Re: Dealing with an idea deficit...

Roger wrote:

<<Can you summon up any specifics or examples from the memory banks? 150
seems
an awful lot.>>

It was an awful lot (and I seem to remember the exact number being something
like 176),
but it's not like she was coming up with categories like "transitive" and
"ditransitive", etc.
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.   I think it's bad, but others might not.   Also, if
you
add a "would" it becomes grammatical in all dialects, I believe.)   Now
compare "like" to "hate":

(3) "to hate"
(a) I hate cookies.
(b) I hate to eat.
(c) I hate for him to read.
(d) *I hate him to read.
(e) I hate that he's okay with that.

I'm *pretty* sure that (3d) is bad in all dialects, and adding "would"
doesn't
make it any better.   So that's a third class.   These are the kind of
miniscule
distinctions that the author in question draws attention to.   And the book
is,
essentially, just a big list of these, with a note about the other verbs that
work
*exactly* like the verb being described.   Any of the linguists on the list
know
what book I'm talking about?

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/

Reply