Print

Print


You mentioned that English makes a huge mistake treating "will" et al. as
modifying just the verb, but I think it's actually just a grammatical
device. Syntactically it modifies only the verb, but semantically it
modifies the whole predicate, as you suggest it should. Besides, how could
it be otherwise, given how the language actually is? IOW, how would you
indicate the scope of "will"?

stevo


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > You might not need a null subject regardless, Gary. If you extend your
> > attitudinals to encompass verb mood, then you can express "let's go" as
> "we
> > should go", "go!" as "you should go!", etc.
> > --- larry
>
> Yes! I can do that with what I call (on the PDF) rule 11. PRED -> X
> PRED. That hadn't occurred to me. I could even do the second person
> imperative that way: "You must go!" Although it seems to me that
> imperatives should be short, sharp, and strong, like the commands of a
> drill sergeant, not Aunt Tilly saying "You should get a haircut,
> dear."
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:54 AM, MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Would than include the whole range of obligation (ought to, must, should,
> > et al.)?
> >
> > stevo
>
> I was thinking of the attitudinals as being more about the speakers
> attitude or intent. Like "You really look nice today SARCASM." or "He
> claims he's rich I-DOUBT-IT." or "Stop bothering me OR-ELSE!" The type
> X of rule 11 (on the PDF) already covers the "should, ought, must", in
> the same way as "will, can't, won't, used to, etc." They are all what
> I call in the grammar "predicate modifiers."
>
> I consider them predicate modifiers instead of verb modifiers (adverbs
> or aux verbs) because they do take the whole predicate as an argument:
> "I WON'T go to the market, but I WILL go to the park." Clearly "won't"
> is not talking about just "go", because "I won't go but will go"
> doesn't make sense. "Won't" only makes sense when "market" is involved
> in what "won't" talks about. So the whole predicate has to be covered
> by the scope of the modifier.
>
> --gary
>