
Why do you think "some of them" modifies "wounded"? "Some (of them)"
is a quantifier, and quantifiers modify nouns, not adjectives (Some
people are happy, *People are some happy).
Perhaps we need a definition of "modify" to clear things up. Here's
my rough draft of one:
If A modifies B, then the combination A+B has a meaning that
is a combination of the individual meanings of A and B, and
furthermore, the syntactic category of A+B is derived directly
from the syntactic category of B, not A (this captures the
asymmetric relationship inherent to modification).
"Some of them badly wounded" is clearly not any sort of adjective
phrase, because it can't arbitrarily replace an actual adjective like
"wounded":
The wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
The badly wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
*The some of them badly wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
The soldiers were wounded.
The soldiers were badly wounded.
*The soldiers were some of them badly wounded.
The soldiers weren't wounded.
The soldiers weren't badly wounded.
*The soldiers weren't some of them badly wounded.
The soldiers seemed wounded.
The soldiers seemed badly wounded.
*The soldiers seemed some of them badly wounded.
The soldiers considered themselves wounded.
The soldiers considered themselves badly wounded.
*The soldiers considered themselves some of them badly wounded.
The soldiers considered themselves wounded.
The soldiers considered themselves badly wounded.
*The soldiers considered themselves some of them badly wounded.
The wounded were left to die.
The badly wounded were left to die.
*The some of them badly wounded were left to die.
Joe Fineman
I agree with this. I should have said that I wanted to parse
"wounded" as modifying "some" directly, etc. (not "soldiers").
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your :||
||: sources. :||
Joe Fineman
> The soldiers seemed wounded.
> The soldiers seemed badly wounded.
> *The soldiers seemed some of them badly wounded.
That one actually seems acceptable to me, at least in speech.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: The most respectful thing you can do to a bully is hit :||
||: back. :||
Nathan Sanders
Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> writes:
>
> > The soldiers seemed wounded.
> > The soldiers seemed badly wounded.
> > *The soldiers seemed some of them badly wounded.
>
> That one actually seems acceptable to me, at least in speech.
Without interruptive pauses? The following is marginally okay for me:
The soldiers seemed---some of them---badly wounded.
But I can't use the third with the same intonation I'd use for the
first two.
Nathan Sanders
Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
Ah, okay. That I agree with!
Adam Funk
[Bruno, OP]
>>> Dozens of soldiers, some of them badly wounded, trudged along the
>>> road.
[Adam]
>> Personally, I'd say there is an ellipsis [1] of "being" in there:
>> "Dozens of soldiers, some of them [being] badly wounded, trudged
>> along the road."
>>
>> I'd also like to know what this construction is called in English;
>> it seems analogous to the Latin ablative absolute.
>
> I was immediately attracted to this hypothesis, but on reflection it
> seems discordant, for two reasons:
>
> (1) In English at any rate (I don't know how it is in Latin), the
> absolute construction almost always comes first.
Usually, perhaps, but not in the OP's example.
> (2) It usually if not always constitutes a condition on or a reason
> for the truth of the main clause, not a mere comment or addendum:
>
> A quorum being present, the meeting may be called to order.
>
> The weather being inclement, we retreated to the parlor.
I'm not convinced that this is a totally different construction, just
a different use of a very similar one.
> Also, the insertion of "being" in the example given seems mildly
> unidiomatic to me.
To me it sounds OK, although I think "some of them badly wounded"
sounds better. (I also suggested a trace or empty constituent as an
alternative explanation.)
> It is at odds with my wish to parse "wounded" as
> modifying "soldiers" directly, not thru predication.
If "wounded" modifies "soldiers", how can you get the right semantics?
--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995)
Richard Wordingham
>> The semantics are clear enough. 'Some of them badly wounded' is a
>> continuative, rather than attributive phrase qualifying 'dozens of
>> soldiers'. Being continuative rather than attributive, it gets set off
>> by
>> commas. 'Wounded' is modified twice - 'badly' modifies the degree and
>> 'some
>> of them' its scope.
> I forgot to address this part.
> Why do you think "some of them" modifies "wounded"? "Some (of them)"
> is a quantifier, and quantifiers modify nouns, not adjectives (Some
> people are happy, *People are some happy).
The *semantics* are similar to those of 'occasionally' in 'occasionally
clever'. Only by averaging can we claim 'occasionally' is an adverb of
degree. I did say that formalising the analysis of 'some of them badly
wounded' is a challenge. It may have a parallel in parsing 'a bone' in 'The
dog was given a bone'.
> Perhaps we need a definition of "modify" to clear things up. Here's
> my rough draft of one:
> If A modifies B, then the combination A+B has a meaning that
> is a combination of the individual meanings of A and B, and
> furthermore, the syntactic category of A+B is derived directly
> from the syntactic category of B, not A (this captures the
> asymmetric relationship inherent to modification).
> "Some of them badly wounded" is clearly not any sort of adjective
> phrase, because it can't arbitrarily replace an actual adjective like
> "wounded":
So how do you parse 'templar' in 'Knights Templar' and 'errant' in 'knight
errant'. A knight errant is not normally an errant knight. What of the
phrases 'disheartened by defeat', 'torn to shreds' and 'alive to nuances'?
Aren't they adjectival phrases?
> The wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
> The badly wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
> *The some of them badly wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
Cf. *The disheartened by defeat soldiers trudge down the road.
The third sentence also jars because of a continuative adjective phrase
being used where an attributive adjective would be expected. While that's
not prohibited, it also lessens the grammaticality.
> The soldiers were wounded.
> The soldiers were badly wounded.
> *The soldiers were some of them badly wounded.
Cf. They are none of them to be trusted.
The third and fourth sentences actually seem to each be two alternative
sentences, depending on whether the quantifier modifes the verb or the
adjective. This may be affecting my assessment of grammaticality, but I
find both alternatives grammatical for both the third and fourth sentences.
'The soldiers were, some of them, badly wounded' is yet another form.
> The soldiers weren't wounded.
> The soldiers weren't badly wounded.
> *The soldiers weren't some of them badly wounded.
Cf. 'They weren't all of them bad'.
I admit I find the asterisked sentence implausible except as a rejoinder to
its positive form. However, that is due to the combination of 'not' and
'some'.
> The soldiers seemed wounded.
> The soldiers seemed badly wounded.
> *The soldiers seemed some of them badly wounded.
Cf. 'They seemed, some of them unserviceable, some noxious, some no better
than a sport to children, until contemplative ability, combining with
practical skill, tamed their wild nature, subdued them to use, and rendered
them at once the most powerful and the most tractable agents in subservience
to the great views and designs of men.' - Edmund Burke, 'Reflections on the
Revolution in France'.
Again, the association is ambiguous in your example, but not in Edmund
Burke's sentence. I disagree with the asterisk, though I won't dispute that
the third sentence is infelicitous.
> The soldiers considered themselves wounded.
> The soldiers considered themselves badly wounded.
> *The soldiers considered themselves some of them badly wounded.
It seems that such partitive thoughts are themselves unusual. The closest
analogue Google would give me to the more grammatical 'The soldiers consider
some of themselves badly wounded' is 'There is no notion, outside of Bambi,
that the animals consider some of themselves good and some bad', and that
was the only hit for 'consider[ed]/reckon[ed]/think/thought some of
themselves'. Even replacing 'some' by 'all' and by 'none' only got one more
hit, 'Most of them dont speak-write modern greek and consider themselves,all
of them, arrmani (greek in their dialect)', which seems to be yet another
construction.
> The wounded were left to die.
> The badly wounded were left to die.
> *The some of them badly wounded were left to die.
As 'some of them badly wounded' is necessarily continuative, the sentence is
ruled out on semantic grounds - the adjective phrase is inconsistent with
the meaning of the 'the' + adjective. I think the same argument applies if
you replace 'some' by 'all' or 'none', though it is not as strong.
Richard.
Nathan Sanders
"Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Nathan Sanders" <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in message
> news:nsanders-2D4E08...@news.newsguy.com...
> > In article <UJksk.46563$6p1....@newsfe19.ams2>,
> > "Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> The semantics are clear enough. 'Some of them badly wounded' is a
> >> continuative, rather than attributive phrase qualifying 'dozens of
> >> soldiers'. Being continuative rather than attributive, it gets set off
> >> by
> >> commas. 'Wounded' is modified twice - 'badly' modifies the degree and
> >> 'some
> >> of them' its scope.
>
> > I forgot to address this part.
>
> > Why do you think "some of them" modifies "wounded"? "Some (of them)"
> > is a quantifier, and quantifiers modify nouns, not adjectives (Some
> > people are happy, *People are some happy).
>
> The *semantics* are similar to those of 'occasionally' in 'occasionally
> clever'.
The semantics are irrelevant here. "Occasionally" is an adverb, "some
of them" is not an adverb, so you can't compare them syntactically.
> > "Some of them badly wounded" is clearly not any sort of adjective
> > phrase, because it can't arbitrarily replace an actual adjective like
> > "wounded":
>
> So how do you parse 'templar' in 'Knights Templar' and 'errant' in 'knight
> errant'.
These are frozen expressions whose individual pieces cannot be
arbitrarily replaced by words of the same category despite transparent
semantics (*squire templar, *squire errant, *knight nomadic). They
are not the result of productive syntactic construction.
Are you claiming that "some of them badly wounded" is also frozen? It
seems to me to be just an ordinary construction. The quantifier "some
of them" can be replaced by any other quantifier:
all (of them) badly wounded
none (of them) badly wounded
most (of them) badly wounded
few (of them) badly wounded
each (of them) badly wounded
every one (of them) badly wounded
five (of them) badly wounded
and the adjective phrase "badly wounded" can be replaced by any other
semantically appropriate predicate phrase:
some of them hungry for battle
some of them in deep depression
some of them struggling to survive
some of them just children
All of these behave the same way, which is arguably the most important
piece of evidence here. Regardless of what predicate appears in the
right, the entire expression still has the same syntactic flavor.
For the record, I don't think "some of them" modifies "badly wounded",
or vice versa. I think they're in a different kind of relationship,
more akin to subject-predicate, forming something like what some
syntacticians call a "small clause".
> > The wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
> > The badly wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
> > *The some of them badly wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
> Cf. *The disheartened by defeat soldiers trudge down the road.
It's well known that adjectives with complements cannot appear before
a noun:
John is a man fond of chocolate.
*John is a fond of chocolate man.
Normally adjectives (and indeed, most words in English) take their
complements on the right, so "badly wounded" does not appear to have a
complement.
(Using the other usual tests for complements, it is easy to confirm
that "some of them" is not a complement.)
> The third sentence also jars because of a continuative adjective phrase
> being used where an attributive adjective would be expected. While that's
> not prohibited, it also lessens the grammaticality.
I, my syntax books, and Google have never heard of a "continuative
adjective phrase", so I have no idea what that is supposed to be, or
what tests one can use to identify it syntactically.
> > The soldiers were wounded.
> > The soldiers were badly wounded.
> > *The soldiers were some of them badly wounded.
> Cf. They are none of them to be trusted.
The last two are just not grammatical for me (without significant
pauses---see my response to Joe). Also, I can't drop "of them" here,
even though I can drop it in the original:
The soldiers, some badly wounded, trudged down the road.
*The soldiers were some badly wounded.
*The soldiers were none badly wounded.
> > The soldiers seemed wounded.
> > The soldiers seemed badly wounded.
> > *The soldiers seemed some of them badly wounded.
> Cf. 'They seemed, some of them unserviceable, some noxious, some no better
> than a sport to children, until contemplative ability, combining with
> practical skill, tamed their wild nature, subdued them to use, and rendered
> them at once the most powerful and the most tractable agents in subservience
> to the great views and designs of men.' - Edmund Burke, 'Reflections on the
> Revolution in France'.
Note the commas, indicating pauses.
> Again, the association is ambiguous in your example, but not in Edmund
> Burke's sentence. I disagree with the asterisk, though I won't dispute that
> the third sentence is infelicitous.
I don't see why it should be. Its meaning is perfectly clear.
> > The wounded were left to die.
> > The badly wounded were left to die.
> > *The some of them badly wounded were left to die.
(The third sentence does need context, in order to get reference for
"them". Something like "The soldiers had a rough day today".)
> As 'some of them badly wounded' is necessarily continuative, the sentence is
> ruled out on semantic grounds - the adjective phrase is inconsistent with
> the meaning of the 'the' + adjective. I think the same argument applies if
> you replace 'some' by 'all' or 'none', though it is not as strong.
The following sentence is a grammatical paraphrase (i.e., having
identical truth conditions), indicating that the semantics are just
fine. It's the syntax that is the problem:
Some of them were badly wounded, and they were left to die.
Here are some more examples showing that "some (of them) badly
wounded" does not have the same distribution as an actual adjective
phrase:
During the skirmish, there were soldiers wounded.
During the skirmish, there were soldiers badly wounded.
?*During the skirmish, there were soldiers some of them badly
wounded.
?*During the skirmish, there were soldiers some badly wounded.
(cf. During the skirmish, there were soldiers, some (of them)
badly wounded.)
The soldiers were proclaimed wounded.
The soldiers were proclaimed badly wounded.
*The soldiers were proclaimed some of them badly wounded.
*The soldiers were proclaimed some badly wounded.
*As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed wounded.
*As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed badly wounded.
As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed some of them badly
wounded.
As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed some badly wounded.
How wounded were the soldiers?
How badly wounded were the soldiers?
*How some of them badly wounded were the soldiers?
*How some badly wounded were the soldiers?
Were the soldiers wounded?
Were the soldiers badly wounded?
*Were the soldiers some of them wounded?
*Were the soldiers some wounded?
Did their captor order the soldiers wounded?
Did their captor order the soldiers badly wounded?
*Did their captor order the soldiers some of them badly wounded?
*Did their captor order the soldiers some badly wounded?
Wounded is what the soldiers were.
Badly wounded is what the soldiers were.
?*Some of them badly wounded is what the soldiers were.
?*Some badly wounded is what the soldiers were.
It was the soldiers, not the generals, who were wounded.
It was the soldiers, not the generals, who were badly wounded.
*It was the soldiers, not the generals, who were some of them
badly wounded.
*It was the soldiers, not the generals, who were some badly
wounded.
The soldiers that were wounded trudged down the road.
The soldiers that were badly wounded trudged down the road.
*The soldiers that were some of them badly wounded trudged
down the road.
*The soldiers that were some badly wounded trudged
down the road.
Being wounded, the soldiers decided to rest.
Being badly wounded, the soldiers decided to rest.
*Being some of them badly wounded, the soldiers decided to rest.
*Being some badly wounded, the soldiers decided to rest.
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in sci.lang:
> In article <GCysk.198357$Mn3.1...@newsfe30.ams2>,
> "Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Nathan Sanders" <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in message
>> news:nsanders-2D4E08...@news.newsguy.com...
[...]
>>> *The soldiers were some of them badly wounded.
>> Cf. They are none of them to be trusted.
> The last two are just not grammatical for me (without
> significant pauses---see my response to Joe).
For me the first isn't, but the second is a familiar idiom,
and it's possible that I've used it. It definitely requires
the 'of them', however,
[...]
Brian
Richard Wordingham
> In article <GCysk.198357$Mn3.1...@newsfe30.ams2>,
> "Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Nathan Sanders" <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in message
>> news:nsanders-2D4E08...@news.newsguy.com...
>> > In article <UJksk.46563$6p1....@newsfe19.ams2>,
>> > "Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> The semantics are clear enough. 'Some of them badly wounded' is a
>> >> continuative, rather than attributive phrase qualifying 'dozens of
>> >> soldiers'. Being continuative rather than attributive, it gets set
>> >> off
>> >> by
>> >> commas. 'Wounded' is modified twice - 'badly' modifies the degree and
>> >> 'some
>> >> of them' its scope.
>> > Why do you think "some of them" modifies "wounded"? "Some (of them)"
>> > is a quantifier, and quantifiers modify nouns, not adjectives (Some
>> > people are happy, *People are some happy).
>> The *semantics* are similar to those of 'occasionally' in 'occasionally
>> clever'.
> The semantics are irrelevant here. "Occasionally" is an adverb, "some
> of them" is not an adverb, so you can't compare them syntactically.
That claim makes sense if new sentences are formed using generative
grammars. It doesn't work if new sentences are formed on analogy.
What part of speech is 'all' in 'The pupils were all intelligent'? It seems
to me that it is an adverb. You then get the chain of sentences:
1. Dozens of soldiers, all badly wounded, trudged along the road.
2. Dozens of soldiers, all of them badly wounded, trudged along the road.
3. Dozens of soldiers, some of them badly wounded, trudged along the road.
>> > "Some of them badly wounded" is clearly not any sort of adjective
>> > phrase, because it can't arbitrarily replace an actual adjective like
>> > "wounded":
> Are you claiming that "some of them badly wounded" is also frozen?
No, I was objecting to your test. Some adjective phrases, such as those
with complements, cannot precede the noun, at least without pauses. I had
been thinking that the rule was that long phrases had to follow. There is
another class of adjective phrases which must follow, the relative clauses.
Perhaps you do not consider relative clauses to be adjective phrases.
> For the record, I don't think "some of them" modifies "badly wounded",
> or vice versa. I think they're in a different kind of relationship,
> more akin to subject-predicate, forming something like what some
> syntacticians call a "small clause".
'Some of them' modifies the connection betweeh the head phrase 'dozens of
soldiers' and 'badly wounded'. Specifically, it stops it applying to all of
them. (There is the additional complication that the application is to
individual soldiers rather than individual dozens. Do you have a pleasant
method of handling that?)
> I, my syntax books, and Google have never heard of a "continuative
> adjective phrase", so I have no idea what that is supposed to be, or
> what tests one can use to identify it syntactically.
I've been used to the division of relative clauses into attributive and
continuative. Some call attributive relative clauses restrictive, and
Grecians call the other type non-restrictive, dividing them into
appositional and continuative. Others seem to use the term 'appositional'
where I have been using 'continuative'. It looks as though my best course
is to replace 'continuative' by 'non-restrictive'.
I'm not sure that there are syntactic tests for identifying non-restrictive
adjective phrases. In good written English, commas usually identify them.
I've a feeling intonation or tempo identify non-restrictive and restrictive
adjectives in my speech, but it may be a distinction only evident to me.
>> > The wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
>> > The badly wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
>> > *The some of them badly wounded soldiers trudged down the road.
Rewording what I said before:
The third sentence jars because of a non-restrictive adjective phrase being
used where a restrictive adjective would be expected. While that's not
prohibited, it also lessens the grammaticality.
>> > The soldiers were wounded.
>> > The soldiers were badly wounded.
>> > *The soldiers were some of them badly wounded.
>> Cf. They are none of them to be trusted.
> The last two are just not grammatical for me (without significant
> pauses---see my response to Joe). Also, I can't drop "of them" here,
> even though I can drop it in the original:
Clearly there are major idiolet differences here. It does not surprise me.
>> > The soldiers seemed wounded.
>> > The soldiers seemed badly wounded.
>> > *The soldiers seemed some of them badly wounded.
>> Cf. 'They seemed, some of them unserviceable, some noxious, some no
>> better
>> than a sport to children, until contemplative ability, combining with
>> practical skill, tamed their wild nature, subdued them to use, and
>> rendered
>> them at once the most powerful and the most tractable agents in
>> subservience
>> to the great views and designs of men.' - Edmund Burke, 'Reflections on
>> the
>> Revolution in France'.
>
> Note the commas, indicating pauses.
I think the comma after 'seemed' is now grammatically incorrect. Its
purpose is to bracket 'some of them ... children', and that usage is
considered wrong nowadays. In particular, it does not introduce a
parenthetic remark, and so is different to other examples we have discussed.
>> Again, the association is ambiguous in your example, but not in Edmund
>> Burke's sentence. I disagree with the asterisk, though I won't dispute
>> that
>> the third sentence is infelicitous.
>
> I don't see why it should be. Its meaning is perfectly clear.
>
>> > The wounded were left to die.
>> > The badly wounded were left to die.
>> > *The some of them badly wounded were left to die.
>
> (The third sentence does need context, in order to get reference for
> "them". Something like "The soldiers had a rough day today".)
> The following sentence is a grammatical paraphrase (i.e., having
> identical truth conditions), indicating that the semantics are just
> fine. It's the syntax that is the problem:
>
> Some of them were badly wounded, and they were left to die.
In the functional examples 'some of them' implies that not all of those
being described were badly wounded. I therefore still maintain, replacing
'continuative' by 'non-restrictive', that
>> As 'some of them badly wounded' is necessarily continuative, the sentence
>> is
>> ruled out on semantic grounds - the adjective phrase is inconsistent with
>> the meaning of the 'the' + adjective. I think the same argument applies
>> if
>> you replace 'some' by 'all' or 'none', though it is not as strong.
Note also:
*The fond of chocolate were disappointed.
> Here are some more examples showing that "some (of them) badly
> wounded" does not have the same distribution as an actual adjective
> phrase:
>
> During the skirmish, there were soldiers wounded.
> During the skirmish, there were soldiers badly wounded.
> ?*During the skirmish, there were soldiers some of them badly
> wounded.
> ?*During the skirmish, there were soldiers some badly wounded.
This construction needs a verb, not an adjective. I believe the verb in
these constructions remains finite, though I'm not sure how to demonstrate
that.
> (cf. During the skirmish, there were soldiers, some (of them)
> badly wounded.)
To whch the simple analogue is 'During the skirmish, there were wounded
soldiers.'.
> The soldiers were proclaimed wounded.
> The soldiers were proclaimed badly wounded.
> *The soldiers were proclaimed some of them badly wounded.
> *The soldiers were proclaimed some badly wounded.
This gets messier - but then quantification is messy and varies between
idiolects.
We have:
The soldiers were some of them declared badly wounded. - OK
The soldiers were all declared badly wounded. - OK
but
*The soldiers were some declared badly wounded.
> *As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed wounded.
> *As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed badly wounded.
> As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed some of them badly
> wounded.
> As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed some badly wounded.
The last two are SVOC - there is no 'some (of them) badly wounded'
constituent.
> How wounded were the soldiers?
> How badly wounded were the soldiers?
> *How some of them badly wounded were the soldiers?
> *How some badly wounded were the soldiers?
Cf. *How all (of them) badly wounded were the Soldiers
>
> Were the soldiers wounded?
> Were the soldiers badly wounded?
> *Were the soldiers some of them wounded?
> *Were the soldiers some wounded?
I reckon sentence 3 as grammatical - not that I wouldn't recommend recasting
it.
> Did their captor order the soldiers wounded?
> Did their captor order the soldiers badly wounded?
> *Did their captor order the soldiers some of them badly wounded?
> *Did their captor order the soldiers some badly wounded?
This construction requires a verb, not an adjective. However as the use
with verbs may also be of interest:
Did their captor order the soldiers all of them badly wounded? - ?OK
Did their captor order the soldiers all badly wounded? - OK
> Wounded is what the soldiers were.
> Badly wounded is what the soldiers were.
> ?*Some of them badly wounded is what the soldiers were.
> ?*Some badly wounded is what the soldiers were.
> It was the soldiers, not the generals, who were wounded.
> It was the soldiers, not the generals, who were badly wounded.
> *It was the soldiers, not the generals, who were some of them
> badly wounded.
> *It was the soldiers, not the generals, who were some badly
> wounded.
I'd make the third sentence doubtfully ungrammatical.
> The soldiers that were wounded trudged down the road.
> The soldiers that were badly wounded trudged down the road.
> *The soldiers that were some of them badly wounded trudged
> down the road.
> *The soldiers that were some badly wounded trudged
> down the road.
The third sentence is grammatical if one is saying which group of soldiers
trudged down the road. Otherwise it is ungrammatical because one is using
an inherently non-restrictive predicate to form a restrictive clause.
> Being wounded, the soldiers decided to rest.
> Being badly wounded, the soldiers decided to rest.
> *Being some of them badly wounded, the soldiers decided to rest.
> *Being some badly wounded, the soldiers decided to rest.
Doubtfully ungrammatical.
In both our idiolects, 'some of them badly wounded' is at least as much an
adjective phrase as a relative clause is.
Richard.
Nathan Sanders
"Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In both our idiolects, 'some of them badly wounded' is at least as much an
> adjective phrase as a relative clause is.
Which is to say, not at all. Plenty of relative clauses don't even
contain an adjective. How could they possibly be adjective phrases?
I think you're confusing function with form. Just because something
"modifies" a noun (for some vague notion of "modify") doesn't mean it
is an adjective. It's precisely this sort of muddled thinking that
led traditional grammarians to wrongly categorize determiners as
adjectives.
Nathan Sanders
"Richard Wordingham" <jrw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I don't see why generative grammar is relevant at all. All that's
relevant is the pattern of grammaticality.
> What part of speech is 'all' in 'The pupils were all intelligent'? It seems
> to me that it is an adverb.
Traditional grammarians used "adverb" as the trash bin of grammar, to
dump anything that didn't easily fit into any other category. I find
that very unhelpful.
This case of "all" is usually analyzed in modern syntax as a floating
quantifier (note that the domain of "all" is "the student", not
"intelligent"). There is a whole wealth of literature on the topic,
far too much to even delve into here.
> >> > The soldiers were wounded.
> >> > The soldiers were badly wounded.
> >> > *The soldiers were some of them badly wounded.
> >> Cf. They are none of them to be trusted.
>
> > The last two are just not grammatical for me (without significant
> > pauses---see my response to Joe). Also, I can't drop "of them" here,
> > even though I can drop it in the original:
>
> Clearly there are major idiolet differences here. It does not surprise me.
Can you drop "of them"? I have:
*The soldiers were some badly wounded.
*The soldiers were none badly wounded.
*The soldiers were few badly wounded.
*The soldiers were most badly wounded.
*The soldiers were three badly wounded.
I think "each" and "all" are the only possible floating quantifiers in
English (other languages differ).
> > During the skirmish, there were soldiers wounded.
> > During the skirmish, there were soldiers badly wounded.
> > ?*During the skirmish, there were soldiers some of them badly
> > wounded.
> > ?*During the skirmish, there were soldiers some badly wounded.
>
> This construction needs a verb, not an adjective.
That isn't quite true. A prepositional phrase works, and we still get
the same pattern:
During the skirmish, there were soldiers in despair.
*During the skirmish, there were soldiers some of them in despair.
Regardless, even with a verb in there, we get exactly the same pattern:
During the skirmish, there were soldiers running away.
*During the skirmish, there were soldiers some of them
running away.
The point is that "X" and "some of them X" do not have the same
distribution. One can be used here, and the other can't, which
suggests they are different things.
> > *As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed wounded.
> > *As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed badly wounded.
> > As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed some of them badly
> > wounded.
> > As for the soldiers, the general proclaimed some badly wounded.
>
> The last two are SVOC - there is no 'some (of them) badly wounded'
> constituent.
Irrelevant. If you think "some (of them) badly wounded" is an
adjective phrase, then it should have the same distribution as other
adjective phrases.
Again, we see that the pattern is different, which is the point.
Having systematically different grammaticality, construction after
construction after construction, strongly points to them being
different syntactic objects. Since "(badly) wounded" must obviously
be an adjective phrase (what else could it possibly be?!), that means
"some (of them) badly wounded" cannot be.
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-73D468...@news.newsguy.com> in
sci.lang:
[...]
> I think "each" and "all" are the only possible floating quantifiers in
> English (other languages differ).
How do you analyze 'mostly' in 'The students were mostly
intelligent'?
[...]
Brian
Nathan Sanders
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:43:42 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
> <news:nsanders-73D468...@news.newsguy.com> in
> sci.lang:
>
> > I think "each" and "all" are the only possible floating quantifiers in
> > English (other languages differ).
>
> How do you analyze 'mostly' in 'The students were mostly
> intelligent'?
Adverb... the -ly ending is a dead giveaway!
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-6B0056...@news.newsguy.com> in
sci.lang:
> In article <1derqyq1gwhmg.ubr61k1harki$.d...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:43:42 -0400, Nathan Sanders
>> <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
>> <news:nsanders-73D468...@news.newsguy.com> in
>> sci.lang:
>>> I think "each" and "all" are the only possible floating quantifiers in
>>> English (other languages differ).
>> How do you analyze 'mostly' in 'The students were mostly
>> intelligent'?
> Adverb... the -ly ending is a dead giveaway!
Now was that really a seemly remark? <g>
Brian
Bart Mathias
At least he avoided confusing form with function!
Bart Mathias
Nathan Sanders
Nathan Sanders
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:04:23 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
> <news:nsanders-6B0056...@news.newsguy.com> in
> sci.lang:
>
> > In article <1derqyq1gwhmg.ubr61k1harki$.d...@40tude.net>,
> > "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:43:42 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> >> <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
> >> <news:nsanders-73D468...@news.newsguy.com> in
> >> sci.lang:
>
> >>> I think "each" and "all" are the only possible floating quantifiers in
> >>> English (other languages differ).
>
> >> How do you analyze 'mostly' in 'The students were mostly
> >> intelligent'?
>
> > Adverb... the -ly ending is a dead giveaway!
>
> Now was that really a seemly remark? <g>
Don't hide your snark behind that friendly grin.
Thinking more about it, I'm pretty sure it's an adverb. It can appear
in the same places ordinary adverbs like "usually" can, with the same
intonation and pauses:
Mostly, the students were intelligent.
The students mostly were intelligent.
The students were mostly intelligent.
The students were intelligent... mostly.
Usually, the students were intelligent.
The students usually were intelligent.
The students were usually intelligent.
The students were intelligent... usually.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <1u1cdp4fhmd9p$.rtzma4ppvgup$....@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:04:23 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> > <news:nsanders-6B0056...@news.newsguy.com> in
> > sci.lang:
>
> > > In article <1derqyq1gwhmg.ubr61k1harki$....@40tude.net>,
> > > "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:43:42 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> > >> <news:nsanders-73D468...@news.newsguy.com> in
> > >> sci.lang:
>
> > >>> I think "each" and "all" are the only possible floating quantifiers in
> > >>> English (other languages differ).
>
> > >> How do you analyze 'mostly' in 'The students were mostly
> > >> intelligent'?
>
> > > Adverb... the -ly ending is a dead giveaway!
>
> > Now was that really a seemly remark? <g>
>
> Don't hide your snark behind that friendly grin.
>
> Thinking more about it, I'm pretty sure it's an adverb. It can appear
> in the same places ordinary adverbs like "usually" can, with the same
> intonation and pauses:
>
> Mostly, the students were intelligent.
> The students mostly were intelligent.
> The students were mostly intelligent.
> The students were intelligent... mostly.
>
> Usually, the students were intelligent.
> The students usually were intelligent.
> The students were usually intelligent.
> The students were intelligent... usually.
That takes care of the 'most of the time' reading, but not of the
'most of them' reading.
Nathan Sanders
<08c1f1d8-61a6-4a34...@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
That ambiguity presumably comes from the collective versus
distributive reading inherent to all definite NPs.
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-B7C94A...@news.newsguy.com> in
sci.lang:
> In article <1u1cdp4fhmd9p$.rtzma4ppvgup$.d...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:04:23 -0400, Nathan Sanders
>> <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
>> <news:nsanders-6B0056...@news.newsguy.com> in
>> sci.lang:
>>> In article <1derqyq1gwhmg.ubr61k1harki$.d...@40tude.net>,
>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:43:42 -0400, Nathan Sanders
>>>> <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
>>>> <news:nsanders-73D468...@news.newsguy.com> in
>>>> sci.lang:
>>>>> I think "each" and "all" are the only possible floating quantifiers in
>>>>> English (other languages differ).
>>>> How do you analyze 'mostly' in 'The students were mostly
>>>> intelligent'?
>>> Adverb... the -ly ending is a dead giveaway!
>> Now was that really a seemly remark? <g>
> Don't hide your snark behind that friendly grin.
What snark? Since <-ly> can also be adjectival, as in this
use of <seemly>, I was amused by the justification --
especially after your earlier form/function comment! I've
no quarrel with the analysis.
[...]
Nathan Sanders
Sorry, I should I have added my own friend*ly* grin...
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-35D6A7...@news.newsguy.com> in
sci.lang:
[...]
> Sorry, I should I have added my own friend*ly* grin...
Oops. Missed that. (My excuse is that yesterday was Black
Monday, otherwise known as the first day of classes.)
Brian
Nathan Sanders
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:19:31 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
> <news:nsanders-35D6A7...@news.newsguy.com> in
> sci.lang:
>
> > Sorry, I should I have added my own friend*ly* grin...
>
> Oops. Missed that. (My excuse is that yesterday was Black
> Monday, otherwise known as the first day of classes.)
We start late... my first class isn't until *next* Thursday!
anal...@hotmail.com
> In article <ldd9wprz7wrg.iig8o69ycrps$....@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:42:20 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> > <news:nsanders-B7C94A...@news.newsguy.com> in
> > sci.lang:
>
> > > In article <1u1cdp4fhmd9p$.rtzma4ppvgup$....@40tude.net>,
> > > "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:04:23 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> > >> <news:nsanders-6B0056...@news.newsguy.com> in
> > >> sci.lang:
>
> > >>> In article <1derqyq1gwhmg.ubr61k1harki$....@40tude.net>,
> > >>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:43:42 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> > >>>> <news:nsanders-73D468...@news.newsguy.com> in
> > >>>> sci.lang:
>
> > >>>>> I think "each" and "all" are the only possible floating quantifiers in
> > >>>>> English (other languages differ).
>
> > >>>> How do you analyze 'mostly' in 'The students were mostly
> > >>>> intelligent'?
>
> > >>> Adverb... the -ly ending is a dead giveaway!
>
> > >> Now was that really a seemly remark? <g>
>
> > > Don't hide your snark behind that friendly grin.
>
> > What snark? Since <-ly> can also be adjectival, as in this
> > use of <seemly>, I was amused by the justification --
> > especially after your earlier form/function comment! I've
> > no quarrel with the analysis.
>
> Sorry, I should I have added my own friend*ly* grin...
>
> Nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sanders
> Linguistics Program
>
> - Show quoted text -
The "ly" = adverb pseudo-rule leads to solecisms like "it was masterly
done" - for some reason peole shy away from "masterlily", although
they would use "friendlily" readily enough.
Brian M. Scott
<nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
<news:nsanders-8190C4...@news.newsguy.com> in
sci.lang:
> In article <1pq1h15lnya0s.1...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
>> (My excuse is that yesterday was Black Monday, otherwise
>> known as the first day of classes.)
> We start late... my first class isn't until *next*
> Thursday!
I wish that we started right after Labor Day; a long weekend
after the first week of classes breaks the continuity much
worse than long weekends later in the term. But finals week
is 8-13 December, so we probably get out earlier than you
do.
Brian
Nathan Sanders
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:44:45 -0400, Nathan Sanders
> <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote in
> <news:nsanders-8190C4...@news.newsguy.com> in
> sci.lang:
>
> > In article <1pq1h15lnya0s.1...@40tude.net>,
> > "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> >> (My excuse is that yesterday was Black Monday, otherwise
> >> known as the first day of classes.)
>
> > We start late... my first class isn't until *next*
> > Thursday!
>
> I wish that we started right after Labor Day; a long weekend
> after the first week of classes breaks the continuity much
> worse than long weekends later in the term. But finals week
> is 8-13 December, so we probably get out earlier than you
> do.
By a few days. Our last finals are the 15th.
Our semesters are *really* short, only 12 weeks, but we do have a
required January session. Still, I think we're in school less than
just about everybody else!
Peter T. Daniels
> The "ly" = adverb pseudo-rule leads to solecisms like "it was masterly
> done" - for some reason peole shy away from "masterlily", although
> they would use "friendlily" readily enough.-
Where do you _get_ this stuff??
Neither three nor two reduced syllables in a row are favored in
English prosody.
Adam Funk
> In article <u8wumg...@verizon.net>,
> Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> writes:
>>
>> > The soldiers seemed wounded.
>> > The soldiers seemed badly wounded.
>> > *The soldiers seemed some of them badly wounded.
>>
>> That one actually seems acceptable to me, at least in speech.
>
> Without interruptive pauses? The following is marginally okay for me:
>
> The soldiers seemed---some of them---badly wounded.
>
> But I can't use the third with the same intonation I'd use for the
> first two.
Just an observation on a different dialect, but I think I've heard
English people say things like "The soldiers seemed all of them..."
and "...some of them..." without pauses.
--
I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me
and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press
away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ]
Nathan Sanders
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2008-08-24, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > In article <u8wumg...@verizon.net>,
> > Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> > The soldiers seemed wounded.
> >> > The soldiers seemed badly wounded.
> >> > *The soldiers seemed some of them badly wounded.
> >>
> >> That one actually seems acceptable to me, at least in speech.
> >
> > Without interruptive pauses? The following is marginally okay for me:
> >
> > The soldiers seemed---some of them---badly wounded.
> >
> > But I can't use the third with the same intonation I'd use for the
> > first two.
>
> Just an observation on a different dialect, but I think I've heard
> English people say things like "The soldiers seemed all of them..."
> and "...some of them..." without pauses.
That could be. I'm not familiar with English English syntax.
Adam Funk
>> What part of speech is 'all' in 'The pupils were all intelligent'? It seems
>> to me that it is an adverb.
>
> Traditional grammarians used "adverb" as the trash bin of grammar, to
> dump anything that didn't easily fit into any other category. I find
> that very unhelpful.
>
> This case of "all" is usually analyzed in modern syntax as a floating
> quantifier (note that the domain of "all" is "the student", not
> "intelligent"). There is a whole wealth of literature on the topic,
> far too much to even delve into here.
Is Quirk et al's _Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_ the
one that divides determiners into articles, quantifiers, etc.,
explains them in detail (which ones can go before or after which other
ones, for example)?
--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele]
Adam Funk
>> Just an observation on a different dialect, but I think I've heard
>> English people say things like "The soldiers seemed all of them..."
>> and "...some of them..." without pauses.
>
> That could be. I'm not familiar with English English syntax.
It might be disappearing or only in a few dialects; I haven't heard it
very much, but it sounded natural when I did.