Diagramming Shakespeare 2

[Frank Antonson]

"Love sees not with the eye but with the mind; and, therefore, is winged Cupid painted blind" (Midsummer...). A few tricky spots.
Linguist Farmer

[Kondorosi]

"Love sees not with the eye but with the mind; and, therefore, is winged Cupid painted blind" (Midsummer...). A few tricky spots.
Linguist Farmer

While I am being engrossed in the miracles of diagramming this sentence, I would like you to be engrossed too; however, you be engrossed in another sentence.

I think, therefore I am.

Is it what I call two examples of valency reduction? Have the valency patterns undergone change in the recent 400 years?

[Frank Antonson]

I do not know what"valency" is. I know about a valence in chemistry. Does that help?

In "I think;therefore, I am", I guess I would treat "therefore" as a "transitional adverb" and diagram it like a "subordinating conjunction". I think I would diagram it the same as "I am thirsty, so I drink".

Did you get through your email my attempt at diagramming that Shakespearean quote? Some lines should have been dashed.

[Kondorosi]

I do not know what"valency" is. I know about a valence in chemistry. Does that help?

The concept of verb valency is derived from the definition of valency in chemistry.
In chemistry, valency number of an atom is the number of chemical bounds that an atom can enter into.
By analogy, verb valency is the number of argument a verb has control over, the number of bounds it forms in sentences.

"think" is a transitive verb and it is di(=two)valent. It controls two arguments:

- subject
- direct object

In "I think;therefore, I am", I guess I would treat "therefore" as a "transitional adverb" and diagram it like a "subordinating conjunction". I think I would diagram it the same as "I am thirsty, so I drink".

Fair enough. However, in the translation of Descartes' saying "think" is used intransitively. Is it allowed in Contemporary English Grammar? But then, Descartes' peers were not contemporary.

Did you get through your email my attempt at diagramming that Shakespearean quote? Some lines should have been dashed.

Not yet. You have set a quick pace and I can hardly catch up with you.

[Frank Antonson]

The quick pace is partly because (with my fractured hip) I have no life right now. I just sit around. Normally I would be out shoveling snow or messing around with my irrigation system.
Being able to diagram a sentence certainly does not prove that one understands the depth of the thought within the sentence -- still, at least with Shakespearean quotes, it DOES make one consider the whole thought.
LF

[Kondorosi]

The quick pace is partly because (with my fractured hip) I have no life right now. I just sit around. Normally I would be out shoveling snow or messing around with my irrigation system.

I like your quick pace. What did the doctor say? When will you be okay? I hope before long.

Being able to diagram a sentence certainly does not prove that one understands the depth of the thought within the sentence -- still, at least with Shakespearean quotes, it DOES make one consider the whole thought.
LF

I see your point and I agree with it. I will come back with the diagram tomorrow, if you do not mind. Now it is time to

See you later.

[Kondorosi]

"Love sees not with the eye but with the mind; and, therefore, is winged Cupid painted blind" (Midsummer...). A few tricky spots.
Linguist Farmer

I almost totally agree with the dia that you sent in your e-mail to my inbox.
That "not ... but" part I would not handle as being correlative.

(not sees with) but (sees with)

[Frank Antonson]

I'll work on that tilted text.
I'm surprised that there is not a kind of line available that is already dashed, but I'll work on that as well.
Regarding "(not sees with) but (sees with)" -- To diagram that would involve a compound simple predicate with the second "sees" understood. That works, but it seems complicated. I think it is simpler to think of the "not" as modifying the first "with", or else the whole first prepositional phrase. If you remove the word "not" altogether, the "but" doesn't work any more. I think that is why I felt that they were somehow correlative.
Alas for a renowned expert!
Toward which end, I am re-reading House and Harman.
LF

[Kondorosi]

If you remove the word "not" altogether, the "but" doesn't work any more. I think that is why I felt that they were somehow correlative.