| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Brian M. Scott
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:57 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
 |
|
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:39:17 -0700 (PDT),
"benlizro@ihug.co.nz" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
<news:0b369936-771f-4abc-9215-b36d6bb5efc0@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[quote]On Oct 10, 12:17 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]Davidson could get away with it if anyone could. I>d like
to see it in context, but out of context my own version
would be:
One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of
course, the greatest thing about it is that it>s no
longer private, the first thing the King-Emperor
having done, upon succeeding the reclusive
Mazzimilian the Mad on the throne, having
being
[/quote]
Ack! Now that was pure typo on my part: of course I meant
'having been'.
[quote]to throw open the Private Park to the public.
Blech. Sorry, putting more -ing>s in just makes it worse.
May be a genuine difference of grammars here.
[/quote]
For me 'did' is impossible; the construction requires
'having done', which then requires 'having been'.
Brian |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
benlizro@ihug.co.nz
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 10, 5:51 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:09:58 -0700 (PDT),
"benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:fc031b2b-fc85-4244-850f-d72e715f99fb@u40g2000pru.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of
course, the greatest thing about it is that it>s no
longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the
reclusive Mazzimilian the Mad on the throne, being
to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.' --
Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
[...]
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
Exactly.
The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute.
Understood "was" (main verb of the participial structure)
is replaced by "being", indicating that this is the
explanation or reason for the main clause. Now if you
have subordinate clauses within your participial
structure, at least in my English, you do _not_ want to
participialize the verbs in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we
decided to stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going",
or any combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s
what Davidson has done.
But that>s not the same construction.
[/quote]
? What>s the difference you see?
Here>s one that
[quote]actually is analogous and lacks the extra bits:
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother having
done upon leaving the house being to put up the
umbrella.
[/quote]
This is postposed rather than preposed, but I don>t see why that
should make a difference. It>s otherwise parallel to my example in
that the main verb is BE, and the subject contains a relative clause
whose verb you want to participialize and I don>t.
[quote]
I don>t like 'being', though I can tolerate it. My version
is:
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother having
done upon leaving the house having been to put up
the umbrella.
But my backbrain is a bit fanatical about parallelism.
Brian
[/quote]
Nope, still doesn>t work for me. "(having) been" is essential in the
above, and "having done" is wrong. I guess we have to admit we>re
talking about different grammars. Poor António must be very confused
by now.
Ross Clark |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brian M. Scott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:09:58 -0700 (PDT),
"benlizro@ihug.co.nz" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
<news:fc031b2b-fc85-4244-850f-d72e715f99fb@u40g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[quote]On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of
course, the greatest thing about it is that it>s no
longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the
reclusive Mazzimilian the Mad on the throne, being
to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.' --
Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute.
Understood "was" (main verb of the participial structure)
is replaced by "being", indicating that this is the
explanation or reason for the main clause. Now if you
have subordinate clauses within your participial
structure, at least in my English, you do _not_ want to
participialize the verbs in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we
decided to stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going",
or any combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s
what Davidson has done.
[/quote]
But that>s not the same construction. Here>s one that
actually is analogous and lacks the extra bits:
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother having
done upon leaving the house being to put up the
umbrella.
I don>t like 'being', though I can tolerate it. My version
is:
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother having
done upon leaving the house having been to put up
the umbrella.
But my backbrain is a bit fanatical about parallelism.
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of course, the greatest
thing about it is that it>s no longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the reclusive Mazzimilian the
Mad on the throne, being to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.'
-- Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
I can neither read that 'having' as correct, nor find an alternative, at
least without a major rewrite. This is one of the Transbalkania stories,
in which I don>t know if Avram uses deliberately non-standard language
as he>s wont whenever possible.
In general terms, how do you apply the is -> being transformation to a
pluperfect? Is it the way above?
is -> being
will X -> will be Xing
was -> ?
had Xparticiple -> ? having Xparticiple ?
--
António Marques
The problem in the above is that the participial transformation should
be applied only to the main verb in the clause you>re trying to
participialize. The underlying clause is something like "The first
thing the King-Emperor did....was to throw open...", a kind of pseudo-
cleft in which "was" is the main verb.
I think "being" is OK there, but if the underlying form is "was", you
could use "having been". I think that>s the only available
alternative. The writer has attempted also to participialize the verb
in a lower clause ("did"), which just makes a mess. If you leave "did"
it reads tolerably, though I think it>s a mistake to combine the
clefting and the participle. Too much fancy syntax.
The "lower clause" isn>t a clause,
The clause I am talking about is "[which] the King-Emperor did", a
relative clause modifying "thing".
I>m talking about the corrected version without "which."
And you don>t consider that a clause?
[/quote]
Of course not. A olause has a subject and a predicate -- it>s what pre-
linguistic grammars called a "sentence."
[quote]everything after the colon is just
a long and awkward nominal.
I don>t know what you mean by "nominal", and calling it "awkward" is
hardly an analysis of what>s wrong with it.
There>s already a main verb in the very
first line, all the rest is decoration.
?? What do you consider the main verb? And main verb of what?
is
The greatest thing about it is that it>s no longer private
And that is the part of the sentence in which there is no problem at
all.
[/quote]
Obviously.
[quote]I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
[/quote]
The remainder of the sentence has no main verb.
[quote]A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute. Understood
"was" (main verb of the participial structure) is replaced by "being",
indicating that this is the explanation or reason for the main clause.
Now if you have subordinate clauses within your participial structure,
at least in my English, you do _not_ want to participialize the verbs
in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we decided to
stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going", or any
combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s what Davidson has
done.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brian M. Scott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT),
"benlizro@ihug.co.nz" <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
<news:1990d3ed-7555-428a-89b7-2b20dc42e56e@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[quote]On Oct 10, 5:51 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:09:58 -0700 (PDT),
"benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:fc031b2b-fc85-4244-850f-d72e715f99fb@u40g2000pru.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of
course, the greatest thing about it is that it>s no
longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the
reclusive Mazzimilian the Mad on the throne, being
to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.' --
Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
[...]
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
Exactly.
The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute.
Understood "was" (main verb of the participial structure)
is replaced by "being", indicating that this is the
explanation or reason for the main clause. Now if you
have subordinate clauses within your participial
structure, at least in my English, you do _not_ want to
participialize the verbs in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we
decided to stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going",
or any combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s
what Davidson has done.
But that>s not the same construction.
? What>s the difference you see?
Here>s one that
actually is analogous and lacks the extra bits:
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother having
done upon leaving the house being to put up the
umbrella.
This is postposed rather than preposed, but I don>t see why that
should make a difference. It>s otherwise parallel to my example in
that the main verb is BE, and the subject contains a relative clause
whose verb you want to participialize and I don>t.
[/quote]
How do you convert it to something analogous to this?
[quote][The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we
decided to stay home.
[/quote]
Do you mean this?
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother did upon
leaving the house having been to put up the umbrella.
Hm, maybe you do. I just realized that what makes it sound
a bit off to me is that the second 'did' initially suggests
a comma-spliced sentence. Let>s flip it around:
The first thing our mother did upon leaving the house
having been to put up the umbrella, we did not get wet.
Okay, that works and may be the best of the lot. But I
still don>t like the flipped version very much.
[quote]I don>t like 'being', though I can tolerate it.
[/quote]
As a reader, that is.
[quote]My version is:
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother having
done upon leaving the house having been to put up
the umbrella.
But my backbrain is a bit fanatical about parallelism.
Nope, still doesn>t work for me. "(having) been" is
essential in the above, and "having done" is wrong.
[/quote]
I don>t actually *like* it, but I don>t much care for
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother did upon
leaving the house having been to put up the umbrella.
either.
[quote]I guess we have to admit we>re talking about different
grammars.
[/quote]
Probably, though I>d be interested to know whether yours
feels any difference between the two orders.
[quote]Poor António must be very confused by now.
[/quote]
I suspect that Davidson would be amused by it all if he were
still alive.
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
benlizro@ihug.co.nz
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 11, 12:52 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of course, the greatest
thing about it is that it>s no longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the reclusive Mazzimilian the
Mad on the throne, being to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.'
-- Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
I can neither read that 'having' as correct, nor find an alternative, at
least without a major rewrite. This is one of the Transbalkania stories,
in which I don>t know if Avram uses deliberately non-standard language
as he>s wont whenever possible.
In general terms, how do you apply the is -> being transformation to a
pluperfect? Is it the way above?
is -> being
will X -> will be Xing
was -> ?
had Xparticiple -> ? having Xparticiple ?
--
António Marques
The problem in the above is that the participial transformation should
be applied only to the main verb in the clause you>re trying to
participialize. The underlying clause is something like "The first
thing the King-Emperor did....was to throw open...", a kind of pseudo-
cleft in which "was" is the main verb.
I think "being" is OK there, but if the underlying form is "was", you
could use "having been". I think that>s the only available
alternative. The writer has attempted also to participialize the verb
in a lower clause ("did"), which just makes a mess. If you leave "did"
it reads tolerably, though I think it>s a mistake to combine the
clefting and the participle. Too much fancy syntax.
The "lower clause" isn>t a clause,
The clause I am talking about is "[which] the King-Emperor did", a
relative clause modifying "thing".
I>m talking about the corrected version without "which."
And you don>t consider that a clause?
Of course not. A olause has a subject and a predicate -- it>s what pre-
linguistic grammars called a "sentence."
[/quote]
And "the King-Emperor" and "did" would fail to qualify as subject and
predicate on what grounds?
[quote]everything after the colon is just
a long and awkward nominal.
I don>t know what you mean by "nominal", and calling it "awkward" is
hardly an analysis of what>s wrong with it.
There>s already a main verb in the very
first line, all the rest is decoration.
?? What do you consider the main verb? And main verb of what?
is
The greatest thing about it is that it>s no longer private
And that is the part of the sentence in which there is no problem at
all.
Obviously.
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
The remainder of the sentence has no main verb.
[/quote]
Still pursuing the via negativa, I see. So what would you consider
"being" in the original? I don>t mean just its part of speech, but its
function or relation to the rest of the sentence?
Ross Clark
[quote]
A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute. Understood
"was" (main verb of the participial structure) is replaced by "being",
indicating that this is the explanation or reason for the main clause.
Now if you have subordinate clauses within your participial structure,
at least in my English, you do _not_ want to participialize the verbs
in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we decided to
stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going", or any
combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s what Davidson has
done.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
benlizro@ihug.co.nz
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 11, 3:38 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT),
"benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:1990d3ed-7555-428a-89b7-2b20dc42e56e@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Oct 10, 5:51 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:09:58 -0700 (PDT),
"benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
news:fc031b2b-fc85-4244-850f-d72e715f99fb@u40g2000pru.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of
course, the greatest thing about it is that it>s no
longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the
reclusive Mazzimilian the Mad on the throne, being
to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.' --
Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
[...]
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
Exactly.
The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute.
Understood "was" (main verb of the participial structure)
is replaced by "being", indicating that this is the
explanation or reason for the main clause. Now if you
have subordinate clauses within your participial
structure, at least in my English, you do _not_ want to
participialize the verbs in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we
decided to stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going",
or any combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s
what Davidson has done.
But that>s not the same construction.
? What>s the difference you see?
Here>s one that
actually is analogous and lacks the extra bits:
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother having
done upon leaving the house being to put up the
umbrella.
This is postposed rather than preposed, but I don>t see why that
should make a difference. It>s otherwise parallel to my example in
that the main verb is BE, and the subject contains a relative clause
whose verb you want to participialize and I don>t.
How do you convert it to something analogous to this?
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we
decided to stay home.
Do you mean this?
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother did upon
leaving the house having been to put up the umbrella.
Hm, maybe you do.
[/quote]
Yes!
I just realized that what makes it sound
[quote]a bit off to me is that the second 'did' initially suggests
a comma-spliced sentence. Let>s flip it around:
The first thing our mother did upon leaving the house
having been to put up the umbrella, we did not get wet.
Okay, that works and may be the best of the lot. But I
still don>t like the flipped version very much.
I don>t like 'being', though I can tolerate it.
As a reader, that is.
My version is:
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother having
done upon leaving the house having been to put up
the umbrella.
But my backbrain is a bit fanatical about parallelism.
Nope, still doesn>t work for me. "(having) been" is
essential in the above, and "having done" is wrong.
I don>t actually *like* it, but I don>t much care for
We did not get wet, the first thing our mother did upon
leaving the house having been to put up the umbrella.
either.
[/quote]
I think this is what I meant by "too much fancy syntax". These
participial constructions should be used with restraint, otherwise you
just get tangled up in them.
[quote]
I guess we have to admit we>re talking about different
grammars.
Probably, though I>d be interested to know whether yours
feels any difference between the two orders.
[/quote]
In the "umbrella" sentence at least, I prefer the order with
participle before main clause.
Ross Clark
[quote]
Poor António must be very confused by now.
I suspect that Davidson would be amused by it all if he were
still alive.
Brian[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
wugi
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
"António Marques" <:
[quote]wugi wrote:
guido
google wugi
Your name sounds like you could give me other suggestions in my quest
for the italian dictionary... but istr you>re dutch.
[/quote]
nonono! flemish it is.
only in foreign circles became I aware that guido is not merely a flemish
name.
but yes, no italian, scusi about that.
sono molto lieto di fare la sua conoscenza (with this tourist guide phrase
my friend 'talked' us thru Italy back in the 70ies)
;-o)
google wugi guido |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:28 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 10, 4:51 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 12:52 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of course, the greatest
thing about it is that it>s no longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the reclusive Mazzimilian the
Mad on the throne, being to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.'
-- Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
I can neither read that 'having' as correct, nor find an alternative, at
least without a major rewrite. This is one of the Transbalkania stories,
in which I don>t know if Avram uses deliberately non-standard language
as he>s wont whenever possible.
In general terms, how do you apply the is -> being transformation to a
pluperfect? Is it the way above?
is -> being
will X -> will be Xing
was -> ?
had Xparticiple -> ? having Xparticiple ?
--
António Marques
The problem in the above is that the participial transformation should
be applied only to the main verb in the clause you>re trying to
participialize. The underlying clause is something like "The first
thing the King-Emperor did....was to throw open...", a kind of pseudo-
cleft in which "was" is the main verb.
I think "being" is OK there, but if the underlying form is "was", you
could use "having been". I think that>s the only available
alternative. The writer has attempted also to participialize the verb
in a lower clause ("did"), which just makes a mess. If you leave "did"
it reads tolerably, though I think it>s a mistake to combine the
clefting and the participle. Too much fancy syntax.
The "lower clause" isn>t a clause,
The clause I am talking about is "[which] the King-Emperor did", a
relative clause modifying "thing".
I>m talking about the corrected version without "which."
And you don>t consider that a clause?
Of course not. A olause has a subject and a predicate -- it>s what pre-
linguistic grammars called a "sentence."
And "the King-Emperor" and "did" would fail to qualify as subject and
predicate on what grounds?
[/quote]
Since when is a participle the predicate of a clause?
(or do you adhere to that peculiar anomaly the "small clause," which
was the star of Radford>s first Cambridge Textbook in Linguistics?)
[quote]everything after the colon is just
a long and awkward nominal.
I don>t know what you mean by "nominal", and calling it "awkward" is
hardly an analysis of what>s wrong with it.
There>s already a main verb in the very
first line, all the rest is decoration.
?? What do you consider the main verb? And main verb of what?
is
The greatest thing about it is that it>s no longer private
And that is the part of the sentence in which there is no problem at
all.
Obviously.
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
The remainder of the sentence has no main verb.
Still pursuing the via negativa, I see. So what would you consider
"being" in the original? I don>t mean just its part of speech, but its
function or relation to the rest of the sentence?
[/quote]
It>s a nominal, an appositive to "thing."
[quote]A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute. Understood
"was" (main verb of the participial structure) is replaced by "being",
indicating that this is the explanation or reason for the main clause..
Now if you have subordinate clauses within your participial structure,
at least in my English, you do _not_ want to participialize the verbs
in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we decided to
stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going", or any
combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s what Davidson has
done.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
benlizro@ihug.co.nz
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 11, 4:28 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 4:51 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:52 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of course, the greatest
thing about it is that it>s no longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the reclusive Mazzimilian the
Mad on the throne, being to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.'
-- Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
I can neither read that 'having' as correct, nor find an alternative, at
least without a major rewrite. This is one of the Transbalkania stories,
in which I don>t know if Avram uses deliberately non-standard language
as he>s wont whenever possible.
In general terms, how do you apply the is -> being transformation to a
pluperfect? Is it the way above?
is -> being
will X -> will be Xing
was -> ?
had Xparticiple -> ? having Xparticiple ?
--
António Marques
The problem in the above is that the participial transformation should
be applied only to the main verb in the clause you>re trying to
participialize. The underlying clause is something like "The first
thing the King-Emperor did....was to throw open...", a kind of pseudo-
cleft in which "was" is the main verb.
I think "being" is OK there, but if the underlying form is "was", you
could use "having been". I think that>s the only available
alternative. The writer has attempted also to participialize the verb
in a lower clause ("did"), which just makes a mess. If you leave "did"
it reads tolerably, though I think it>s a mistake to combine the
clefting and the participle. Too much fancy syntax.
The "lower clause" isn>t a clause,
The clause I am talking about is "[which] the King-Emperor did", a
relative clause modifying "thing".
I>m talking about the corrected version without "which."
And you don>t consider that a clause?
Of course not. A olause has a subject and a predicate -- it>s what pre-
linguistic grammars called a "sentence."
And "the King-Emperor" and "did" would fail to qualify as subject and
predicate on what grounds?
Since when is a participle the predicate of a clause?
[/quote]
But "did" is a finite verb.
[quote]
(or do you adhere to that peculiar anomaly the "small clause," which
was the star of Radford>s first Cambridge Textbook in Linguistics?)
everything after the colon is just
a long and awkward nominal.
I don>t know what you mean by "nominal", and calling it "awkward" is
hardly an analysis of what>s wrong with it.
There>s already a main verb in the very
first line, all the rest is decoration.
?? What do you consider the main verb? And main verb of what?
is
The greatest thing about it is that it>s no longer private
And that is the part of the sentence in which there is no problem at
all.
Obviously.
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
The remainder of the sentence has no main verb.
Still pursuing the via negativa, I see. So what would you consider
"being" in the original? I don>t mean just its part of speech, but its
function or relation to the rest of the sentence?
It>s a nominal, an appositive to "thing."
[/quote]
Still not sure what you mean by "nominal".
But an appositive should be coreferential with that which it is
appositive to. If we look for something else that is coreferent with
"the first thing which the King-Emperor [did]...", it is surely not
"being" and not even "being to throw open the Private Park...", but
rather "to throw open the Private Park....". So what is "being" doing
here? Why it is functioning as a copula, connecting the two
coreferential constituents. Well, that>s my view, anyway.
Ross Clark
[quote]A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute. Understood
"was" (main verb of the participial structure) is replaced by "being",
indicating that this is the explanation or reason for the main clause.
Now if you have subordinate clauses within your participial structure,
at least in my English, you do _not_ want to participialize the verbs
in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we decided to
stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going", or any
combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s what Davidson has
done.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brian M. Scott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:33d2088e-4227-4223-a46e-a25a719d9534@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[quote]On Oct 10, 4:51 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz"
benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:52 am, "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz"
benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz"
benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz"
benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt
wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and,
of course, the greatest thing about it is that
it>s no longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the
reclusive Mazzimilian the Mad on the throne,
being to throw open the Private Park to the
pulic.'
-- Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping
Woman_
I can neither read that 'having' as correct, nor
find an alternative, at least without a major
rewrite. This is one of the Transbalkania
stories, in which I don>t know if Avram uses
deliberately non-standard language as he>s wont
whenever possible.
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]The problem in the above is that the participial
transformation should be applied only to the main
verb in the clause you>re trying to
participialize. The underlying clause is something
like "The first thing the King-Emperor did....was
to throw open...", a kind of pseudo- cleft in
which "was" is the main verb.
I think "being" is OK there, but if the underlying
form is "was", you could use "having been". I
think that>s the only available alternative. The
writer has attempted also to participialize the
verb in a lower clause ("did"), which just makes a
mess. If you leave "did" it reads tolerably,
though I think it>s a mistake to combine the
clefting and the participle. Too much fancy
syntax.
The "lower clause" isn>t a clause,
The clause I am talking about is "[which] the
King-Emperor did", a relative clause modifying
"thing".
I>m talking about the corrected version without
"which."
And you don>t consider that a clause?
Of course not. A olause has a subject and a predicate --
it>s what pre- linguistic grammars called a "sentence."
And "the King-Emperor" and "did" would fail to qualify as
subject and predicate on what grounds?
Since when is a participle the predicate of a clause?
[/quote]
Since when is <did> a participle?
[...]
[quote]everything after the colon is just a long and
awkward nominal.
I don>t know what you mean by "nominal", and calling
it "awkward" is hardly an analysis of what>s wrong
with it.
There>s already a main verb in the very first line,
all the rest is decoration.
?? What do you consider the main verb? And main verb
of what?
is
The greatest thing about it is that it>s no longer
private
And that is the part of the sentence in which there is
no problem at all.
Obviously.
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to
the main verb of the remainder of the sentence, a
rather unwieldy structure which the writer has
attempted to attach to the above by means of a
participial (absolute) construction.
The remainder of the sentence has no main verb.
Still pursuing the via negativa, I see. So what would you
consider "being" in the original? I don>t mean just its
part of speech, but its function or relation to the rest
of the sentence?
It>s a nominal, an appositive to "thing."
[/quote]
Obviously not.
[...]
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 4:28 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:51 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:52 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of course, the greatest
thing about it is that it>s no longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the reclusive Mazzimilian the
Mad on the throne, being to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.'
-- Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
I can neither read that 'having' as correct, nor find an alternative, at
least without a major rewrite. This is one of the Transbalkania stories,
in which I don>t know if Avram uses deliberately non-standard language
as he>s wont whenever possible.
In general terms, how do you apply the is -> being transformation to a
pluperfect? Is it the way above?
is -> being
will X -> will be Xing
was -> ?
had Xparticiple -> ? having Xparticiple ?
--
António Marques
The problem in the above is that the participial transformation should
be applied only to the main verb in the clause you>re trying to
participialize. The underlying clause is something like "The first
thing the King-Emperor did....was to throw open...", a kind of pseudo-
cleft in which "was" is the main verb.
I think "being" is OK there, but if the underlying form is "was", you
could use "having been". I think that>s the only available
alternative. The writer has attempted also to participialize the verb
in a lower clause ("did"), which just makes a mess. If you leave "did"
it reads tolerably, though I think it>s a mistake to combine the
clefting and the participle. Too much fancy syntax.
The "lower clause" isn>t a clause,
The clause I am talking about is "[which] the King-Emperor did", a
relative clause modifying "thing".
I>m talking about the corrected version without "which."
And you don>t consider that a clause?
Of course not. A olause has a subject and a predicate -- it>s what pre-
linguistic grammars called a "sentence."
And "the King-Emperor" and "did" would fail to qualify as subject and
predicate on what grounds?
Since when is a participle the predicate of a clause?
But "did" is a finite verb.
[/quote]
Where do you two see "did"? It>s "the first thing the King-Emperor
having done."
[quote](or do you adhere to that peculiar anomaly the "small clause," which
was the star of Radford>s first Cambridge Textbook in Linguistics?)
everything after the colon is just
a long and awkward nominal.
I don>t know what you mean by "nominal", and calling it "awkward" is
hardly an analysis of what>s wrong with it.
There>s already a main verb in the very
first line, all the rest is decoration.
?? What do you consider the main verb? And main verb of what?
is
The greatest thing about it is that it>s no longer private
And that is the part of the sentence in which there is no problem at
all.
Obviously.
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
The remainder of the sentence has no main verb.
Still pursuing the via negativa, I see. So what would you consider
"being" in the original? I don>t mean just its part of speech, but its
function or relation to the rest of the sentence?
It>s a nominal, an appositive to "thing."
Still not sure what you mean by "nominal".
But an appositive should be coreferential with that which it is
appositive to. If we look for something else that is coreferent with
"the first thing which the King-Emperor [did]...", it is surely not
"being" and not even "being to throw open the Private Park...", but
rather "to throw open the Private Park....". So what is "being" doing
here? Why it is functioning as a copula, connecting the two
coreferential constituents. Well, that>s my view, anyway.
[/quote]
A participle doesn>t copulize: "Ross being in New Zealand" isn>t a
clause with a verb.
[quote]A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute. Understood
"was" (main verb of the participial structure) is replaced by "being",
indicating that this is the explanation or reason for the main clause.
Now if you have subordinate clauses within your participial structure,
at least in my English, you do _not_ want to participialize the verbs
in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we decided to
stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going", or any
combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s what Davidson has
done.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
benlizro@ihug.co.nz
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 12, 1:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 2:04 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:28 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:51 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:52 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of course, the greatest
thing about it is that it>s no longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the reclusive Mazzimilian the
Mad on the throne, being to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.'
-- Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
I can neither read that 'having' as correct, nor find an alternative, at
least without a major rewrite. This is one of the Transbalkania stories,
in which I don>t know if Avram uses deliberately non-standard language
as he>s wont whenever possible.
In general terms, how do you apply the is -> being transformation to a
pluperfect? Is it the way above?
is -> being
will X -> will be Xing
was -> ?
had Xparticiple -> ? having Xparticiple ?
--
António Marques
The problem in the above is that the participial transformation should
be applied only to the main verb in the clause you>re trying to
participialize. The underlying clause is something like "The first
thing the King-Emperor did....was to throw open...", a kind of pseudo-
cleft in which "was" is the main verb.
I think "being" is OK there, but if the underlying form is "was", you
could use "having been". I think that>s the only available
alternative. The writer has attempted also to participialize the verb
in a lower clause ("did"), which just makes a mess. If you leave "did"
it reads tolerably, though I think it>s a mistake to combine the
clefting and the participle. Too much fancy syntax.
The "lower clause" isn>t a clause,
The clause I am talking about is "[which] the King-Emperor did", a
relative clause modifying "thing".
I>m talking about the corrected version without "which."
And you don>t consider that a clause?
Of course not. A olause has a subject and a predicate -- it>s what pre-
linguistic grammars called a "sentence."
And "the King-Emperor" and "did" would fail to qualify as subject and
predicate on what grounds?
Since when is a participle the predicate of a clause?
But "did" is a finite verb.
Where do you two see "did"? It>s "the first thing the King-Emperor
having done."
[/quote]
If you>ll cast your eyes back up a few lines, you will see that I was
talking about "[which] the King-Emperor did". That was my suggested
minimum correction to the original. It was also part of my analysis of
the structure of the original and what went wrong with it.
When you replied that you were talking about the corrected version
without "which", I assumed you meant "the King-Emperor did". Turns out
you actually meant "the King-Emperor having done", as in the
original.
So can we have some explanation from you of what you think "the King-
Emperor having done" consists of, and how it relates to the rest of
the sentence, and why removing "which" is an improvement?
[quote](or do you adhere to that peculiar anomaly the "small clause," which
was the star of Radford>s first Cambridge Textbook in Linguistics?)
everything after the colon is just
a long and awkward nominal.
I don>t know what you mean by "nominal", and calling it "awkward" is
hardly an analysis of what>s wrong with it.
There>s already a main verb in the very
first line, all the rest is decoration.
?? What do you consider the main verb? And main verb of what?
is
The greatest thing about it is that it>s no longer private
And that is the part of the sentence in which there is no problem at
all.
Obviously.
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
The remainder of the sentence has no main verb.
Still pursuing the via negativa, I see. So what would you consider
"being" in the original? I don>t mean just its part of speech, but its
function or relation to the rest of the sentence?
It>s a nominal, an appositive to "thing."
Still not sure what you mean by "nominal".
But an appositive should be coreferential with that which it is
appositive to. If we look for something else that is coreferent with
"the first thing which the King-Emperor [did]...", it is surely not
"being" and not even "being to throw open the Private Park...", but
rather "to throw open the Private Park....". So what is "being" doing
here? Why it is functioning as a copula, connecting the two
coreferential constituents. Well, that>s my view, anyway.
A participle doesn>t copulize:
[/quote]
So while I>m still waiting for you to explain what you mean by
"nominal", you hit me with "copulize"!
I assume you mean "function as a copula". OK, I guess now we>ll have
to wait for you to explain just what you think "being" _is_ doing in
that sentence.
"Ross being in New Zealand" isn>t a
[quote]clause with a verb.
[/quote]
So what would be your account of its manifest syntactic and semantic
relatedness to such bona fide sentences as "Ross is/was in New
Zealand"?
Ross Clark
[quote]
A simple example from Trask to illustrate this kind of thing:
[The day being cloudy,] we decided to stay home.
The bracketed stuff is the participial-absolute. Understood
"was" (main verb of the participial structure) is replaced by "being",
indicating that this is the explanation or reason for the main clause.
Now if you have subordinate clauses within your participial structure,
at least in my English, you do _not_ want to participialize the verbs
in them. So
[The day we had planned to go for a walk being cloudy], we decided to
stay home.
Replacing any of those by "having", "planning", "going", or any
combination thereof, just makes a mess. And that>s what Davidson has
done.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:02 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 11, 5:15 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 1:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:28 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:51 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:52 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug..co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of course, the greatest
thing about it is that it>s no longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the reclusive Mazzimilian the
Mad on the throne, being to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.'
-- Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
I can neither read that 'having' as correct, nor find an alternative, at
least without a major rewrite. This is one of the Transbalkania stories,
in which I don>t know if Avram uses deliberately non-standard language
as he>s wont whenever possible.
In general terms, how do you apply the is -> being transformation to a
pluperfect? Is it the way above?
is -> being
will X -> will be Xing
was -> ?
had Xparticiple -> ? having Xparticiple ?
--
António Marques
The problem in the above is that the participial transformation should
be applied only to the main verb in the clause you>re trying to
participialize. The underlying clause is something like "The first
thing the King-Emperor did....was to throw open...", a kind of pseudo-
cleft in which "was" is the main verb.
I think "being" is OK there, but if the underlying form is "was", you
could use "having been". I think that>s the only available
alternative. The writer has attempted also to participialize the verb
in a lower clause ("did"), which just makes a mess. If you leave "did"
it reads tolerably, though I think it>s a mistake to combine the
clefting and the participle. Too much fancy syntax.
The "lower clause" isn>t a clause,
The clause I am talking about is "[which] the King-Emperor did", a
relative clause modifying "thing".
I>m talking about the corrected version without "which."
And you don>t consider that a clause?
Of course not. A olause has a subject and a predicate -- it>s what pre-
linguistic grammars called a "sentence."
And "the King-Emperor" and "did" would fail to qualify as subject and
predicate on what grounds?
Since when is a participle the predicate of a clause?
But "did" is a finite verb.
Where do you two see "did"? It>s "the first thing the King-Emperor
having done."
If you>ll cast your eyes back up a few lines, you will see that I was
talking about "[which] the King-Emperor did". That was my suggested
minimum correction to the original. It was also part of my analysis of
the structure of the original and what went wrong with it.
When you replied that you were talking about the corrected version
without "which", I assumed you meant "the King-Emperor did". Turns out
you actually meant "the King-Emperor having done", as in the
original.
So can we have some explanation from you of what you think "the King-
Emperor having done" consists of, and how it relates to the rest of
the sentence, and why removing "which" is an improvement?
(or do you adhere to that peculiar anomaly the "small clause," which
was the star of Radford>s first Cambridge Textbook in Linguistics?)
everything after the colon is just
a long and awkward nominal.
I don>t know what you mean by "nominal", and calling it "awkward" is
hardly an analysis of what>s wrong with it.
There>s already a main verb in the very
first line, all the rest is decoration.
?? What do you consider the main verb? And main verb of what?
is
The greatest thing about it is that it>s no longer private
And that is the part of the sentence in which there is no problem at
all.
Obviously.
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
The remainder of the sentence has no main verb.
Still pursuing the via negativa, I see. So what would you consider
"being" in the original? I don>t mean just its part of speech, but its
function or relation to the rest of the sentence?
It>s a nominal, an appositive to "thing."
Still not sure what you mean by "nominal".
But an appositive should be coreferential with that which it is
appositive to. If we look for something else that is coreferent with
"the first thing which the King-Emperor [did]...", it is surely not
"being" and not even "being to throw open the Private Park...", but
rather "to throw open the Private Park....". So what is "being" doing
here? Why it is functioning as a copula, connecting the two
coreferential constituents. Well, that>s my view, anyway.
A participle doesn>t copulize:
So while I>m still waiting for you to explain what you mean by
"nominal", you hit me with "copulize"!
I assume you mean "function as a copula". OK, I guess now we>ll have
to wait for you to explain just what you think "being" _is_ doing in
that sentence.
"Ross being in New Zealand" isn>t a
clause with a verb.
So what would be your account of its manifest syntactic and semantic
relatedness to such bona fide sentences as "Ross is/was in New
Zealand"?
[/quote]
Well, since about 1960 (Lees>s dissertation) and 1970 (Chomsky), it
would be called a "nominalization." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
benlizro@ihug.co.nz
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: Re: The first thing he having done being... |
|
|
On Oct 12, 5:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 5:15 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:04 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:28 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:51 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:52 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:09 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:04 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 10:15 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:27 am, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
'One, of course, is the great Private Park, and, of course, the greatest
thing about it is that it>s no longer private: the first thing which the
King-Emperor having done, upon succeeding the reclusive Mazzimilian the
Mad on the throne, being to throw open the Private Park to the pulic.'
-- Avram Davidson, _Polly Charms, the Sleeping Woman_
I can neither read that 'having' as correct, nor find an alternative, at
least without a major rewrite. This is one of the Transbalkania stories,
in which I don>t know if Avram uses deliberately non-standard language
as he>s wont whenever possible.
In general terms, how do you apply the is -> being transformation to a
pluperfect? Is it the way above?
is -> being
will X -> will be Xing
was -> ?
had Xparticiple -> ? having Xparticiple ?
--
António Marques
The problem in the above is that the participial transformation should
be applied only to the main verb in the clause you>re trying to
participialize. The underlying clause is something like "The first
thing the King-Emperor did....was to throw open...", a kind of pseudo-
cleft in which "was" is the main verb.
I think "being" is OK there, but if the underlying form is "was", you
could use "having been". I think that>s the only available
alternative. The writer has attempted also to participialize the verb
in a lower clause ("did"), which just makes a mess. If you leave "did"
it reads tolerably, though I think it>s a mistake to combine the
clefting and the participle. Too much fancy syntax.
The "lower clause" isn>t a clause,
The clause I am talking about is "[which] the King-Emperor did", a
relative clause modifying "thing".
I>m talking about the corrected version without "which."
And you don>t consider that a clause?
Of course not. A olause has a subject and a predicate -- it>s what pre-
linguistic grammars called a "sentence."
And "the King-Emperor" and "did" would fail to qualify as subject and
predicate on what grounds?
Since when is a participle the predicate of a clause?
But "did" is a finite verb.
Where do you two see "did"? It>s "the first thing the King-Emperor
having done."
If you>ll cast your eyes back up a few lines, you will see that I was
talking about "[which] the King-Emperor did". That was my suggested
minimum correction to the original. It was also part of my analysis of
the structure of the original and what went wrong with it.
When you replied that you were talking about the corrected version
without "which", I assumed you meant "the King-Emperor did". Turns out
you actually meant "the King-Emperor having done", as in the
original.
So can we have some explanation from you of what you think "the King-
Emperor having done" consists of, and how it relates to the rest of
the sentence, and why removing "which" is an improvement?
(or do you adhere to that peculiar anomaly the "small clause," which
was the star of Radford>s first Cambridge Textbook in Linguistics?)
everything after the colon is just
a long and awkward nominal.
I don>t know what you mean by "nominal", and calling it "awkward" is
hardly an analysis of what>s wrong with it.
There>s already a main verb in the very
first line, all the rest is decoration.
?? What do you consider the main verb? And main verb of what?
is
The greatest thing about it is that it>s no longer private
And that is the part of the sentence in which there is no problem at
all.
Obviously.
I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to the main verb of
the remainder of the sentence, a rather unwieldy structure which the
writer has attempted to attach to the above by means of a participial
(absolute) construction.
The remainder of the sentence has no main verb.
Still pursuing the via negativa, I see. So what would you consider
"being" in the original? I don>t mean just its part of speech, but its
function or relation to the rest of the sentence?
It>s a nominal, an appositive to "thing."
Still not sure what you mean by "nominal".
But an appositive should be coreferential with that which it is
appositive to. If we look for something else that is coreferent with
"the first thing which the King-Emperor [did]...", it is surely not
"being" and not even "being to throw open the Private Park...", but
rather "to throw open the Private Park....". So what is "being" doing
here? Why it is functioning as a copula, connecting the two
coreferential constituents. Well, that>s my view, anyway.
A participle doesn>t copulize:
So while I>m still waiting for you to explain what you mean by
"nominal", you hit me with "copulize"!
I assume you mean "function as a copula". OK, I guess now we>ll have
to wait for you to explain just what you think "being" _is_ doing in
that sentence.
"Ross being in New Zealand" isn>t a
clause with a verb.
So what would be your account of its manifest syntactic and semantic
relatedness to such bona fide sentences as "Ross is/was in New
Zealand"?
Well, since about 1960 (Lees>s dissertation) and 1970 (Chomsky), it
would be called a "nominalization."
[/quote]
OK with me, as long as you>re willing to apply it both to the more
obviously nouny uses like
Ross being in New Zealand isn>t a problem.
and also to the cases where it has some kind of adverbial function,
like
We cancelled this week>s meeting, Ross being in New Zealand.
Now my view of the problem sentence is that everything after "...n | |
