Tuesday, August 9, 2016

syntax - a [box [of apples] ] vs [a box] [of apples]



The standard linguistic analysis of the NP




a box of apples



is that we have a determiner (a) which acts on (modifies?) box of apples. (For an example of standard analysis, see e.g. Fig. 6 here). CGEL refers to box of apples as a nominal, though I understand that others would prefer to call it an NP'. Then box of apples is further parsed into box being modified by of apples. In other words, we have



enter image description here



My question is: what is the evidence against the following alternative parsing: a box being modified by of apples?



enter image description here




In other words, why does



a [box [of apples] ]



make more sense than



[a box] [of apples]?



Equivalently: why is a taken to modify box of apples rather than of apples taken to modify a box?




What is particularly impressive (or surprising) is that, on the standard analysis, the parsing seems to be completely independent of context. It is simply never the case that a box gets modified by of apples; it is always box being modified by of apples, and then a modifying box of apples.



I hope it is understood that I'm only mentioning a box of apples for the sake of concreteness. What I would like to know is why such a parsing applies in all relevantly similar cases. In other words, my actual question is: consider an NP which is Det + Head + PP. Why is Det taken to modify Head + PP, rather than PP taken to modify Det + Head?



I'm sure there is more than one piece of evidence, and would appreciate it if someone could explain the first several strongest pieces of evidence.



(In contrast, I find the standard parsing far more intuitive in the cases of NPs which look like Det + Mod + Head, e.g. an old man. The correct parsing is, of course, an [old man], and somehow I don't have the slightest inclination to parse it as [an old] man.)



Update 1: found a page that seems to say something relevant on the issue: this one. Still digesting it...




Update 2: I have accepted the answer given by Greg Lee. (Thanks!) The answer uses the notion of a pro-form. A pro-form is a particular type of function word---"a word that has little lexical meaning or has ambiguous meaning, but instead serves to express grammatical relationships with other words within a sentence, or specify the attitude or mood of the speaker" (Wikipedia). For completeness, here are details (also from Wikipedia):




A pro-form is a type of function word or expression that stands in
for (expresses the same content as) another word, phrase, clause or
sentence where the meaning is recoverable from the context. They are
used either to avoid repetitive expressions or in quantification
(limiting the variables of a proposition).




Pro-forms are divided into several categories, according to which part
of speech they substitute:




  • A pronoun substitutes a noun or a noun phrase, with or without a determiner: it, this. (Compare also
    prop-word; this denotes a
    word like one in "the blue one".)

  • A pro-adjective substitutes an adjective or a phrase that functions as an adjective: so as in "It is less so than we had
    expected."

  • A pro-adverb substitutes an adverb or a phrase that functions as an adverb: how or this way.


  • A pro-verb substitutes a verb or a verb phrase: do.

  • A pro-sentence substitutes an entire sentence or subsentence: Yes, or that as in "That is true".




Now the answer by Greg Lee is easy to follow (some of the emphases are mine):




One generally assumes that only constituents can be replaced by a
pro-form and that only a constituent can be the antecedent for such a

replacement. So since we can go from



I want a big box of apples, but my sister wants only a small box of apples.



to



I want a big box of apples, but my sister wants only a small one.



then "box of apples" must be a constituent. This rules out the
structure: [a (Adj) box] [of apples]. It must be instead: a

(Adj) [box of apples].




Once this answer was posted, it was easy to find other resources that discuss this; one of them is here.


Answer



One generally assumes that only constituents can be replaced by an indefinite pro-form and that only a constituent can be the antecedent for such a replacement. So since we can go from




I want a big box of apples, but my sister wants only a small box of apples.





to




I want a big box of apples, but my sister wants only a small one.




then "box of apples" must be a constituent. This rules out the structure: [a (Adj) box] [of apples]. It must be instead: a (Adj) [box of apples].


capitalization - How is title case applied to idioms containing prepositions?

For title case that does not capitalize articles, conjunctions, and small prepositions, how should one capitalize compound verbs and idiomatic phrases containing one of these elements?




For example,




when in doubt, smash it




Following the title case I described, it could be written as:




When in Doubt, Smash It





However, the "in" is part of the idiom "in doubt" rather than being used alone. Using that logic, it might be more appropriate to write it as:




When In Doubt, Smash It




Which way is most appropriate? Do any style guides address this problem or similar ones?

prepositions - When should you use "to" following a "why"?



I've always wondered why some people add a to after Why when framing a question. I have always wished to know this, but I keep forgetting to ask and today I came across a tweet that made me post this question here. The sentence that I came across on my twitter feed is:



Why To Treat Your Product Like It's Finished?


Isn't it more appropriate to ask:



Why Treat Your Product Like It's Finished?



I know that all the words in the sentence above have a capital letter in front because this was a title of a post. But that is not the point.



My question is: When do we need to use a preposition like to after a question word like Why? Are there any grammatical rules regarding this usage? If so, what are they?



Why To Treat Your Product Like It's Finished (Even Before It Is) http://t.co/eLiY1VBYDT

— Buffer (@buffer) June 4, 2014


Answer




Both of these constructions can be considered to be elliptical forms:




Why To Treat Your Product Like It's Finished.



[The reason/s] why [you should choose] to treat your product like /
[as if] it's finished.




(Note that the question mark would be non-standard for a non-direct question, as in this sentence fragment. Of course, you can justify the use of one by positing a missing [What are ...])





Why Treat Your Product Like It's Finished?



[What is the reason / are the reasons] why [you should] treat your
product like it was / [as if it were] finished?




Elliptical forms often occur in a choice of flavours (and clarity).


Monday, August 8, 2016

infinitives - "It is fun to be him/he." Which is correct?

Would you use him or he in the following sentence?




It is fun to be him/he.




A teacher told me that you use the object form after the infinitive of to be. Is this true?




I am a native English speaker, but I am trying to figure out what the SAT wants me to think people should speak like.

apostrophe - Apsotrophe for plural possessive noun. E.g. Company Name




Consider the following exemplary company names:





  • Texas Coffee Grounders

  • Mighty Chicken Wings

  • Super Pooper Scoopers





Should one reference the possessive form of any of the above company names, where should the apostrophe be placed?



E.g.




Texas Coffee Grounders's head office is based in Houston.





...or...




Texas Coffee Grounders' head office is based in Houston.



Answer



Grounders' - Because you don't say 'Grounderses' when you read it out aloud. Refer to The Penguin Guide to Punctuation by RL Trask. Chapter on the apostrophe (don't worry it's only a small chapter) http://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/apostrophe


Sunday, August 7, 2016

phrases - Simpler and more common way of asking "Where could he/she had gone?"



I'm not a native English speaker, and I though asking "Where could he/she had gone?" was very common. But when I searched that phrase in Google I got only 6 results.



Is there a more simpler, more common way of asking that question?


Answer



You got only 7 hits because you have the ungrammatical “could had gone” instead of the correct “could have gone”. If you fix your had into a have, it will be fine.


Must present perfect tense be used if the action takes place more than once?

I was told that if an action is completed once in the past, the simple past is used.
Ex: I saw that movie.



If the action is completed more than once, the present perfect tense must be used.
Ex: I have seen that movie twelve times.



So, "I have seen that movie twelve times on Tuesday." is correct and "I saw that movie twelve times on Tuesday." is incorrect?