Re: Relative pronoun?

On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 08:11:19AM -0800, Marcus Smith wrote:
> At 12/18/00 11:41 PM -0800, you wrote:
[snip]
> >The phrase "what to do" functions as a direct object here,
> >since it is the thing "I know".  Therefore, it is a noun phrase.
>
> Functioning as a "direct object" does not necessarily make something a noun
> phrase. In
>
> "I didn't know that John was sick"
>
> "that John was sick" is also acting as the direct object, but I don't think
> it would be reasonable to call it a noun phrase -- not unless you define
> "noun phrase" in such a way as to divorce the term from nouns altogether.
Interesting... I'm struggling with noun phrases and indirect discourse in
my conlang right now, and I'm having trouble differentiating between the
two. I'm trying to unify direct/indirect discourse, so that the following
two sentences would be rendered identically:
        "I said to her, Look at that house!"
        "I said to her to look(?) at that house."

The problem is, can the phrase "look at that house" be regarded as a verb
argument? (Indirect object?) Because it could potentially cause
ambiguities, for example:
   (a)  She told them that the house fell down.
   (b)  She told them about the house falling down.

If we regard both cases as (in)direct objects, then my conlang would
render them identically -- which may not be desirable. What's the
"correct" (or formal?) analysis of the above sentences? Is the phrase in
(a) a direct/indirect object, or is it a subclause, or what is it?


Awaiting enlightenment, :-)

T

--
Computers are like a jungle: they have monitor lizards, rams, mice, c-moss...