🚀 go-pugleaf

In article mar[Bkrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug4.093257.2942@memstvx1.memst.edu>
connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
 
[stuff omitted]
 
>>the question is whether
>>the following contain the [Neuman] 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)?
 
The first one is a problem; the others I'm not sure about.  Perhaps all
three are related.  When I suggested the Neuman construction was the
same as certain verbal complements, I meant that they had been produced
by application (or non-application) of the same rules, not that they
reflected the same semantic situation.  If we assume non-application
(failure to tense verb, hence also failure to convert the pronoun from
its default objective form to the nominative, "subject" form), then we
need only say that neither the speculative question nor the verbal
complement environment provided the necessary environment for tensing
to occur.  The syntactic construction would (be default) be the same,
even thoguh the semantic and syntactic environments were different.
 
>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?
 
I accept _Him as he was?_  But it is different: it lacks a verb!  Your
other example is also different, because it contains _to_, and also
because _him_ behaves like a direct object of _forbid_ (the
construction passivizes).  No wonder it can't do a Neuman: _him_ has
been "raised" (yes, we need the word) out of its original structure.
 
>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 don't see this as progressivization, since there's no _be_ (I am
going, to be going, etc.).  Rather, I think _him_ is a genuine direct
object of _see_, and _going into the house_ is a normal present
participle construction that has nothing to do with Neuman or _I saw
him go into the house_.  Note that the form does passivize:
 
        He was seen going into the house.
 
_Make_ and _let_ don't take nominal direct objects in this sense, but
only Neumanesque complements; _see_ permits either construction.  This
is why the following make sense only if the rest of the complement is
understood (the first also if creation is assumed).
 
        I made him.
        I let him.

--Leo Connolly