Fortunately (for us), these documents have been preserved.

Status
Not open for further replies.

kadioguy

Key Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
Taiwan
Current Location
Taiwan
a. Fortunately, these documents have been preserved.
b. Fortunately for us, these documents have been preserved.

http://learnersdictionary.com/definition/Fortunately
---------------------
I know that Fortunately is a sentence adverb, so in (a) Fortunately modifies these documents have been preserved. But how about in (b)? Do Fortunately modify for us in (b), and Fortunately for us modify these documents have been preserved?

Please see below:

qsbUDjv.png



SuIQxSq.png
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Yes, I personally think your diagram represents the meaning well.
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
a. Fortunately, these documents have been preserved.
b. Fortunately for us, these documents have been preserved.

http://learnersdictionary.com/definition/Fortunately
---------------------
I know that Fortunately is a sentence adverb, so in (a) Fortunately modifies these documents have been preserved.
Although the adverb "fortunately" is a clause-oriented adjunct, it is not a modifier. Elements like this are supplements, not part of clause structure, but loosely attached elements presenting non-integrated content. Supplements do not combine with the clause or some element within it to form a larger constituent, but stand apart as a non-constituent. Supplements do, though, relate to some element within the main clause such as a phrase, or even the whole clause itself, called the 'anchor'. In your example, the semantic anchor is the whole main clause.

The adverb doesn’t mediate the way in which the proposition relates to truth. In "Fortunately, these documents have been preserved", the proposition that these documents have been preserved is presented as a fact, and the speaker adds an evaluation which amounts to saying "It is fortunate that this is true".


But how about in (b)? Do Fortunately modify for us in (b), and Fortunately for us modify these documents have been preserved?

The same analysis applies here. The only difference is that "fortunately for us" is an adverb phrase with "fortunately" as head and the PP "for us" as its complement. Functionally, it is just the same as the single word "fortunately", i.e. it is a supplementary evaluative adjunct.
 

YAMATO2201

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Yes, I personally think your diagram represents the meaning well.
I am flabbergasted at that post. I, for one, think for us modifies Fortunately (but not vice versa).
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
I am flabbergasted at that post. I, for one, think for us modifies Fortunately (but not vice versa).

Not quite: in the evaluative adjunct "fortunately for us", the PP "for us" does not modify "fortunately", but functions as its complement. It qualifies as a complement because it has to be licensed (specifically permitted) by the head "fortunately".
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I am flabbergasted at that post. I, for one, think for us modifies Fortunately (but not vice versa).

Sorry to flabbergast you. :)

I meant that for us tells us something about fortunately—that is, who it was fortunate for, as these documents have been preserved tells us what was fortunate. I didn't mean to suggest that fortunately modifies for us, if that's what you understood.

Grammar aside, I was really talking about the very basic semantic relations between the parts of the sentence. I was careful not to use any terminology.
 

YAMATO2201

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Not quite: in the evaluative adjunct "fortunately for us", the PP "for us" does not modify "fortunately", but functions as its complement.
It is fortunate for us that these documents have been preserved.

In this sentence, does for us modify fortunate?
 
Last edited:

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
It is fortunate for us that these documents have been preserved.

In this sentence, does for us modify fortunate?

No: "for us" is a complement of "fortunate", not a modifier.
 

YAMATO2201

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
in the evaluative adjunct "fortunately for us", the PP "for us" does not modify "fortunately",
Please look at the sentence below:

Luckily for them, he braked in time. (OALD)

A certain native BrE speaker says "for them" modifies "Luckily". What do you think?
 
Last edited:

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
A certain native BrE speaker says "for them" modifies "Luckily". What do you think?



NOT A TEACHER


Hello, Yamato:

I have found some information that may interest you.

"Luckily for Herbert, the gun was not loaded."

Four respected grammarians in their book say that the meaning of that sentence is "Herbert was lucky that the gun was not loaded."

They then add that the prepositional phrase "for Herbert" specifies "that luckily is not to be generalized, but applies specifically (my emphasis) to Herbert."


Source: Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985 edition), page 630.
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
Please look at the sentence below:

Luckily for them, he braked in time. (OALD)

A certain native BrE speaker says "for them" modifies "Luckily". What do you think?

I think the same as I did before. The PP "for them" is not modifier, but complement of "luckily", and together they form the evaluative adjunct "luckily for them" (an adverb phrase).

In "Luckily for them, he braked in time", the proposition that he braked in time is presented as a fact, and the speaker adds an evaluation which amounts to saying "It is lucky for them that this is true".
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
Is there a flaw in the following definition of "modifier"?

modifier noun
(grammar)
a word or group of words that describes a noun phrase or restricts its meaning in some way
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/modifier?q=modifier

No, there's no flaw in that definition. Why should there be?

But "for them" is not a modifier. It's a complement, a kind of dependent that has to be licensed (specially permitted) by the head word.

By contrast, modifiers do not have to be licensed by the head word.

See here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/phfunc/compl2.htm
 
Last edited:

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Is there a flaw in the following definition of "modifier"?



NOT A TEACHER


Hello, Yamato

I have found some information that may interest you.

1. "Luckily for me."

a. One source says that "for me" is a complement that completes the meaning of "luckily."

2. "Luckily for him."

a. One source says that "for him" is a postmodifier (a modifier occurring after the head word "luckily").


Source 1: The Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992 edition), page 242.
Source 2: The Routledge Dictionary of English Studies (2012), accessed through Google.
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
The Routledge Dictionary fails to take account of the principles of complementation, the main one being that complements have to be licensed by the head.

There is no doubt at all that the PP "for him" is licensed by the head "luckily", and thus must be a complement.

Here again is a link to the UCL (University College London) website which gives exactly the same example as a complement:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/phfunc/compl2.htm
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
The Routledge Dictionary fails to take account of the principles of complementation, the main one being that complements have to be licensed by the head.

There is no doubt at all that the PP "for him" is licensed by the head "luckily", and thus must be a complement.

Here again is a link to the UCL (University College London) website which gives exactly the same example as a complement:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/phfunc/compl2.htm

I don't think anybody's arguing that for him is not a complement. The issue is whether it's a kind of modifier.

You seem to say it's not. Are you saying the reason it's not a modifier is because it's a complement? Or just that it doesn't fall within your broadest definition of 'modifier'? Are postmodifiers equally free from having to be licensed by the head?

Please don't think I'm arguing here. I just want to learn something. I'm wondering why Routledge might have said that.
 

YAMATO2201

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
They then add that the prepositional phrase "for Herbert" specifies "that luckily is not to be generalized, but applies specifically (my emphasis) to Herbert."
In post #4, by saying "for them modifies Fortunately", I meant "Fortunately applies specifically to us". :-D
 

Phaedrus

Banned
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
There is no doubt at all that the PP "for him" is licensed by the head "luckily", and thus must be a complement.

Is "is licensed by" different from "is allowed by" or "is permitted by"? A lot of verbs allow/permit/license PP adjuncts/modifiers within VPs. We can say "He wept," and we can say "He wept under the bridge." Yet the PP "under the bridge" is a modifier, or adjunct, not a complement. "Put," on the other hand, requires a PP in addition to the direct object. We can say "He put the dishes in the cupboard"; however, if someone says, *[strike]He put the dishes[/strike], one knows instantly that the speaker is nonnative. The PP is obligatory, and that, it seems to me, is why it's called a complement. Traditionally speaking, it completes the meaning.

(Note: As I said all that, it became clear to me that I'm unclear on how "He put the dishes away" fits into that story. Maybe "away" is an intransitive PP.)

So, I don't see why PP "for him" must be deemed a complement in "luckily for him" and "fortunately for him." The PP is permitted/allowed, and for me that means it's "licensed" -- unless that term is more loaded than I thought it was from the standpoint of linguistic jargon. In the usage I'm accustomed to, we can say that auxiliary verbs license verb-phrase ellipsis. That means that verb-phrase ellipsis is possible/permitted/allowed after auxiliary verbs, not that it's required! We can say "I thought she was walking down the street, and she was" (VPE), but we can also say, redundantly, "I thought she was walking down the street, and she was walking down the street."

Why is "for him" a complement in "luckily/fortunately for him" if we can have perfectly grammatical sentences like "Luckily/Fortunately, he was rescued just in time"? The only thing I can think of that might tempt one to analyze the PP "for him" as a complement there is that the head of the PP, namely "for," could perhaps be said to be "selected" (another jargon term) by the adverb "luckily"/"fortunately" (heading the AdvP). In other words, while we can have "Luckily/Fortunately for him, he was rescued just in time", we can't have *[strike]Luckily/Fortunately on the sofa, he was rescued just in time[/strike].

Is that the hidden reason for insisting that the PP is a complement rather than a modifier?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top