Existential/Locative Sentences
February 8th, 2009, search relatedRelated posts :: Existential/Locative Sentences :: Existential/Locative Sentences :: Existential/Locative Sentences :: The Simplest of Sentences?
Analysis of Existential/Locative Sentences
consider the following sentences:
1. a tree is in the garden.
2. in the garden a tree is.
3. there is a tree in the garden.
[Joe (previously)]: all three of these statements mean the same thing.
in each the copular complement is a preposition phrase performing an
adverbial function — providing ‘where’ information. therefore, it is a
locative complement or simply a locative.
[Jud (previously)]: 1. and 2. are acceptable but 2. is the sort of badly
formed sentence that we would expect from a foreigner who had just
arrived on the banana boat. That is unless someone said: * In the garden
a tree is… in bloom* or… * In the garden a tree is lying on its side
having been blown down by the wind.
[Joe (new)]: it is interesting that you consider version 2 to be badly
formed *unless* there was an additional phrase. perhaps the mindset of
the listener/reader is such that a predicate is expected — a real
predicate in the Kantian sense, one that is subject determinative.
that the locative is not such a predicate is indicated by the easy
acceptance of displaced subject complements. [Symbolizing word order by
S=Subject, V=Verb and C=Complement]:
SVC: the future is always moving.
CSV: always moving, the future is.
The CSV word order produces yoda-talk; but, it sounds acceptable (though
a bit eccentric) because there is predication.
[you might recall making a similar point to refute Michael E’s claims
about Byron’s “Tyrants and sycophants have been and are”. if you
consider the rest of the passage (”of Thought’s foes by far most rude
Tyrants and sycophants have been and are”) it is clear that it is a
statement of predication put into CSV order. fully normalized it is
“Tyrants and sycophants have been and are the most rude of thought’s
foes”. Byron no doubt chose his word ordering for poetic effect; but,
the CSV word order can be used to emphasize the statement of isness
inherent in any statement of predication because the statement as a
whole seems acceptable even in the CSV word ordering.
so, if the existential/locative was really a statement of predication,
the CSV word order would be just as acceptable as the SVC to the ear
that can only hear statements of predication.
SVC: the cow is in the garden.
CSV: in the garden, the cow is.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
