Ray: > > 'Raising' and 'Equi' date from the 60s. 'Control' dates > > from (I hazard) the late 70s. > > 'control' does appear to be related to GB theory, but it's got to a better > term than 'equi'! I prefer 'equi', because it has become purely descriptive, whereas 'control' is still used by many as a theoretical notion. Likewise I prefer the more descriptive 'object raising' to 'ECM' (exceptional case marking), because the latter derives from a widely popular but egregiously silly theoretical analysis. > Would the other alternative 'catenative' be more neutral? But like most terms from traditionalist grammar, it is less well-defined. Furthermore, it is loosely equivalent only to subject equi and not object equi. > > but if you hold, as most syntactic > > theory holds, that it is syntax that builds up the semantic > > structure of the sentence (particularly with regard to matching > > predicates to their arguments, i.e. the syntagmatic dimension > > of semantics), then the distinction is perforce syntactic. > > But there's the rub. The evidence for syntactic distinction is, as > you say, "scanty at best" in English and seems to be almost non- > existent in Classical Latin. Do natlangs in fact provide clear > evidence from their syntagmatic relations for this distinction? A valid & interesting question, to which I don't know the answer. --And.