Re: Dealing with an idea deficit...

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:13:19 -0400, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:

>David Peterson wrote:
>> Roger wrote:
>>
>> <<Can you summon up any specifics or examples from the memory banks? 150
>> seems
>> an awful lot.>>
>>
>> She was grouping verbs together that worked the same in *all* sentences.
>> So
>> here are two
>> similar examples:
>>
>> (1) "to like"
>> (a) I like cookies.
>> (b) I like to eat.
>> (c) I like for him to read.
>> (d) ?I like him to read.
>> (e) I like that he's okay with that.
>>
>> (2) "to want"
>> (a) I want cookies.
>> (b) I want to eat.
>> (c) I want for him to read.
>> (d) I want him to read.
>> (e) *I want that he's okay with that.
>>
>> Based on the examples above, these two verbs, though very similar,
>> form two distinct classes.   This is because (1e) is okay but (2e) isn't.
>> ( (2d) is negligible.
>
>That's similar to what the person I mentioned who was doing the Venn
>diagrams was doing. [Parse that sentence!!] I've tried to find his/her
posts
>in the archive but no luck; I'm sure it was within the past year. Is he/she
>still with us? Lurking? Does anyone else remember, or have the site
>bookmarked?
>
>Thanks to Sylvia for the book title.  It sounds worthwile.
Andrew Patterson endipatterson [at] YAHOO [dot] COM

There are a number of messages earlier this year. One (from May 2) is at
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-
bin/wa?A2=ind0405A&L=conlang&P=R6001&D=0&O=D

You may have to copy and paste (or retype) it.
This contains the link:
    http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/Catenative.html
but I haven't checked to see if it's still valid.

I

Reply