Re: Disambiguation of arg ument reference

Muke Tever writes:
 > From: "Tim May" <butsuri@...>
 > > Muke Tever writes:
          [Someone writes]
 > >  > > >Something doesn't seem right here. You can't say *"What are you putting
 > >  > > >on?" because you're leaving out an entire argument - the object placed.
 > >  >
 > >  > Actually I think you can't do it because "putting on" is a different verb
 > >  > (meaning 'to don').
 > >
 > > Well, can you say "What are you putting into?", which doesn't have
 > > this problem?
 >
 > Actually I would read "putting into" as a different verb also (either "put in"
 > meaning "to dock" or "putt" as in golf, the answer being "the 18th hole").
 >
Okay, so what about "putting with"?  (In speech, so you know we're not
talking about golf.)

 > And don't think this is just being picky... I think that particular structure
 > _invites_ parsing the verb + preposition as a phrasal verb, and can't admit that
 > an extra argument is needed in the answer.
 >
 > It looks kind of like what the pedantic might recast as *"Into what are you
 > putting?", which is more clearly one-answer-wanted.  If you want more answers
 > you need more question words.
 >
 >

I think I've lost the thread of this argument, frankly.  "Into what
are you putting" is still ungrammatical, yes?