[Grammar] with which to

[Phaedrus]

How about "Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which to eat rice"?

The experiment you're conducting seems to require that the matrix subject not be co-referent with the implied subject of the infinitival relative. While it's hard for me to say how intensely I dislike your new example, and thus whether I think it refutes my point about the use of phrasal/prepositional verbs in the infinitival relative as a means of improving the naturalness of the construction (with Pied Piping), I know that I'd prefer the following:

The Chinese have a special type of utensil with which to eat rice.

I assume that you won't be satisfied with that example, because it is at least possible to interpret "the Chinese" as the implied subject of "to eat rice."

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'm checking whether "n the rare cases where 'with which/whom to' is somewhat natural, 'with' is typically part of a phrasal (or prepositional) verb rather than an adjunct/adverbial."

If the chopstick example is fine, then the claim would need to be revised.

It's another example that's fine grammatically but weak conversationally. You're using it correctly, but for natural-sounding English, these are better:

- Chopsticks are utensils for eating rice.
- Chopsticks are utensils used to eat rice with.
- Chopsticks are for eating rice.

You understand by now that with which to sounds formal and wordy. That doesn't make it a terrible thing to say, and there's no reason to shun it. Sometimes you might want to sound formal or wordy. Native English speakers do it all the time.

Another place it can actually be useful is in rhyming verse, in a line you don't want to end with with.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't mean to be overly picky but chopsticks are used for eating much more than rice.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't mean to be overly picky but chopsticks are used for eating much more than rice.

Yes, and, while we're on the subject, my example in post #23 should not be interpreted as suggesting that I think only the Chinese use chopsticks.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I don't mean to be overly picky but chopsticks are used for eating much more than rice.

Saying one thing can be used for Purpose A is not equal to denying it can be used for Purpose B.

 

[Phaedrus]

How about "Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which to eat rice"?

The sentence sounds especially bad, I think, if we passivize the nonfinite relative clause:

Chopsticks are a type of utensil for rice to be eaten with.

Notice that Pied Piping can't be used at all in the passivized version, in which preposition stranding is grammatically imperative:

*[strike]Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which for rice to be eaten.[/strike]

 

[jutfrank]

The sentence sounds especially bad, I think, if we passivize the nonfinite relative clause:

Chopsticks are a type of utensil for rice to be eaten with.

Notice that Pied Piping can't be used at all in the passivized version, in which preposition stranding is grammatically imperative:

*[strike]Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which for rice to be eaten.[/strike]

Wouldn't the passivised versions be written without for?

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil which rice to be eaten with.

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which rice to be eaten.

 

[tedmc]

Wouldn't the passivised versions be written without for?

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil which rice to be eaten with.

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which rice to be eaten.

Shouldn't there be an "is" after rice?

 

[jutfrank]

Shouldn't there be an "is" after rice?

No, I don't believe so. The required auxiliary be is already there.

(I was just trying to construct the passivised form of the original chopsticks sentence provided by raymondaliasapollyon in post #20—not attempting to correct it.)

 

[GoesStation]

Wouldn't the passivised versions be written without for?

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil which rice to be eaten with.

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which rice to be eaten.

Shouldn't there be an "is" after rice?

No, I don't believe so. The required auxiliary be is already there.

(I was just trying to construct the passivised form of the original chopsticks sentence provided by raymondaliasapollyon in post #20—not attempting to correct it.)

Really? Take a closer look.

 

[jutfrank]

Really? Take a closer look.

I don't follow. :?:

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don't follow. :?:

GS means these aren't quite right:

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil which rice to be eaten with.

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which rice to be eaten.

 

[Phaedrus]

I probably shouldn't have invited this tangent, amusing as it is, because the passive version's sounding bad proves nothing about the active version.

Wouldn't the passivised versions be written without for?

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil which rice to be eaten with.

*Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which rice to be eaten.

Yes, we do need "for" when we passivize here. This "for" is a mere complementizer; it is not the preposition "for" or the conjunction "for." Syntactically, "for" needs to show up in infinitival relatives when they have an overt subject, just as it can't show up when they lack an overt subject. Compare:

Is there anything to do here? (NOT: *[strike]Is there anything for to do here?[/strike] -- but maybe in Chaucer!)
Is there anything for him to do here? (NOT: *[strike]Is there anything (which) him to do here?[/strike])

When we passivize the infinitival relative in "a type of utensil to eat rice with __," which doesn't lack a subject but has a phonologically null subject, "rice" (the direct object of "eat") becomes the subject of the infinitival relative, and thus "for" needs to show up.

The debate about "is" is arising because the two ungrammatical examples in the quotation above invite the revisions "Chopsticks are a type of utensil which rice is to be eaten with" and "Chopsticks are a type of utensil which which rice is to be eaten."

But those aren't transformations of the original. If rice is eaten with something, it doesn't follow that rice is to be eaten with that thing.

 

[jutfrank]

I should clarify: I realise the sentences I wrote in post #29 are incorrect. (The preceding asterisks are intended to indicate this.)

I was trying to address Phaedrus' post #28, the point of which was to explore the deeper structure of the sentence by playing around with the syntax. (That's what I assumed, anyway.)

Phaedrus—I hope you understand what I was getting at. If I've misunderstood, don't worry.

Sorry to cause confusion.

 

[jutfrank]

Update: I've just read post #35 since I posted post #36.

Phaedrus—Okay, doubts addressed. Thank you.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Notice that Pied Piping can't be used at all in the passivized version, in which preposition stranding is grammatically imperative:

*[strike]Chopsticks are a type of utensil with which for rice to be eaten.[/strike]

The starred example can be ruled out if we posit that the relative infinitival structure resists an overt subject, in this case, rice, whether or not it is preceded by for.

Another starred example: *John found a person who to do the job. (who as the subject refers to the person who was to do the job.)

This is admittedly an ad hoc account, though. A more thorough syntactic analysis would involve Case licensing mechanisms.

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, but most of us would say they sell paper shredders.

 

[Phaedrus]

The starred example can be ruled out if we posit that the relative infinitival structure resists an overt subject, in this case, rice, whether or not it is preceded by for.

I assume that when you speak of "the relative infinitival structure" you mean the structure of infinitival relative clauses in general.

Do you perceive the examples below, then, to be incorrect? In each, the infinitival relative has a subject, which not only is but must be preceded by for:

Is there anything for him to do here? (from post #35)
I bought some things for them to eat.
There isn't a chair for her to sit on.

If you perceive them to be incorrect, then please let me assure you, from a native-English-speaking standpoint, that they are correct.

Another starred example: *John found a person who to do the job. (who as the subject refers to the person who was to do the job.)

Except under circumstances of Pied Piping, relative pronouns are obligatorily silenced in infinitival relative clauses after moving to [Spec, CP].

In modern English, the complementizer for has to be deleted if a subject is not present. Neither can be present if there is Pied Piping:

*[strike]There isn't a chair on which for her to sit.[/strike]
*[strike]There isn't a chair on which her to sit.[/strike]

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I assume that when you speak of "the relative infinitival structure" you mean the structure of infinitival relative clauses in general. ]

I distinguish between relative infinitives and adjectival infinitives.

Do you perceive the examples below, then, to be incorrect? In each, the infinitival relative has a subject, which not only is but must be preceded by for:

Is there anything for him to do here? (from post #35)
I bought some things for them to eat.
There isn't a chair for her to sit on.

If you perceive them to be incorrect, then please let me assure you, from a native-English-speaking standpoint, that they are correct.

Yes, they are. But they fall outside the scope of what I'd call relative infinitives.

Except under circumstances of Pied Piping, relative pronouns are obligatorily silenced in infinitival relative clauses after moving to [Spec, CP].

In modern English, the complementizer for has to be deleted if a subject is not present. Neither can be present if there is Pied Piping:

*[strike]There isn't a chair on which for her to sit.[/strike]
*[strike]There isn't a chair on which her to sit.[/strike]

Even in the absence of pied piping, those sentences would still be incorrect, wouldn't they?
Anyway, I am not a big fan of deletion processes. For me, they seem to be ad hoc if they do not follow from something more general.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . I am not a big fan of deletion processes. For me, they seem to be ad hoc if they do not follow from something more general.

What is a deletion process? What is more general than a deletion process?