Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: quadrivalent verb

From:Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>
Date:Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 13:02
Alternatively,
"It is assured that he is not coming."

I don't see the logic behind considering it an argument slot, or else "I
think that he is right" would involve a bivalent verb, which is hardly so.

If we had to strictly give a term to the function of that "that" in your
"assured" sentence, I say it is an alternative nominalisation equivalent to
"his not coming" and completely non-syntactic.

Eugene

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:

> 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. > > > > Eugene > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 00:54, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@yahoo.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > As for English tetravalent verbs; maybe "bet" is a good one? > >> > >> Hm, compelling. > >> > >> For example, "[I] bet [you] [20 bucks] [he's not coming]". > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -- > >> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> > >> > > > > > > -- > Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> >

Reply

Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>