Re: Question for English Speakers about Secondary Predicates (also posted on ZBB)

Chris Bates wrote:

>>>
If secondary predicates were just a matter of moving adjectives that are
in focus out
of NPs, then why is this sentence ungrammatical, or odd to say the
least?
"The man chased the fox brown."
<<<

Perhaps because there are at least two other competing analyses?
- The man chased the fox underground.
- The man chased the fox on horseback.
I'm not sure whether it's only pragmatic considerations that would
decide between the three, or whether syntactic properties of the
constituents have a bearing too.

Chris also wrote:
>>>
I want people's judgement about the following sentences:
(1) The man ate some meat raw.
(2) The man ate some raw meat.
<<<

(2) is unequivocally acceptable for me. My initial feelings on (1) were
that it looks odd, but on reflection, I suspect it could sound natural,
but only under very specific conditions.

Say a husband and wife come into hospital with food poisoning. The
doctors discuss the cause:
- Did they have anything unusual to eat last night?
- Well, they were at a barbecue where everyone cooked their own food.
- Did they make sure they cooked everything properly?
- Yes, but they didn't cook everything. The man ate some meat raw,
without cooking it at all.

The word 'some' would be stressed - it doesn't sound grammatical to me
unless this is the case. I think 'some meat' here is really a
contraction of 'some of the/his meat', so there is still a definite
referent buried within the phrase.

Hope this helps!
Jonathan (native speaker of British English).
==