Syntax random

[bradrn]

Unless it's not a time clause but an appositive? e.g. "something most Australians are just getting on with, [namely] Australia Day"?

Yeah, that would make more sense, actually.

[evmdbm]

Trying this here so I can get my head round it (at Bradrn's suggestion). It relates to the distinction between object control and causatives. I take "I ordered him to do it" to be object control rather than raising-to-object, but tell me if that's wrong. Every time I think about the distinction I doubt myself that I've really understood it, because I understood "I expected him to do it" to be raising-to-object despite English using the same infinitival construction.

I don't think "I made or caused him to do it." is object control (or is it?). The semantic difference is clear I can order him all I like, but he might decide to ignore me, but if I made him to do it he definitely did it.

Put pithily (and possibly unclearly) I'm trying to work out if there is a syntactic difference between the two sentences despite English (at least) using the same infinitival construction or just a semantic difference. Are there examples where languages treat object control and causatives differently in syntactic terms? I'm conscious some have a morphological causative.

[zompist]

Trying this here so I can get my head round it (at Bradrn's suggestion). It relates to the distinction between object control and causatives. I take "I ordered him to do it" to be object control rather than raising-to-object, but tell me if that's wrong. Every time I think about the distinction I doubt myself that I've really understood it, because I understood "I expected him to do it" to be raising-to-object despite English using the same infinitival construction.

I don't think "I made or caused him to do it." is object control (or is it?). The semantic difference is clear I can order him all I like, but he might decide to ignore me, but if I made him to do it he definitely did it.

My understanding (which may be wrong, I'm not up to date on Chomskyan syntax) is that the telltale for Subject and Object Control is that the main clause works without the subclause, and for Raising it does not. Compare:

I persuaded Annie to leave. I persuaded Annie. (Control)
Annie wants him to leave. *Annie wants him. (Raising)
That Annie will leave is likely. Annie is likely to leave. *Annie is likely. (Raising)

To be clear, "Annie wants him" is a valid sentence, but it means something quite different; it can't report or summarize the same situation as "Annie wants him to leave."

By this rule, "I expected him to do it" is Raising, since "I expected him" is either wrong or means something else. Similarly "I caused him" doesn't work, so "I caused him to do it" is Raising.

Personally I find "I ordered him" weird but it's hard to rule out entirely. Semantically it could work, as evidenced by the fact that we can say "I gave him an order." (And it can work if "he" is the direct object, e.g. I ordered him from the escort selection menu.) But it sounds weird enough to me that I'm comfortable calling it Raising.

[evmdbm]

By this rule, "I expected him to do it" is Raising, since "I expected him" is either wrong or means something else. Similarly "I caused him" doesn't work, so "I caused him to do it" is Raising.

Personally I find "I ordered him" weird but it's hard to rule out entirely. Semantically it could work, as evidenced by the fact that we can say "I gave him an order." (And it can work if "he" is the direct object, e.g. I ordered him from the escort selection menu.) But it sounds weird enough to me that I'm comfortable calling it Raising.

By the same token therefore "I made him" is a valid sentence (maybe I am a god...) but obviously doesn't report the same thing as "I made him do it". "I caused him" takes some effort to make sense of, but certainly doesn't report the same thing as "I caused him to do it." I suspect if you had to make sense of it you'd think it meant I created him. So causatives are object raising. I think that works for me (although it's not what I said in my Vedreki grammar). Revisions...

[Man in Space]

I’m reading the SCK and the sentence “It’s their huts that the goblins want to sell near Borridge” is asterisked. That’s completely licit for me.

[Lērisama]

I’m reading the SCK and the sentence “It’s their huts that the goblins want to sell near Borridge” is asterisked. That’s completely licit for me.

And for me, I think

[Darren]

I’m reading the SCK and the sentence “It’s their huts that the goblins want to sell near Borridge” is asterisked. That’s completely licit for me.

And for me, I think

And for me, but only if I don't think, oddly enough.

[Travis B.]

I’m reading the SCK and the sentence “It’s their huts that the goblins want to sell near Borridge” is asterisked. That’s completely licit for me.

And for me, I think

And for me, but only if I don't think, oddly enough.

That sentence is perfectly cromulent for me.

[Linguoboy]

If I tell someone "substitute X for Y", does that mean that I want the final outcome to contain X or to contain Y?

(Concrete example: "Substitute regular mayo for chipotle mayo.")

[Travis B.]

If I tell someone "substitute X for Y", does that mean that I want the final outcome to contain X or to contain Y?

(Concrete example: "Substitute regular mayo for chipotle mayo.")

I have had the same thought as you here, and this usage always confuses me too.

[Raphael]

If I tell someone "substitute X for Y", does that mean that I want the final outcome to contain X or to contain Y?

(Concrete example: "Substitute regular mayo for chipotle mayo.")

I'd say "X", but 1) I'm not sure, and 2) I don't have any idea why.

[zompist]

If I tell someone "substitute X for Y", does that mean that I want the final outcome to contain X or to contain Y?

(Concrete example: "Substitute regular mayo for chipotle mayo.")

I think I'd expect it to contain X. But I wouldn't be shocked by the opposite. Pragmatically, I'd go by which mayo the ordinary recipe asks for.

[Travis B.]

If you made me choose X or Y, I would say that you probably intend on getting X rather than Y, but I'd have to deduce which you meant by context to be sure.

[hwhatting]

Not a native speaker, but for me that means "normally there is Y, but I want X instead". Before reading the question and responses, I couldn't even have imagined that some people would have doubts or a different interpretation of this.

[Glass Half Baked]

The "literal" meaning should be X. substituting something for something means the second thing is what the first thing is standing in for.
The problem is that, as with phrases like "I could care less," the logical meaning is useless. People sometimes use "substitute X for Y" to mean "replace X with Y," which would be the opposite of what the words' literal meanings would suggest.

This belongs in the "next Thursday" dungeon alongside other English words and phrases that have become so impossible to parse reliably that they must simply be replaced by work arounds.