[Grammar] Infinitive Verbs

[corum]

Objective 'him' gets its case from 'want'; i.e., I want him. PRO occurs in non-case positions:


I want him [PRO to come]



Pro (small) in case positions (See pro-drop languages); PRO (big) in non-case positions.

Objective 'him' gets its case from 'want'

As I have already said it too.

Pro (small) in case positions (See pro-drop languages); PRO (big) in non-case positions.

Roger that. Thanks! Could you provide some evidence regarding the function of "him". Why do you think it is not part of the subordinate clause? Why do you tink it is the object of "want" and not the subject of "to come"?

I want him [PRO to come]

SVOC?

 

[lauralie2]

Why do you t[h]ink [him] is... not the subject of "to come"?

On the contrary, 'him' is the semantic subject of 'to come.' It is co-referential with PRO, the structural subject of 'to come':

I want him [PRO to come]
​

Why do you t[h]ink [him] is the object of "want"....

Is it the (direct) object or the (indirect) object? What if 'him' is an indirect object?

I want (for) him [PRO to come]
I want him (IO) to come (DO).
I want [PRO to come] (DO).



​

SVOC?

Hmm.

I want him [pro (is) to come]. :cross:


​

Small pro occurs in a case-assigning position. The problem is that English is not a pro-drop language.

 

[corum]

I want him [PRO to come].
I want [him to come]

Questions:

1. Why is "him" outside []?
2. Why do we have a PRO once we have a "him"?
3. Each clause has a semantic subject and a structural subject, right?
4. Why not "him" is both?

Why do you t[h]ink [him] is the object of "want"....

5. Why is [] around "h" in "think?

Is it the (direct) object or the (indirect) object? What if 'him' is an indirect object?

6. Do you not think it is an absurd idea: "him" as an indirect object?

I want (for) him [PRO to come]
I want him (IO) to come (DO).
I want [PRO to come] (DO)

.

I want (for) him [PRO to come]. -- That is not the idea that the sentence conveys to me.

SVOC?

I want him [pro (is) to come]. :cross:

Small pro occurs in a case-assigning position.

7. Am I right with this?
If the [] part is the C, it would follow we have an ellipted finite verb in the object complement clause. An ellipted finite verb implies a pro. English is not a pro-drop language, which means the [] part is not a C and, consequently, the sentence is not a SVOC.

 

[lauralie2]

Questions:

1. Why is "him" outside []?

Because its form (that it is an object pronoun) tells us that it sits in an object position. If it sat in a subject position, its form would be 'he':

a) I want [he to come] :cross: SV
b) I want [him to come] :cross: OV

​

Example a) has infinitive 'to come' assigning nominative case to 'he'. The resulting *'he to come' is ungrammatical because infinitive 'to come' cannot assign case...ever. Example b) has 'him' occurring before its verb; we expect to see it following a verb (or a preposition).

c) I want him [to come] :tick:
d) I want for him [to come] :tick:

​

Example c) has 'him' receiving case from case-assigning 'want'; Example d) has 'him' receiving case from the preposition 'for'.
​

2. Why do we have a PRO once we have a "him"?

It's based on the idea that every clause has a subject and a verb.

• Verbs that assign case take an overt subject (in pro-drop languages (say, Irish, subjects can be omitted, which is where small pro comes in).
  
• Verbs that do not assign case (such as infinitive verbs) take PRO as their structural subject.
  • 'to come' is an infinitive verb and as such cannot assign case, but semantically we know it has a doer, an agent, a subject:
    
    • [PRO to come]
      • by default PRO is semantically empty. It gains its meaning from the closest pronoun

​

3. Each clause has a semantic subject and a structural subject, right?

Right. In our example, 'I' is both the structural and semantic subject of the verb 'want':

'I' = structural subject: SV & case marking
'I' = semantic subject: e.g., doer, agent of 'want'

'him' = structural object: case marking
'him' = semantic subject: doer, agent of '(to) come'

PRO = structural subject: SV
PRO = semantically empty by default; gains its meaning via co-referencing with 'him', an object pronoun in the higher clause.
​

• I want him [PRO to come]

4. Why not "him" is both?

Well, in a way, it is both: 'him' holds an object position, structurally, in the higher clause and is tied to PRO, semantically, in the lower clause.

By the way, a given constituent can hold one and only one position in the structure.
​

5. Why is [] around "h" in "think?

The brackets represent an edited word. You wrote 'tink', which I corrected to 't[h]ink'.
​

6. Do you not think it is an absurd idea: "him" as an indirect object?

Absurd...? No more absurd than the assumption that 'him' gets case from 'to come'.

To be clear, 'want' is not a (known) IO+DO verb. It is similar in structure to causative and perception verbs, but the alternative (the accepted idea that 'to come' is an object complement) seems awkward semantically:

• I want him [to come] object complement :?:
  • Object Complement Test
    • He is to come
      • Does 'to come' rename the subject? Cf. They call him Sam / He is Sam, wherein the object complement 'Sam' renames the subject/complements the object: semantically, he is Sam.

​

7. Am I right with this?

If the [] part is the C, it would follow we have an ellipted finite verb in the object complement clause. An ellipted finite verb implies a pro. English is not a pro-drop language, which means the [] part is not a C and, consequently, the sentence is not a SVOC.

The verb is elliptical, yes, but the representation was confusing. Sorry for that. I inserted '(is)' to test for an object complement.

More clearly, 'to come' doesn't seem to complement the object in the way that we would expect it to semantically:

• I want him [to come]
  • He is to come <object complement test>
    
    • Doesn't he is to come mean something different from I want him to come? (Cf., again, they called him Sam - he is Sam.)

______________________
Food for thought
If 'to come' in 'I want to come' is a direct object, then why not 'him to come' a double-object construct?

Here's a wonderful thread you might enjoy. Click

 

[corum]

Hello lauralie!

I am reading your aswer to Q1 and I am wondering whether object is related to case and position more than to meaning. To make this clear, see this.

I want him to come.

Despite the fact that "him" does not receive my wanting, it still is an object because of its case and its position outside [] right beside "want".
Far from it? :shocked!:

I want for him [to come]

Shtoe znotsit eto? What does this sentence mean?

Why do we have a PRO once we have a "him"?
It's based on the idea that every clause has a subject and a verb.
Verbs that assign case take an overt subject (in pro-drop languages (say, Irish, subjects can be omitted, which is where small pro comes in).
Verbs that do not assign case (such as infinitive verbs) take PRO as their structural subject.
'to come' is an infinitive verb and as such cannot assign case, but semantically we know it has a doer, an agent, a subject:
[PRO to come]
by default PRO is semantically empty. It gains its meaning from the closest pronoun

Before I forget, English is not a pro-drop language, as opposed to, say, Hungarian; therefore, in an English grammar book we will never see this:
[pro x], only [PRO x]
Yes?
What else would I like to ask you? Hmm...

I want it to rain. ?=

I want it [0 to rain].:roll:

raining has no doer, which means there is no PRO, and which idea I expressed by a "0". Correct?

him' = structural object: case marking
'him' = semantic subject: doer, agent of '(to) come'

Doing double duty?
Everything that is in accusative is an object, irrespective of the circumstances?
When it comes to how many clauses a sentence has, all we have to do is count the finite and the non-finite VPs in it, and we get the number. Yes?

By the way, a given constituent can hold one and only one position in the structure.

"him" seems to defy it. Semantic subject of the low clause and structural object of the main clause. Of the main clause?

Absurd...? No more absurd than the assumption that 'him' gets case from 'to come'.

Agreed, but I never once said it does. Or did I? ;-)

If 'to come' in 'I want to come' is a direct object, then why not 'him to come' a double-object construct?

The question rightfully arose. The answer to that I do not know yet.

Thanks lauralie! :cheers:

 

[lauralie2]

I am reading your aswer to Q1 and I am wondering whether object is related to case and position more than to meaning.

The problem is that structure is meaning: if the verb assigns case to 'him', then 'him is one of the verb's arguments. To me, 'want him' and 'want him to come' are VPs. (By the way, the verb WANT expresses a potential event (i.e., a strong wish or desire), not an actual event.)

What does ['I want for him to come'] mean?

It's a variation on 'I would like for <someone> <to do something>.'

Before I forget, English is not a pro-drop language, as opposed to, say, Hungarian; therefore, in an English grammar book we will never see this: [pro x], only [PRO x] Yes?

You'll find examples that "look like" pro-drop (e.g., Coming? meaning, You coming?) but are not.

I want it [0 to rain]

[The infinitive verb 'to rain'] has no doer, which means there is no PRO, [and hence] "0". Correct?

It would still be PRO:

• I want it [PRO to rain]

When it comes to how many clauses a sentence has, all we have to do is count the finite and the non-finite VPs in it, and we get the number. Yes?

That's the general idea, yes.

"him" seems to defy it. Semantic subject of the low clause and structural object of the main clause. Of the main clause?

That's if we assume [PRO to come] is a clause in the structure here:

• I want him [PRO to come]

 

[orangutan]

As Corum (I think) suggested, I don't think that sentences like (1) involve PRO at all, as they are not Equi / Control constructions. It is raising or something similar. PRO would require the controlling "him" to be a thematic argument of the main verb, which it certainly isn't in this case.

(1) I want [him to come].

This makes sentences like this strikingly different from (2), where it is the subject of want that controls the unexpressed subject of the infinitive, and there is no object NP. Cases like this are analyzed as PRO (or corresponding mechanisms in other approaches).

(2) I want to come.

Unfortunately I haven't had time to follow much of this interesting thread, so I hope I am not talking out of turn.

 

[Kaylee]

It is the main clause. The subordinate clause (before the zoo closed) is attached to the main clause by the subordinating conjunction, "before". The whole sentence is a complex sentence because it comprises a main clause plus at least one subordinate clause.

Read this:
Sentences:* Simple, Compound, and Complex

Okay, thanks for the link Corum. I'll read it right now! :33

 

[corum]

As Corum (I think) suggested, I don't think that sentences like (1) involve PRO at all, as they are not Equi / Control constructions. It is raising or something similar. PRO would require the controlling "him" to be a thematic argument of the main verb, which it certainly isn't in this case.

(1) I want [him to come].

This makes sentences like this strikingly different from (2), where it is the subject of want that controls the unexpressed subject of the infinitive, and there is no object NP. Cases like this are analyzed as PRO (or corresponding mechanisms in other approaches).

(2) I want to come.

Unfortunately I haven't had time to follow much of this interesting thread, so I hope I am not talking out of turn.

In brief, you say this, Anthony, right?
I want [him to come].
I want [PRO to come].

That makes sense to me. Thanks for your input.

 

[orangutan]

In brief, you say this, Anthony, right?
I want [him to come].
I want [PRO to come].

That makes sense to me. Thanks for your input.

Yes, and rather nicely summarized, Peter.

But with two reservations:

(i) I don't really believe in GB theory, though I am trying to translate into its terms for the purposes of discussion. This doesn't usually matter, but in this particular construction it does.

(ii) Your post repesents the deep structure (in GB terms). I am a bit agnostic about the surface structure of the first sentence. If it is raising (I suggested it was "something like raising") then "him" should be the object of "want" at surface structure (contrary to standard GB). But I have a few reservations about this as well. For example it doesn't passivize easily (He is wanted to come?). So I am not sure exactly what surface structure to propose. But you're right about the deep structure, I believe, and this rules out any analysis involving PRO.

 

[corum]

Yes, and rather nicely summarized, Peter.

But with two reservations:

(i) I don't really believe in GB theory,

GB = Great Britain? ;-):up:

though I am trying to translate into its terms for the purposes of discussion. This doesn't usually matter, but in this particular construction it does.

(ii) Your post repesents the deep structure (in GB terms). I am a bit agnostic about the surface structure of the first sentence. If it is raising (I suggested it was "something like raising")

What type of raising do you mean? Is that "X" being raised out of the low clause into the main clause to become "him" and to act as the object of "want"?

then "him" should be the object of "want" at surface structure (contrary to standard GB). But I have a few reservations about this as well. For example it doesn't passivize easily (He is wanted to come?). So I am not sure exactly what surface structure to propose. But you're right about the deep structure, I believe, and this rules out any analysis involving PRO.

I want him to come. -- It looks like the easiest sentence in the world but apparently it is not.

 

[orangutan]

GB = Great Britain? ;-):up:

Well, I meant Government-Binding, but...

For those who are not familiar with this, much of the previous discussion in this thread has been using ideas from Chomsky's Government and Binding theory.

What type of raising do you mean? Is that "X" being raised out of the low clause into the main clause to become "him" and to act as the object of "want"?

If it is raising, then yes, that is exactly how it would work ("Subject to Object Raising"). But at any rate I think it is clear that there is no PRO (it is not an Equi or Control construction).

I want him to come. -- It looks like the easiest sentence in the world but apparently it is not.

Sorry

 

[lauralie2]

Here's an old thread that is worth the read: https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/linguistics/1438-subject-verb.html