🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug4.093257.2942@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
(Leo Connolly) writes (quoting me):
>> It also seems that the [Alfred E. Neumann] construction can only occur 
>> in the main clause:
>> 
>>      *Me worry is impossible.
>>      *I can't see him learn Russian.
>>      but cf.: I can't see him learning Russian.
>
>The sequence, of course, occurs quite frequently; the question is whether
>the following contain the same construction or something different.
>
>	I saw him go into the house.
>	I made him learn Russian.
>	I let them stay home.
>
>I suspect the complement of_see_, _make_, and _let_ is this construction.

OK, but the obvious differences need to be explained: a) here the construction
is the complement of a verb; there's no governing verb in the Neumann
construction.  b) here the construction has no extra semantics-- it's
just another way of embedding one sentence within another-- but in the
Neumann sentences the construction on its own has a definite semantic
meaning ("You expect me to worry?").  c) why does the Neumann construction
seem to be limited to questions (or at least irony)?  

Also, why can't other types of complements live on their own?
 
   I made him learn Russian.          Him learn Russian?
   I saw him as he was.              *Him as he was?
   I forbid him to learn Russian.    *Him to learn Russian?

You observe that the last of your sentences can't passivize; I'll add that
only the first can be progressivized.  So are we dealing with just one
construction, here, or several similar ones? 

    I saw him going into the house.
   *I made him learning Russian.
   *I let them staying home.

I'm not trying to give you trouble; I would like to hear more of your 
thoughts on this construction.