Re: It's vs. it is

David Peterson wrote:

> In a message dated 4/16/01 6:13:50 PM, pearson@HUMNET.UCLA.EDU writes:
>
> << What do you mean by "subject position"?  "Is" is not--and cannot be--a
> subject.
>
> If what you mean is that "is" can be contracted when it follows a subject,
> then
> your rule doesn't work:  In the sentence "I don't know what it is", "it" is
> the
> subject of the embedded clause. >>
>
> Well, your first point is pretty obvious, and might've gone withouts stating.
>  All the same, I thank you for pointing out my shocking inattention to
> detail.  I should be ashamed of myself.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you.


> Anyway, as for the second, I defy
> you to come up with another example that doesn't contain a question word.  "I
> don't know that it is"?  There are a few.  But there is a rule that would
> explain this phenomena completely, though it disregards any sort of
> Chomskyian structure or any sort of grammar rule.  That is rule is: You can
> only elide the conjugated form of the verb "to be" (or "to have") with the
> previous noun if something follows it.  I think (haven't thought through it
> too hard) that this rule takes care of everything.  Can anyone think up any
> counterexamples?
Well, it depends on what you mean by having something following it.  "Be" and
"have" can't be contracted, I think, if there's a gap after them--e.g., a deleted
verb phrase or adjective phrase--even if they're in the middle of a sentence.
Others might disagree, but these are my judgements:

The following two sentences are both fine:

  Andrea is happy, and Martin is happy too.
  Andrea's happy, and Martin's happy too.

This one is fine as well, with "happy" deleted from the second conjunct:

  Andrea is happy, and Martin is too.

But not this one:

  *Andrea's happy, and Martin's too.

Somehow "Martin is" can't be contracted to "Martin's" in this case.  Similarly
for this set:

  Andrea is leaving for Rome on Saturday, and Martin is leaving for Rome on
Sunday.
  Andrea's leaving for Rome on Saturday, and Martin's leaving for Rome on Sunday.

  Andrea is leaving for Rome on Saturday, and Martin is on Sunday.

Those three are good for me (although the third sentence is ever so slightly
stilted, and requires a special intonational contour).  However, this sentence is
no good:

  *Andrea's leaving for Rome on Saturday, and Martin's on Sunday.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what the rule for contraction is, but my intuition is that
it must make reference both to prosody (stress/intonation, position in the
sentence, etc.), and to constituent structure ('Chomskyan' or otherwise).

Matt.