Re: quadrivalent verb
|From:||Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 12:50|
On the one hand, I'm not sure the "that" qualifies as an adposition
here. If you plop a clause into any other argument slot, you need a
"that", even if it's not acting as a conjunction:
"That he's not coming is assured" - Subject
On the other, you can't put anything *but* a clause into the alleged
fourth argument slot of "bet", whereas the other three can have
arbitrary pronoun/noun phrases. Which makes me think it's not really
an argument slot.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Eugene Oh <un.doing@...> wrote:
> This is much different from the book sale example. The clause "he's not
> coming" should not qualify because it is missing an optional "that" in
> front, whereas "her" in the book sale example was genuinely promoted via a
> syntactic switch to fulfill the same purpose as the preposition.
> And, since the preposition "to" qualifies in argument-defining, the
> preposition "for" should also qualify.
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 00:54, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...>
>> > As for English tetravalent verbs; maybe "bet" is a good one?
>> Hm, compelling.
>> For example, "[I] bet [you] [20 bucks] [he's not coming]".
>> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>