R-K Question, please

[TheParser]

(a) Ms. Smith's class has FIVE MORE students than Mr. Mason's.

(b) Ms. Smith's class has FIVE students MORE than Mr. Mason's.

Do those sentences need separate Reed-Kellogg diagrams?

Thank you.

 

[corum]

My $0.02 is this:

Ms. Smith's class has FIVE MORE students than Mr. Mason's.

'five' plays a restrictive role on 'more', a word from the same ilk: quantifiers, determiners.

Let me see what we have here. Tests! :up: Tests are good!


Ms. Smith's class has FIVE MORE students than Mr. Mason's. :tick:
Ms. Smith's class has FIVE students than Mr. Mason's. :cross:
Ms. Smith's class has MORE students than Mr. Mason's. :tick:
Ms. Smith's class has students than Mr. Mason's. :cross:

Ms. Smith's class has FIVE MORE students than Mr. Mason's (class has students).

more than ... My gut feeling supported by some flimsy empirical evidence suggests to me that 'more' and 'than' work in tandem? What do they do? They conjoin clauses in a comparative structure as one paired conjunction; they are something similar to both ... and, either ... or, etc.

Now, what is the matter in the following story?

He has more than five students.
He has six students.
He has more than five but less than ten students.

The coordination test suggests the bolded group of words belong together thus: more than five = DP (determiner phrase)

than = linker (link determiners)

This structure is different than that you proposed for consideration. It was just a side-thought. Never mind. Back to track:

 

[Frank Antonson]

I agree with Corum's work. I would connect the subordinate clause by its simple predicate, and I would put more "x"'s in it, but my analysis is basically the same. Your two original sentences should be diagrammed the same.

 

[TheParser]

MANY thanks to the both of you for your GREAT help!

 

[corum]

I agree with Corum's work.

I would connect the subordinate clause by its simple predicate, and I would put more "x"'s in it, but my analysis is basically the same. Your two original sentences should be diagrammed the same.

Absolutely! :up:

 

[Frank Antonson]

Corum,
You are a piece of work!
Frank

 

[corum]

Corum,
You are a piece of work!

Before I read this, there was only one type of context in which I had seen the string of words: "you are a piece of". In those instances, the author invariably expressed the resentment he felt at his interlocutor's behaviour. Good to know there are other uses too. ;-)
Thanks for the comment!

 

[Frank Antonson]

One might also say, "You are really something!

I suppose both could be good or bad -- I meant good.