Auxiliary Verb.. and Tree diagrams..

[Andraste]

Hi :)

I have yet to figure out how auxiliary verbs fit themselves into tree diagrams.
I am assuming - ah example: "Chelsea was kissed by a stranger" that "Chelsea" would go under NP, while "was kissed by a stranger" would then go under the VP. Or would the auxiliary "was" be by itself in the Sentence, and not be under any NP or VP's?

So it would end up something like (I cannot figure out how to draw a diagram so I hope this is understandable):

S ->NP ->|N -> N -> "Chelsea."
Also off S -> VP
VP splits into the auxiliary "was", and another VP which contains "kissed by a stranger."

Does this actually make any sense, or should I attempt to clarify?

Thanks in advance.

[corum]

[Andraste]

Okay... so why then is the auxiliary verb not classified under the VP?

[corum]

Okay... so why then is the auxiliary verb not classified under the VP?

Try some constituent tests and you will see.

[Frank Antonson]

Corum,

Could you explain what you mean by those constituent tests? In American grammar "was" would certainly be called part of the verb phrase -- a helping verb helpling the main verb to form the passive voice.

[corum]

Chelsea was kissed by a stranger.

Transformational grammar is based on the idea that all phrases in all languages look the same:



Concentrate on the position of the conjugated auxiliary 'be' relative to the specifier 'not'.
Since the specifier is the leftmost slot in a phrase, and the passive auxiliary
can only precede the specifier position in a grammatical sentence, transformational grammar places auxiliaries in inflectional phrases (IP) outside verb phrases (VP).

Chelsea was not kissed.
Chelsea not was kissed.

[corum]

Chelsea was kissed by a stranger.
Chelsea was not kissed by a stranger.

I know that the two sentences are different, but 'not' does not affect where the auxiliary should belong.

[Andraste]

Great... Now, I'm confused. Before I had some idea and now I have no idea where auxiliary verbs go. *sigh* ...

Alright:

Chelsea was what? [Kissed by a stranger] <--- this all goes under VP right?
Though then the "was" IS outside the VP structure... am I getting this close at all?
Who was kissed? [Chelsea] <--- Chelsea = N.
But then the "was" and "kissed"... ARGH.

Help. Please?

[corum]

Great... Now, I'm confused. Before I had some idea and now I have no idea where auxiliary verbs go. *sigh* ...

Alright:

Chelsea was what? [Kissed by a stranger] <--- this all goes under VP right?

Sorry, not right. was is not a linking verb in the sentence and what follows is not a predicate nominative.

Exactly! That is what I say too!

Though then the "was" IS outside the VP structure... am I getting this close at all?
Who was kissed? [Chelsea] <--- Chelsea = N.
But then the "was" and "kissed"... ARGH.

hmmm.

Help. Please?

What would you like to know?

[corum]

Otago. Nice place!