I wonder how the tree diagram would be for this sentence:
I MUST HAVE GONE CRAZY
I have made my own but i just want to make sure whether or not my diagram is correct.
thanks
DhBlue.
I would help you if I could, but I do not understand tree diagrams.
As a Reed-Kellogg diagram, I would say that "went" becomes a linking verb like "became".
"I became crazy" is easy to diagram. "I must have gone crazy", I guess, would diagram the same way.
"Must have gone" I would consider a single verb phrase.
Frank
thanks for trying to help, Frank Antonson
please someone help me.
the problem is in diagramming the: MUST HAVE are both considered AUX? or?
i'm still curious...
yeah both are aux. as u know u should state that the sentence consists of a verb phrase which in turns consists of two aux. + main verb..
i hope that will be of benifit for u
-As far as I remember, we used to count auxiliaries as sentence components, and not parts of verb phrases. That's what I remember.Originally Posted by DhBlue
thanks for trying to help, Frank Antonson
please someone help me.
the problem is in diagramming the: MUST HAVE are both considered AUX? or?
i'm still curious...
-Go crazy is a fixed expression. So it can be a phrase.
Send your version, if you like.
I don't disagree with the other responders. It's just that in Reed-Kellogg a verb phrase is diagrammed as a whole i.e. as a "simple predicate".
This could be regarded as a weakness in Reed-Kellogg. The auxiliaries, however, could be independently parsed by putting an abbreviation of their function over them. That would be regarded as morphology, however, not syntax, and would not work well within a Reed-Kellogg diagram.
thanks for helping guys
chester100, i did draw my diagram exactly that way but not sure with the AUX AUX part.
I mean, I was not sure whether or not two AUXs in a single tree-diagram would be considered correct.
again, thanks a lot
I think we can't do it otherwise. Do you have any special suggestions?
Posting Permissions
