[Grammar] with which to

[raymondaliasapollyon]

It is a process whereby an element that exists initially in a structural tree gets deleted at some point during the derivation.
I don't want to give a lecture, but roughly speaking, processes should be independently motivated and follow from some general requirements such as Case, theta roles, and binding.

 

[Phaedrus]

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.

Regardless of whatever you'd call "relative infinitives," each of those sentences contains an infinitival relative clause.

Trees aside, perhaps you consider it a mere coincidence each can be closely paraphrased with a finite relative clause:

Is there anything for him to do here? --> Is there anything that he can do here.
I bought some things for them to eat. --> I bought some things which they can eat.
There isn't a chair for her to sit on. --> There isn't a chair that she can sit on.

The bold things on the left and right are NPs (or DPs). The underlined things are relative clauses. On the left they're nonfinite; on the right they're finite.

Next, with regard to my examples:

*[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][strike].[/strike]

you say:

Even in the absence of pied piping, those sentences would still be incorrect, wouldn't they?

In the absence of Pied Piping, the relative pronoun would be silent and the preposition would be stranded. The sentence with "for" would be correct:

There isn't a chair for her to sit on.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It is a process whereby an element that exists initially in a structural tree gets deleted at some point during the derivation.
I don't want to give a lecture, but roughly speaking, processes should be independently motivated and follow from some general requirements such as Case, theta roles, and binding.

Is it a process with which to delete English or algae?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I vaguely remember English allows the following kind of adjectival infinitive (If it is incorrect, please let me know):

John has a book for Mary to read (it).

The third person pronoun it is optional. But when it is present, it'd be difficult to see how Wh-movement proceeds to derive this kind of adjectival infinitive.

 

[Phaedrus]

I vaguely remember English allows the following kind of adjectival infinitive (If it is incorrect, please let me know):

John has a book for Mary to read (it).

The third person pronoun it is optional. But when it is present, it'd be difficult to see how Wh-movement proceeds to derive this kind of adjectival infinitive.

It is not optional. When it is present, the sentence is ungrammatical. Now that you know, doesn't the alleged difficulty evaporate?

You could try to torture an "in order to" reading out of the sentence with it, but that would be a structure irrelevant to our discussion.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

It is not optional. When it is present, the sentence is ungrammatical. Now that you know, doesn't the alleged difficulty evaporate?

You could try to torture an "in order to" reading out of the sentence with it, but that would be a structure irrelevant to our discussion.

I found the following examples. Do they have the "in order to" meaning?

The radio was small enough for me to put (it) in my pocket.
Those tomatoes aren't ripe enough for the children to eat (them).

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I vaguely remember English allows the following kind of adjectival infinitive (If it is incorrect, please let me know):

John has a book for Mary to read (it).

The third person pronoun it is optional.

It's not an option. It's wrong.

But when it is present, it'd be difficult to see how Wh-movement proceeds to derive this kind of adjectival infinitive.

Yes, indeed!

However, there are times when it is correct:

- If it is incorrect, please let me know.
- If it is incorrect, please let me know it.
- If it is incorrect, please let me know it is.
- If it is incorrect, please let me know it is incorrect.

But this doesn't address the question of agreement from one sentence to another. I hope it's clear by now that the choice of number in one sentence doesn't generate a field that emanates to other sentences.

 

[Phaedrus]

I found the following examples. Do they have the "in order to" meaning?

The radio was small enough for me to put (it) in my pocket.
Those tomatoes aren't ripe enough for the children to eat (them).

No, they don't have the "in order to meaning"; however, they are birds of a different feather from any that we had seen before post #48. It is enough that licenses the infinitival clause in each of those examples, just as so and too license the that- and to-clauses in these:

The plate was so hot that the waitress nearly dropped it.
The plate was too hot for the waitress to hold (it).
The plate was too hot to hold (it).

While I would not use it in the second and third examples, I believe that it would not be ungrammatical to do so. The it in those two examples is grammatically comparable to the it and them in your two examples quoted above -- odd, but not intolerable, from a native standpoint.

In each case, both in my examples and yours, there is a degree word (enough, so, too) immediately adjacent to the adjective, fore or aft, and an infinitival clause which I parse as the complement of the degree word. If you like, I can attach the generative analysis that persuaded me.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

No, they don't have the "in order to meaning"; however, they are birds of a different feather from any that we had seen before post #48. It is enough that licenses the infinitival clause in each of those examples, just as so and too license the that- and to-clauses in these:

The plate was so hot that the waitress nearly dropped it.
The plate was too hot for the waitress to hold (it).
The plate was too hot to hold (it).

While I would not use it in the second and third examples, I believe that it would not be ungrammatical to do so. The it in those two examples is grammatically comparable to the it and them in your two examples quoted above -- odd, but not intolerable, from a native standpoint.

In each case, both in my examples and yours, there is a degree word (enough, so, too) immediately adjacent to the adjective, fore or aft, and an infinitival clause which I parse as the complement of the degree word. If you like, I can attach the generative analysis that persuaded me.

Do you perceive a contrast in acceptability between "The plate was too hot to hold it" and "The plate was too hot for me to hold it"?

 

[GoesStation]

Do you perceive a contrast in acceptability between "The plate was too hot to hold it" and "The plate was too hot for me to hold it"?

The first is ambiguous. It could mean that because the plate was so hot, it was unable to hold something else. That's why a native speaker would include "for me", as you've done in your second sentence.

So the second sentence is acceptable and the first is marginal.

 

[Phaedrus]

Do you perceive a contrast in acceptability between "The plate was too hot to hold it" and "The plate was too hot for me to hold it"?

Interesting question. Yes, I do.

I perceive The plate was too hot for me to hold it to have a higher degree of acceptability than The plate was too hot to hold it.

GoesStation, post #52:

The first is ambiguous. It could mean that because the plate was so hot, it was unable to hold something else. That's why a native speaker would include "for me", as you've done in your second sentence.

Or we could say that that's why a native speaker would not use the "it": The plate was too hot to hold (perfectly acceptable and unambiguous).

Incidentally, raymondaliaspollyon, I believe the generative mechanism at work here, when "it" is not present, is Control.

It's not wh-movement. There's no wh-element, as we can see by our use of "it." Consider, too, that with a PP there would be no Pied Piping option:

The chopsticks were too flimsy to eat the artichoke with.
*[strike]The chopsticks were too flimsy with which to eat the artichoke[/strike].