Contrasted elements diagrammed

[TheParser]

Would you kindly Reed-Kellogg this sentence?

"We need real politicians, not political puppets."

Thank you VERY much.

[lauralie2]

Would you kindly Reed-Kellogg this sentence?

"We need real politicians, not political puppets."

Thank you VERY much.

See here.

______________
[Clause]

• ::subject We (pronoun)
• ::verb need (verb + verb_base_form + transitive_verb)
  
  • ::directObject politicians (noun + plural)
    
    • ::adjectiveModifier real (adjective)
    • ::appositive puppets (noun + plural)
      
      • ::adjectiveModifier political (adjective)
        
        • ::adverbModifier not (adverb)
        
        
      
      
    
    
  
  

[TheParser]

See here.

______________

[Clause]

• ::subject We (pronoun)
• ::verb need (verb + verb_base_form + transitive_verb)
  
  • ::directObject politicians (noun + plural)
    
    • ::adjectiveModifier real (adjective)
    • ::appositive puppets (noun + plural)
      
      • ::adjectiveModifier political (adjective)
        
        • ::adverbModifier not (adverb)

Thank you SO much for the quick answer. Most interesting that the

analysis says that "not political puppets" is an appositive rather than an

example of ellipsis. Wonder what Mr. Antonson thinks.

[Frank Antonson]

Ah! This is fun to be back at this!

Mr. Antonson thinks that analysis as an appositive is interesting and possible. I like the fact that it does not add understood words and seems to be so concise and eloquent. However, I don't actually think it works.

I feel that an appositive should DUPLICATE a sentence part. Granted that "real politicians" and "not puppets" can both function as the direct object, I DON'T feel that they are exchangeable without markedly changing the sense of the sentence. Although it involves much ellipsis, I feel that words like "...and (or but) we do ... need" must be understood to really include the whole meaning.

Let me try to diagram it my way -- partly to see if I can still do this online.

[Frank Antonson]

[TheParser]

(1) Because of computer problems (and my being a computer illiterate), I cannot press the "thank you" button to join the two other members who have thanked you. So I thank you VERY much in this post.

(2) I, too, think that the appositive idea is very interesting, but I agree with you that somehow I find it hard to accept. With you, I prefer the ellipsis explanation.

(3) I should point out, however, that in Professor Quirk's A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (which SOME people feel is the most
comprehensive grammar currently available), he writes this:

Reformulation can also be negative, ie the modifying APPOSITIVE (my emphasis) is NOT (my emphasis) a synonymous expression:

You should have consulted an ophthalmologist, not (that is) an optician.

(4) Nevertheless, I believe that most "authorities," pace Professor Quirk, still hold to the ellipsis theory.

[lauralie2]

(4) Nevertheless, I believe that most "authorities," pace Professor Quirk, still hold to the ellipsis theory.

I guess the question then becomes, which of the two, apposition or ellipsis, is the more efficient / represents a more efficient system?

[Frank Antonson]

Well, efficiency must bow to accuracy.

But...I suppose it comes down to interpretation of what is going on in the mind of the speaker (and hearer) -- writer (and reader).

[Alan Holpinburgfurt]

ahh, this one looks like a toughie. i would really love to learn how to do this, if i could find a way. can anyone offer help??