[Grammar] [noun] [dependent clause] [noun clause] Whoever thought of the idea is a genius.

Status
Not open for further replies.

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
NOT A TEACHER



2. According to how I understand it, "Whoever" means "anyone who."

a. Thus, the basic sentence is "Anyone is a genius."

I wouldn't go along with that. I'd say it's best paraphrased as the person who is a genius.

A paraphrase with "any" is best used for the 'free choice' construction of fused relatives, as in I'll accept [whatever price you suggest] / I'll go [wherever they tell me to go].
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
Whoever thought of the idea is a genius.

I can’t see anything to be gained by analysing the OP’s example using the Reed-Kellogg system. It has never been used in the UK, and it is just about redundant elsewhere, so why waste time with it?

The crucial thing about this example is that consists of a 'fused relative construction', a common-enough way of analysing such expressions nowadays.

The fusion that exists in the word “whoever” can best be shown using a conventional tree diagram:

Whoever thought of that.jpg

Here, the single word “whoever” can clearly be seen functioning not just as head of the NP but also as the relativised element functioning as subject of the relative clause. The meaning is thus comparable to the non-fused “the person who thought of that”.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
e
View attachment 4060

Here, the single word “whoever” can clearly be seen functioning not just as head of the NP but also as the relativised element functioning as subject of the relative clause. The meaning is thus comparable to the non-fused “the person who thought of that”.
Fine, but you wrote earlier "It's not a noun clause, not a clause at all."
 

Phaedrus

Banned
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Whoever thought of the idea is a genius.

I can’t see anything to be gained by analysing the OP’s example using the Reed-Kellogg system. It has never been used in the UK, and it is just about redundant elsewhere, so why waste time with it?
Like your tree diagram (and my own tree diagram in this thread, in case you missed it), the Reed-Kellogg diagrams make claims about syntactic structure. Two different sets of authors, who wrote long after Reed and Kellogg, have proposed two different Reed-Kellogg structures for this type of syntactic entity, whatever name we give it. Both of those Reed-Kellogg diagrams have been given in this thread.

All the diagrams given in this thread, including yours, represent different ways of conceiving of the nature of the construction, and clearly depict those ways of conceiving it (provided one understands the diagramming system). If the great Otto Jespersen had drawn some sort of diagram of the sentence, whether as a tree or a cobbling together of bubbles, I'm sure there would have been no objection to looking at it as an example of how the construction was historically conceived of.

The crucial thing about this example is that consists of a 'fused relative construction', a common-enough way of analysing such expressions nowadays.
The customary term for such constructions in generative grammar in the United States has for over forty years been free relative clauses.

The fusion that exists in the word “whoever” can best be shown using a conventional tree diagram:

View attachment 4060

Here, the single word “whoever” can clearly be seen functioning not just as head of the NP but also as the relativised element functioning as subject of the relative clause. The meaning is thus comparable to the non-fused “the person who thought of that”.
In mainstream generative grammar in the United States, it is by no means conventional to represent a word as simultaneously realizing two syntactic positions. Such a representation, whatever style of diagram is used to make it, makes a claim about syntactic structure that would raise the eyebrows of many a syntactician.

I'll reinsert the tree diagram I gave earlier, in case the Reed-Kellogg diagrams, which I drew in addition to the tree, caused it to be snubbed by anyone.

a genius.jpg
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
NOT A TEACHER

Although it is unlikely, if any advanced member (or guest) is interested in diagramming, I hope that s/he will consider the Reed-Kellogg system.

Unlike the tree diagrams (which are great for university-level students), the Reed-Kellogg system is suited to ordinary people like me who are interested in secondary school-level grammar.

The Reed-Kellogg diagrams posted in this thread by Phaedrus are a virtual picture of a sentence. They are beautiful and show the viewer how every single word fits into that sentence. If nothing else, it forces a person to account for every single part of speech.

I admit that few people agree with this opinion of an American poet: "I really do not know that anything has ever been more exciting than diagramming sentences." -- Gertrude Stein



(P.S. Anyone interested in Reed-Kellogg may wish to check out the website: German-Latin-English.com.)
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
Fine, but you wrote earlier "It's not a noun clause, not a clause at all."

Indeed, I did, and the diagram shows it to be an NP, as the title clearly says.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
So the word Clause is just randomly floating about the diagram then?
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
So the word Clause is just randomly floating about the diagram then?

Whoever thought of the idea
is a genius.

I don't think there's any such suggestion.

The tree very clearly shows the syntactic structure of the NP, and that the modifier of the head has the form of a relative clause (marked REL) within the NP. See also #3.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
The tree very clearly shows the syntactic structure of the NP, and that the modifier of the head has the form of a relative clause (marked REL) within the NP. See also #3.
It seems to me from the tree that the modifier is a clause (rel) with a subject, the NP whoever and a predicate thought (predicator) of that (comp).

If I am wrong, please explain the tree to me.

If I am not wrong, please explain to me how it can be a clause in the tree, have the form of a relative clause in your post 28, and not be a clause at all in your post 3.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
It seems to me from the tree that the modifier is a clause (rel) with a subject, the NP whoever and a predicate thought (predicator) of that (comp).

Yes, that's how it seems to me too. I think though that PaulMatthews is saying that it can't be classed as a clause because it's a NP. It must be one or the other. Is that right, Paul?

I'm very interested to see the tree diagrams in this thread. I've lately been trying to teach myself tree diagramming. Can anyone recommend any apps or tools to allow me to draw and save them on a computer?
 

Phaedrus

Banned
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I've lately been trying to teach myself tree diagramming. Can anyone recommend any apps or tools to allow me to draw and save them on a computer?

Lately, I have found Syntax Tree Editor useful for these purposes. After I download the tree I make to my computer, I use Snipping Tool to take a picture of it. Then I feed the png image into a png-to-jpg converter and save that version, which is the one I upload and insert into a Using English post using "Manage Attachments" in "Go Advanced." As for the Reed-Kellogg diagrams, I use Let's Diagram!, a program which is wonderfully user-friendly and involves a much less painful process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top