|
|
Post by Somak Meitei on Aug 21, 2015 23:13:17 GMT 5.5
Can we use 'as' just before the objective complement of the verb 'choose' ? I don't think the law of usage allows us to use 'as' here like ' I chose her as my servant ', so we should say it as: I chose him (to be) my servant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 22, 2015 1:30:41 GMT 5.5
Choose + somebody/something + as + something is perfectly fine--this is the structure of the elaboration of "choose" in this sense, indeed. I find a version without "as" rather awkward though I can't say such a sentence (as yours reproduced below) is incorrect. I chose him my servant" is incorrect. Why I can't "wholly" say your "choose" construction without "as" is incorrect is because I can't (at the moment) "totally" remove "choose" from the category of verbs that Randolf Quirk et al. call copular transitives, such as name, elect, make, etc., whose elaboration by objects remains incomplete without a complement which is traditionally called object complement as in the examples below, primarily in (1) and (2): (1) We elected (±as)*him President.
(2) They have appointed him (±as)* the captain of the team.
(3) They named their son Mark.
(4) He made her his assistant. * ± means here "with or without" Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (OALD) (9th ed.) has these two relevant constructions for "choose": While (3) We chose Phil McSweeney Chairperson. may, despite its awkwardness, be understood by some as (4) We chose Phil McSweeney as/for Chairperson. I don't think you can understand it as (2a) in the OALD quotation because you cannot omit the non-finite verb phrase (represented by the parts within brackets in (5) and (6) below) from there without rendering the sentence unintelligible. (5) The government has chosen MG Builders (to construct) the new metro line.
(6) While Peter was chosen (to preach to) the Jews, Paul was chosen (to preach to) the Gentile. You cannot omit the non-finitive phrase because what follows does not have any grammatical anchor to relate itself to the sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Somak Meitei on Aug 22, 2015 8:30:19 GMT 5.5
I agree on what you are saying. I want to know if that we put 'as' or 'infinitive' before the objective complement of the verbs: find, elect, consider, make, choose, accept, recongnise, declare, regard, think, prefer, imagine, recongnise, etc. depends on the nature of the complement or the context.
I don't think it is incorrect that I use 'choose' without 'as/to be' before its complement. I found a sentence of the same type as mine. ' People did not choose him their leader.' Something that may be before 'their leader' is omitted. Do you think it is incorrect ? Here I want to know which word, 'as' or 'to be' is omitted. I want an explanation for your choice.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 22, 2015 9:52:51 GMT 5.5
Post deleted. Reposted below with correct formatting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 22, 2015 10:01:12 GMT 5.5
The above post has lost all its formatting due to some technical glitch. I will repost that below with the necessary formatting values.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 22, 2015 10:10:38 GMT 5.5
I anticipated this, so I said the following in my last post, which I think answers your query about omitting "as" and "to be/do something": Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (OALD) (9th ed.) has these two relevant constructions for "choose": While (3) We chose Phil McSweeney Chairperson. may, despite its awkwardness, be understood by some as (4) We chose Phil McSweeney as/for Chairperson. I don't think you can understand it as (2a) in the OALD quotation because you cannot omit the non-finite verb phrase (represented by the parts within brackets in (5) and (6) below) from there without rendering the sentence unintelligible. (5) The government has chosen MG Builders (to construct) the new metro line.
(6) While Peter was chosen (to preach to) the Jews, Paul was chosen (to preach to) the Gentile. You cannot omit the non-finitive phrase because what follows does not have any grammatical anchor to relate itself to the sentence. As (3) "can be" read as (4), but not as (2a) (reproduced below as 7) (7) We chose Phil McSweeney to be chairperson.
and as (5) and (6) prove, the non-finite verb cannot be omitted becuase if you do that you have no grammatical link to connect the noun phrase after the omission to the major preceding part of the sentence.
I do not prescribe one specific structure as the ideal model, but I personally don't prefer the "as" (or "for") (but not "to+verb") omission and won't say or write this though many people do. Yes, language changes over time and words acquire new category belongingness (what was once a noun only can become a verb, too) and functionalities (what was only an intransitive verb can become transitive of any kind).
"Choose" has so far been recognized by "at least" most linguists as having only the three argument structures: (i) V + ONP + Adverbial (=choose + somebody/something + (as + something)) (ii) V + ONP + PP (= choose + somebody/something + (for + something)) (iii) V + ONP + infinitive phrase (=choose + somebody/something + to be/do something)
ONP = object noun phrase
Now, if (8) The people chose him President is acceptable, it follows that "choose" has now evolved to project a fourth argument structure (a categorically different and independent structure not to be read as something it realizes after as, for, or infinitive omission): (iv) V + ONP + CNP
*CNP = complement noun phrase
Here, I would like to structurally differentiate between (9a) and (9b): (9) a. The board appointed him Director. b. The board appointed him as Director.
because what follows him is an NP as it stands in the former while it is an adverbial as it stands in the latter, meaning that "appoint" has different argument structures in these two sentences, the former corresponding to (iv) and the latter to (i). |
|
|
|
Post by Somak Meitei on Aug 22, 2015 11:00:49 GMT 5.5
Is there any difference between ' I chose him my servant' and 'The people chose him president' ? I wanted him to serve me / to work for me as my servant / to be my servant. The people wanted him to be their president / to work or rule for them as a president . Can I paraphrase them so?
You say ' director without as' and ' director with as' are respectively 'ONC' and 'advervial'. How will you paraphrase them based on their structural differentiation.
When you say that we cannot omit ' non finite phrase', you give some examples I think are quite different from ' I chose him my husband'. In ' The government has chosen MG builders (to construct ) the new metro line' , can we say ' MG builders= the new metro line' ? What is about ' him = my servant' ? Can 'be' be used like other verbs( construct, preach) ? I treat them differently so I don't want to agree on what you are saying about the omitting of non finite phrase.
I found it to be good / good (omitting 'to be' ). Is ' I found it good' an another style of ' I found that it is good' ?
Here, I would say there is no explanation ,and ( that) this or that is normal or abnormal depends on the native speakers' usage.
We elected him president.
We elected him to rule our country as a president.
Why should we omit 'to rule..' ? But here 'him = president so we can say ' We elected him president' so why not ' I chose him my servant.' I think 'with /without to be/as ' does not matter.
You prefer 'as' to 'to be'. Why?
Which do you want, 'as' or 'to be' in ' I chose him to be/as my friend ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 22, 2015 12:24:07 GMT 5.5
[1]I want to know if that we put 'as' or 'infinitive' before the objective complement of the verbs: find, elect, consider, make, choose, accept, recongnise, declare, regard, think, prefer, imagine, recongnise, etc. depends on the nature of the complement or the context.
[2]I don't think it is incorrect that I use 'choose' without 'as/to be' before its complement.
For convenience, I have added in the quotation above some marks (i) superscript [1] and [2], (ii) emboldenment of the verbs listed in [1], and (iii) the green highlights in phrases or parts of phrases containing "complement" in [1] and [2].
Let's address first.
Of course, the verbs you have listed can be followed by complements, and in the context we are talking about these transitive verbs are all copular in the sense that they are incomplete without their complements.
It is, thus, uncontroversial that the verbs you have listed share some broadly similar features; however, importantly, not all of them have the same argument structure, as you say they depend[ s] on the nature of the complement or the context
We can observe this at least in two ways--(i) what word or phrase category can follow them, and (ii) whether they can be used with an omitted as/infinitive.
For instance, "consider" can (i) take an NP or an AP (adjective phrase) for its complement (ii) have as or to-be omitted before it (but not non-"to-be" infinitives)
Examples include (10) They consider him an expert on quantum mechanics. [CONSIDER + NP] (11) Being invited to the event is considered (as /to be) a great honor. [ CONSIDER + (AS / TO BE) + NP] (12) The is band considered (to be) worthless. [(i) CONSIDER + AP or (ii) CONSIDER + (TO BE) + AP]
However, the argument structure differs greatly with "elect," which does not allow an AP for its complement. "Elect" allows both "as" and "to be" to connect the object and its complement but both of the are usually omitted. Being short, "as" often creeps into everyday speech while "to be," though not rare, does not show a near equal frequency with "as."
(13) Manipur elected Dr. Th. Manya (as) their representative to the national assembly.
(14) * They elected him good/intelligent/beautiful.
With "find" we see another interesting feature--it takes both NPs, APs and infinitive phrases (not just to-be phrases) as its complement and "to be" as the connector (when the complement is either an NP or an AP), but it does not allow an "as" a connector: (15) a. We found the movie (to be) very entertaining.
b. *We found the movie as entertaining.
(16) a. They unexpectedly found that (to be) a good job.
b. *They unexpectedly found that as a good job.
With "recognize," "as" or "to be" becomes unomittable if the complement follows. (17) a. Drugs were not recognized as a problem then.
b. *Drugs were not recognized a problem then.
(18) a. Drugs were not recognized to be a problem then.
b. *Drugs were not recognized a problem then. The above examples show that while certain verbs share certain grammatical properties broadly, they may not behave exactly the same at a deeper/finer syntactical level (yes, their semantic aspects also often play a role here). Thus, "choose" (like any other verbs) needs to be treated individually beyond the point where it crosses the common grammatical territory it shares with other verbs categorized together for their broad similarity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 22, 2015 12:38:16 GMT 5.5
A word on the green highlights in the quotation of your passage in my last post: Complements can be adverbials as well: (19) I am here. Prepositional phrases often function as adverbials, and they often (but not always) answer the question "where": (20) She is in the store. [Where is she?]
(21) We are for individual freedom, not its undue suppression by community good all the time. [What are you for?] |
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 22, 2015 13:21:26 GMT 5.5
Is there any difference between ' [1]I chose him my servant' and ' [2]The people chose him president' ? I wanted him to serve me / to work for me as my servant / to be my servant. The people wanted him to be their president / to work or rule for them as a president . Can I paraphrase them so? The point is not that there is no structural difference between your examples (1) and (2), as I number them in the quotation above, but I do not personally prefer this structure. As I said earlier, I cannot say this structure is incorrect and of course it is quite common. The point further is that now that this usage is quite so prevalent linguists should describe its structure as it stands, not as something it realizes after some omission. That would do this structure the justice it deserves. For example, English has a lot of words shortened from their very long old forms, and now we regard the new and old forms as formally different words. Can I paraphrase them so? You say ' director without as' and ' director with as' are respectively 'ONC' and 'advervial'. How will you paraphrase them based on their structural differentiation. Meaning, in linguistics, is an area different altogether from syntax, so paraphrasing is not of much use as a tool particularly when the concern is the structure of grammatical elements (because the paraphrase takes only the meaning and expresses it in a grammatical form which is totally different structurally from the structure in question), though the sense of course is essential throughout. We treat every sample syntactically and we analyze them in a way considered scientific/objective. There is a great possibility of difference in how people perceive sentences. [1]When you say that we can omit ' non finite phrase', you give some examples I think are quite different from ' I chose him my husband'. In ' The government has chosen MG builders (to construct ) the new metro line' , can we say ' MG builders= the new metro line' ? What is about ' him = my servant' ? Can 'be' be used like other verbs( construct, preach) ? I treat them differently so I don't want to agree on what you are saying about the omitting of non finite phrase. [2]I found it to be good / good (omitting 'to be' ). Is ' I found it good' an another style of ' I found that it is good' ? [3]Here, I would say there is no explanation ,and ( that) this or that is normal or abnormal depends on the native speakers' usage. We elected him president. We elected him to rule our country as a president. [1] The purpose of the MG Builders example was to show that (I think) you cannot omit the non-finitive phrase (as in the examples) because what follows does not have any grammatical anchor to relate itself to the sentence. (It was also to show that just because verbs belong to the broadly same category they cannot have the same argument structure and that just because a verb can have an argument structure in a specifix semantic context does not mean that it can work like that in another sematic context despite the same argument structure. Moreover, a verb may have various argument structures.) It was not meant to say that the infinitive phrase is a complement. For convenience, I have reproduced below the relevant part in that particular post: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (OALD) (9th ed.) has these two relevant constructions for "choose": While (3) We chose Phil McSweeney Chairperson. may, despite its awkwardness, be understood by some as (4) We chose Phil McSweeney as/for Chairperson. I don't think you can understand it as (2a) in the OALD quotation because you cannot omit the non-finite verb phrase (represented by the parts within brackets in (5) and (6) below) from there without rendering the sentence unintelligible. (5) The government has chosen MG Builders (to construct) the new metro line.
(6) While Peter was chosen (to preach to) the Jews, Paul was chosen (to preach to) the Gentile. You cannot omit the non-finitive phrase because what follows does not have any grammatical anchor to relate itself to the sentence. [2] "I found it (to be) good" is of a different structure than "I found that it is/was good" and they cannot be treated as the same. In the former case, if we do not omit "to be" "to be good" is a phrase (a non-finite one) while "that it is/was good" in the latter is a finite clause. They are structurally different and hence incommensurate. Meaning is another thing, though, again, important. [3] Yes, it depends on native speakers' usage. And I think "most" native speakers would find your sentence quite awkward "at the moment," (what was once awkward may turn out standard at another time an example of which is the use of "graduate"), and in this regard, not being a native speaker, I am not the one to judge this. That said, I would add that all languages have native speakers speaking very badly. It's here that variation within the same language arises, and this variation tells you where you belong. That's interesting. [4]Why should we omit 'to rule..' ? But here 'him = president so we can say ' We elected him president' so why not ' I chose him my servant.' I think 'with /without to be/as ' does not matter. You prefer 'as' to 'to be'. Why? Which do you want, 'as' or 'to be' in ' I chose him to be/as my friend ? I will reply to this one in a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 22, 2015 15:39:11 GMT 5.5
[4]Why should we omit 'to rule..' ? But here 'him = president so we can say ' We elected him president' so why not ' I chose him my servant.' I think 'with /without to be/as ' does not matter. [5]You prefer 'as' to 'to be'. Why? Which do you want, 'as' or 'to be' in ' I chose him to be/as my friend ? Well, let's say "we chose him our president" is acceptable, but when you can drag your knowledge of the whole world's political systems (from the earliest known times to the present moment) into your interpretation of what that choosing involves and what that implies, you cannot necessarily bring "to rule" or "ruling" or any other non-finite form of the verb "rule" into the sentence's syntactical analysis. As I noted above, "choose," as we understand it till now, has different argument structures than those of "elect," meaning that they are not verbs of the same grammatical property. This means that just because "elect" has X structure "choose" cannot have the same. They are not the same despite their shared properties. As the OALD quotation above shows, "choose" has the two argument structures: 1. choose somebody/something as/for something
(a) He chose banking as a career.
(b) We chose Phil McSweeney as/for chairperson.
2. choose somebody to be something
(a) We chose Phil McSweeney to be chairperson. So "with or without "as" or "to be" matters. OALD has yet to recognize "choose + ONP + NPobject complement [that is, omitted "as" or "to be"] if is considered acceptable or will turn out so any time in future. [5] It's a personal preference when both are acceptable. "Choosing" (by vote or something like common consensus) somebody "as something" already implies the person having "to be," is perhaps is why some want to drop "as" and "to be" from before the complement though the current usage rule has it that you have to "still have" either of them. While it is a person's individual, personal choice, I have no preference for "as" connection, in fact there are times when you don't want to say "as" but "to be," not that the other is wrong. It depends on how strong you want the connection to be. In any case, I would maintain here again that you canot say the same thing in two different ways. Every expression has its distinct significance values, and no other expression can render it exactly the same way. The difference in nuances makes the distinct feel or sensibility of distict expressions. |
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Oct 5, 2015 21:15:04 GMT 5.5
Languages change at all levels over time--phonetics/phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon. And thus, given its semantic affinity with such verbs as 'elect', 'make', among others, there is a possibility of "choose" taking up the argument structure S + V + O + OC Construction grammars in part deal with such cases. Some verbs enter into the category called ditransitive taking two objects where the indirect object (IO) precedes the direct object (DO) agfter the verb as in Father mailed (DTV) him (IO) the instruction (DO). New verbs with appropriate semantic properties can enter this category, thereby forcing the readers/listeners to interpret them in the way established ditransitive verbs are. Thus we have He faxed (DTV) father (IO) a reply (DO). It is not that construction grammars allow any word to enter any category but that some words more readily assume certain categorical properties than others. |
|
