EIGHTEEN WEEKLY LESSONS FOR COMPETENT
 AND CREATIVE TEACHERS OPEN TO RECENT
INSIGHTS CONCERNING THE GRAMMAR OF
ENGLISH AND DESIROUS OF FINDING
OUT HOW TO COACH PUPILS TO
CONSTRUCT THE GRAMMAR
SYSTEM FROM ITS FOUR
BUILDING BLOCKS

© 2002-2003 by Orchid Land Publications

C.-J. N. Bailey

[20020630, last updated 20030614]

PART C

THIS PAGE IS CONSTANTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION 

APPENDIX A:  VIRTUAL WORDS & CONSTRUCTS

     In this writing, the following virtual words have been discussed.  It has been stated earlier that the purpose of these is to obviate deviant patterns, i.e. to make the syntax regular throughout.  (See further L82.)

$ for deleted should (CLICK HERE) 
@ for deleted at (or on) with home and temporal expressions like @ last night, @ this evening, @ that time, @ the time that . . . 
X stands for any lexical item

= stands for the virtual which/who is/are in the analysis of appositives; e.g. Joe = the     
     janitor
@ for TO with a short infinitive, indirect object (where it sometimes stands for for) or home
BE or participial forms of this verb in infinitive constructs and absolutes 
     ONE(S), THING(S), and (following color names) SOMETHING following determiners used pronominally, including articular  
    adjectives and nominals having 's with nothing following;  mine, etc., are equivalent to my 
    one(s); whatever and whoever can be considered to be (any)thing that or (any)one that
AGN/INSTR can be used for by someone, with/through something--a virtual agent or
      instrument of a passivized verb
OBJ virtual object of a transitive verb 
IF (resulting in subject-verb inversion)
   MAY for deleted optative may (with verb-subject word order; e.g. MAY be it ever so humble)

APPENDIX B:  WHERE PIED-PIPING AND STRANDING PREVAIL---THE REAL RULES OF EDUCATED USAGE

     Over the years in various grammatical publications (including ETBLA), I have published descriptive principles of how most educated people use whom—rarely in ordinary speaking—and (the cause of many misuses of whom—viz. where they move prepositions to the beginning of a clause.  One would hardly hear some examples like “Tell us for how long it could last,” “Tell me about how correct these directions are,” “That’s the topic about which her report was,” and “About what this book is over is what I’m wasting so much time”; but one might read some almost as bad!   Except for whole sentences explicitly labled as unacceptable or the like, solecisms are markered with a preceding asterisk.  Rules in some grammar books about moving the preposition of interrogative and relative clauses to the beginning of the clause yield the un-English relative clause in “the topic about which her report was.”  This is doubly un-English in an indirect question:  “They asked about what her report was” and “Tell us for how long it might be good.”  These abortions are apparent to any native-speaker with a decent feeling for the language. 

The earliest exposition of what is updated here is found in Bailey, “Where English cannot put a preposition before a relative or interrogative pronoun” in The English reference grammar, ed. G. Leitner (Niemeyer, 1986), pp. 156-177.  Before listing the situations in which pied-piping is for­bid­den, this term and a few others need to be mas­tered.

     A few additional general observations will be helpful before addressing the specifics.

     English avoids a locution found in many other languages, including daughter lan­guag­es of English:  all what.  We also avoid From where? In a direct or indi­rect question, but allow from where as a quasi-relative in, e.g., They flew to Honolulu, from where they went to Hilo by sea.  What follows is a consolidation and updating of information published by me in the eighties.  The relative pronoun what can best be understood if treated as equivalent to that which; whatever can be understood simply as a noun if it does not modify a noun, and the clause beginning with it can be treated as  a noun subject or object, as in Whatever they did was best for whatever happened.  
     It not seldom happens that when an adposition is pied-pied, it stays in place where it was; the result is duplicated preposition and postposition.  An example from a BBC announcer is:  “the situation of which he took advantage of.”  This phenomenon is especially likely when the clause is com­plicated.   In casual speech, a genitival pronoun is often treated this way; e.g. “the person who I don't like his book.”  (This is normal in the daughter languages of English.)   It is as old as the Tudor writer Thomas Malory.  Where no preposition is involved and no other complications exist, relative clauses prefer that to who or which unless they are embedded in a clause beginning with who or which, or when they are embedded in a relative, nominal clause, or adverbial (purpose) clause beginning with that.

++++++

Note that the following conditions have to applied in the order shown.  The reason for this is that sometimes more than one condition can apply to the same situation.  In such instances, the order of application may affect the outcome, especially when one condition alters the situation that a later condition would otherwise apply to. But consider “Over what they were arguing was about for what pur­pose it was”; this atrocious example violates condition 2 below as well as the general prohibi­tions against consecutive prepositions belonging to different clauses and against a a form non-auxiliary of be at the end of a clause beginning with a WH-pronoun (but a clause beginning  with whose or a WH-adverb does not resist word-final non-auxiliary be, as already shown).

     1. From where? does not occur except in quasi-relative clause beginning with from where.  We do not have direct questions or indirect questions (“They asked me from where I had come”) beginning with from where(?). Borderline prepositions like than and as as well participle-derived prepositions (like during, concerning, and according to, as well as the class of than, except, besides, but) are generally foregrounded.  As noticed earlier, a preposition is not postposed when the phrase it belongs to modifies a noun, adjective, or adverb within the clause, unless it would come at the end of the clause if not foregrounded.  See more or indirect questions below (at 4).

     2. A cleft-sentence (where a word out of the main clause is put first and the rest is subordinated as a that-clause) may overcondition other conditions not permitting a stranded preposition; e.g. It's two stories that (*by which) this building is taller than the other one BY.   While we wouldn’t say the two inches that she's taller than him *BY (see the box above),  the person it was written by is entirely acceptable for reasons given in connection with the next condition—3.

      Various examples indicate a greater likelihood--in instances where a preposition may be either foregrounded or stranded--of foregrounding in non-restrictive relative clauses than in restrictive ones.  (This condition is irrel­evant to questions, just as 5 is irrelevant to non-interrogative state­ments.)  
—Metaphorical uses of locative prepositions are harder to strand than uses involving real locations.  We would not say "someone who there is no trust in" but "someone who there is no hope for" is acceptable.

—Note non-restrictive clauses in which adjectival which (or what) accom­panies a repetition of the antecedent; e.g. “There is a very likeable old gentle­man,” “from which old gentleman we received quite a large contribution”; we could also say “old gentleman, which old gentleman we received quite a large contribution from”—though it has got an inelegant aroma.

     3. Difficulty (1) in the lower part of the second box from the beginning of this memorandum discusses foregrounding that results in a stranded form of be—just in case be would not be stranded if there were no foregrounding—as in “the one *for whom it was.”  Note “the table that it is on" is all right.  The result is vastly worse in either clause of a cleft-sentence; we therefore let condition 2 prevail and say:  What the argument was over is what our discussion is about.    That condition 3 overconditions 4 is not clear from To what extent it was is what they are arguing over—for was is stranded because of a missing so or participle like done.   

    4. An indirect question beginning with a WH-word (or in infinitive-con­struct form) disallows pied-piping; cf. He asked us (*in) what direction we were going in.”  Another example is:  “It is not clear what relation they stand in.”  But condition 2 overconditions this condition; e.g. “They wondered about in what way that got accomplished.”  An example in which an indirect question exhibits pipe-piping is “I know the date after which that had to have happened.”  We could not say “I know the date which that had to have happened after.”  This example falls under principle 0000000000

     Note that there are phrasal prepositions that more easily get pied-piped than single prepo­si­tions; when pied-piped they are not broken up.  Thus, we say “the people that th’others labored for the sake of” or “the people for the sake of whom th’others labored”¾but not “the people of whom th’others labored for the sake.”   “The people for whose sake th’others labored” would be a frequent choice here.  Also hard to strand are prepositions equivalent to simple WH-adverbs like “in what manner” = how, “for what reason” = why, “in which place” = where, “at which time [or:  “moment]” = when, and “to what extent” = how much.  We say “the way in which that battle got won.”  In relative clauses embedded in indirect questions, we prefer pied-piping with quantifiers; e.g. “They wondered whether the soldiers, most of whom were starving, were capable of defending Moscow.”  We usually avoid stranding a preposition when its relative or interrogative pronoun object is followed by "there is/are (no[t])" and the sense of the preposition is not literal; thus, we would not say "someone that there is no trust in,” though “someone that there is no hope for” passes muster.  It is possible to strand literal on in “the table that there is no food on,” though it is hardly very elegant.

    Of course, the infinitive complementizer for can no more be stranded than can infinitive to.  We say “the one for them to put their trust in” and “the one to put their trust in.”  But than and as can be stranded, as in “the ones that they’re better than” and “the ones that they are as good as.”

5a. It is necessary to strand the second of successive prepositions (excluding parti­cip­ial compounds like according to and participles like except—which would hardly occur in this context) when they belong to dif­ferent clauses.   (This is a situation when a whole relative clause or indirect question having a preposition whose object is a relative pronoun is the object of a preposition in the higher clause.)  An example is:  “He asked about for what purpose they had planned to do that.”   That conditions 3 and 4 overcondition condition 5a is clear from the un-English ring of “They wondered about to what extent it was.”  This may look like condition 4 is being overconditiond by condition 5a, but the stranding of was here is due to the dropping of a participle like done or a predicate like true or so; if was were not auxiliary or at least copular, one would say existed or some other suitable word.  Instead of saying “They spoke about to what extent that was so,” it would be preferable to say:  “They spoke about the extent to which that was so.”  Compare also the pre-emption or overruling of conditions 3, 4, and 6 by condition 3 in “What the argument was over was the question of in what manner the work was carried out”—where out is not a postposition, and where condition 2 does prevail over 3 and 3 is not allowed to set conditions 4 and 5 aside, as should be the case.  The last example is one of the worst examples that result from following the gram­mar books.

The distinction between prepositional phrases (PP)  that lack their literal senses.  We say “In what way did she succeed?” and avoid “What way did she succeed *in?” as well as “What grounds did they do it on?”—even though we can say “Which list did she put that item in?” (and “In which list did she put that item?”) as well as “What table did she put that vase on?” (and “On what table did she put that vase?”)   This condition does not apply when a PP stands alone as a question or relative clause; in this instance, the order with postposition following the WH-word is unmarked and normally preferred; e.g. “What for? = Why?”).   While we ordinarily avoid P+Nom (e.g. “For *what?”), when necessary substituting fuller phrases (e.g. “For what reason?”; see (d) below, and note that “Who to?” and “What on?” are preferred to “To Whom?” and “On what?” The P+Nom order is used to indicate unusual connotations.   Saying with whom can otherwise sound haughty or rude (being. a put-down as in With whom do you wish to speak?), or just foreign.   However, to highlight a special sense, we can employ the unusual order to marker that sense (see condition 3 below); if invited to sit down but seeing nothing to sit on, one would naturally say "On what?"  This would sound silly otherwise--where we say "What on?"   (See further my "Where English cannot put a preposition before a relative or interrogative pronoun" in The English reference grammar, edited by G. Leitner [Niemey­er, 1986, pp. 156-77].).  For what (cause/reason) markers a special situation that would not be markered with What for?

5b. The converse of condition 6 is true:  When successive prepositions belong to different clauses, the first one cannot be postposed, as in an extent (that/which) we were not aware of *to—for proper an extent to which we were not aware of.

6. Consider partitive and similar prepositional phrases consisting of a preposition + quantifier + of (occasionally, some other preposition) + whom or which¾like those found in “the candidates few/some of whom had spoken here.”  More stilted but still acceptable, and in complex dependent clauses sometimes preferred, is “The candidates of whom few/some had been given permission to speak here,” but not “the candidates few/some of whom permis­sion to speak here had been given to.”   Foregrounding is, however, blocked when  condition 5c prevents a succession of non-conclausal prepositions.

     We cannot postpose the preposition of prepositional phrases whose object is a relative pronoun when it modifies some item within the clause rather than the whole clause--i.e. the main verb or an infinitive depending on the main verb--unless that word comes at the end of the clause.  Though it is all right to say one who I went there with, we prepose with in one with whom a dialog would lead nowhere."   But we do say the one who she enjoyed speaking with, where speaking is a nominal--a gerund.  Similarly, an adverbial phrase that modifies an adjective or participle or adverb within the clause rather than its verb predicate is not postposed unless that item ends the clause.    So we have got to say for whom it was urgent to protest when for whom modifies urgent; but who it was urgent to protest for is all right if for whom modifies the verb form (infinitive)—to protest.   If the preposi­tional phrase whose object is a relative modifies a noun, adjective, or adverb within the clause and also happens to come at the end of the clause, there is less of a problem with postposing its preposition; cf.  one who they recog­nized his similarity to and one they recognized her being similar to,  one who they recognized Jim as having been attaked by, and one who they saw us walking leisurely with (where with whom modifies walking, which serves as the predicate of us walking leisurely).  This is less recommended with a comparative preposition; cf. one who they recogmized their being as happy as and one who he did that more quickly than. 

++++++

     When what introduces an indirect question or modifies a noun, it is not equivalent to that which.  (The same is also of course true of determiner what in “They knew what newspaper th’others had read that in.”)  To avoid confusion, observe that “Many of high standing, but not everyone who was, attended” is a awkward, though it violates no conditions; it is made better if the who-clause is set off with dashes: “Many of high standing--but not everyone who was--attended.”)  The grammar can become very complicated when a relative clause is embedded within another; cf. “the program <that you were determined to involve all of the projects {that they came up with} in>.”  (The curly brackets bound most subordinate clause, while the pointy brackets mark off the relative clause it is embedded in.)  This is a situation in which stranding should be avoided if possible.  On the other hand, pied-piping can be a put down, as in “….”  If a WH-adverb is replaced with a phrase like “For what purpose did you do that?” the effect can be condemnatory in some contexts.  In simple sentence fragments contain only a preposition and WH-word, the order is quite important.  “For what?” is haughtier or at least archer than normal “What for?”

    Foregrounding a preposition to the front of the clause is sufficiently un-English in most instances that we hear announcers on the BBC and Amer­ican media saying things like the situation of which he took advantage of.  Even the Tudor writer Thomas Malory committed this kind of error.   Where no preposition is involved--and no complications or weird senses would result—we can omit who and use that instead—as in the one [that] I saw.   

+++++

     Note that in good English we avoid a vocative noun followed by who and a second-person verb.  It is difficult to say, "Lord, Who take away the sins of the world."  Colloquially, the verb is generally a third-person verb when non-vocative you or I or me is not the antecedent of the relative, as in  “You are the Lord, Who takes away,”  “It’s me who does things on time.”   It is as though one were thinking, “Lord, You Who are the one that takes” and “It's me who is the one that, etc.”

APPENDIX C:  PROCESSUAL MODALITIES

                 Besides DO-SUPPORT (in negatives and interrogatives like “It doesn’t work” and “Does it work?”) and the foregoing pied-piping, processual modalities are irrealis—though in the case of contraponence this is simply due to their exochronous form.  Processes not included here--reduced relative clauses (see Lesson 4), raising (see Lesson 15), and extraposition (see Lesson 16).   For the A-X N rule, see Lessons 4 and 11--are not irrealis, though some are marked..

(1) SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION (in questions, in obligatory or optional combination with several of the following modalities, with optative-may (see 4 below); cf. also don’tchu-imperatives like “Don’tchu be late now!”  This modality is obligatory (see Lesson 6) after clause-initial Never or None or Not X [where X is an adverb or adverbial phrase] or No X where [X is a nominal]; it is optional after clause-initial So and Thus and after than, and as as well as in parenthetical statements inserted in the middle of a quotation like “thought I,” “said she,” etc.   Lets (as contrasted with Let us)--which should omit the apostrophe, which doesn't make sense in "Lets you and she do it" (note the reversals of her and him mentioned in Lesson 3 in this over-marked environment)--forms a hortative imperative.   We still make hortatory or jussive imperatives with third-person objects; cf. “Let my people go” and "Let them go."   This modal let is not the let that has the literal sense of "permit, allow."

 (2) The TEMPORAL THROWBACK makes a predicate counterfactual if it is not posterior; if posterior:  non-expectative, or dubitative.   See Lesson 18 for the surrealis environment following different classes of verbs (including wish) having posterior connotations. The TEMPORAL THROWBACK may also be used to soften a statement or question, as in “I was wondering whether you might like to go there today” and “Did you wish to leave tomorrow, Ma’m?”  Wish should not itself be “thrown back," as in  “I wished that they would hurry up”--which is ungrammatical when the wishing has not occurred in past time.

(3) Should-DELETION is optional--but more frequent than not in instances where the more informal infinitive is not used (as in “It is/was neces­sary for them to be on time”)—(1a) after expressions of volition or neces­sity (e.g. “We insisted that they SHOULD be ready on time”—where SHOULD is virtual--deleted) and (1b) expressions of propri­ety or importance (e.g. “It is/was vital [or “fitting”] that they SHOULD not overstay their welcome” and “It is/was for the good of the country that they SHOULD be deprived of that honor”) as well as in negated predicates of (2a) adverbial purpose clauses (e.g. “I wanted to take measures so that it SHOULD not fail” and (2b) adjectival purpose clauses (e.g. “We took preventive measures with the intention that it not succeed by default”).  But in nominal (noun) purpose clauses like “They’ll make sure that it doesn’t fail”--as indeed increasingly in adverbial purpose clauses—the exochronous modality prevails.  

(4) OPTATIVE-may-DELETION, which occurs only rarely—with be, and even less often with come and live--though “Perish the thought!” and a few other fossilized examples are in use.  This modality is combined with subject-verb-inversion, which follows may-deletion in “Be it every so humble,” “Be it so” or (what is more usual: “So be it”), “Be that as it may,” “Long live the Queen” (notice the position of the adverb in this frozen utterance reflected older syntax), and “Come what may!”  For inversion to occur, there can be no predicate complement or adverb or adverbial phrase following the subject--including an agent phrase with a passive verb; cf. “God help us!”  We don’t delete may in “May they be freed as soon as possible”; not can we delete may and invert the word order to yield “Live the Queen many years.” 

  (5) If-DELETION (as in “Were they here, . . .”) has a few restrictions:  (1) It is restricted to hypotheses in which the predicate is were (never was), had, did, should, and could; e.g. “Should that occur, . . . ,” “Had we arrived on time, . . . ,” and “Could they but see it in person, . . .”   (Juxtaposed clauses--as in “You don’t study, you fail--also occur in informal styles.)  (2) Modality 1, SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION, is obligatory. (3) Contractions with -n’t are not permitted.  (4) requires 10 below; i.e. was may never replace were.  (5) requires DO-SUPPORT where applicable, as in “Not only did they regret it, but . . .”  

      (6) You-DELETION in unmarked imperatives.  You is emphatic or selective in imperatives like “You have a nice day!”  Don’tchu-prohibitives are more frequent than non-negated imperatives.  The use of the Don’tchu prohibitive takes its import from the context; e.g. “Don'tchu dare do that!” is minatory, whereas “Don’tchu worry about that, Honey!” is soothing. Linguists have written of WHimperatives--e.g. "Whyn'tchu do such and such?"

      (7,8) Where do-INSERTION is not obligatory, it creates an emphatic modality.  It is obligatory true interrogations—not in indirect questions like “We wondered where they went”; in echo/reclamatory questions like “They ordered what?”; in rhetorical questions like  “You wanted ten?”; in exclamatory questions like “You wanted ten?!”  In tag questions like “did(n’t) it” and “have(n’t) we” appended at the end of a statement.    

Do-INSERTION is also obligatory with not (as in “did not succeed”) and in clauses beginning with an object or adverbial expression not followed by a comma—as is always the case with never or not X (see 1 above).  Contrast “With much effort did they get it done” and “With much effort, they got it done.”  British writers use do after clause-initial subject before not only, where Ameri­cans would not do so unless the contrast is emphatic; e.g. “These [do] not only appear in this act; those do also.”)  For do be in educated usage, see 7 above.  Note that modals lack do-SUPPORT—just as they lack to with their complementary infinitives.  While be to, hafta,/have to, (ha)ve gotta, and get to (as in “She got to attend it”), keep on, only get takes do-SUPPORT quite generally; auxili­ary be and have lack to.  Will is not accompanied by do and to when it means “be willing, persist in, insist on” but is inflected and does take do-SUPPORT when it means “make a last will and testament.”  Modal dare, need, and help occur only in modal environments—negative, true interrogative, and comparison; in such contexts, they take neither do not to, though modal help can have do-SUPPORT and/or to in formal contexts, as in “Didn’t they help us to get ready on time.”   Contrast “They don’t need to do that” with “They needn’t do 

that.”  Ought often drops to in negative, true interrogative, and compar­a­tive contests; while it can never have do-SUPPORT, it often gets takes to; contrast “We ought to leave them here” (never:  “We ought leave them here”) with “We ought not to leave them here” and “We oughtn’t leave them here” as well as “Ought(n’t) we leave them here?”  The last sounds very strange with to—the long infinitive; a short infinitive lacks a perceptual to (To is virtual there.  Note that the infinitive without to is the dictionary form of a verb.)

     (9) TO-DELETION (aside from to-deletion and at-deletion with home in "They are home; They went home"), we distinguish the long infinitive with to and the short infinitive without to: The long infinitive is used when infinitives modify an adjective (e.g. easy [for one] to please, ready to go).  Infinitives used as nominal (subject, predicate comple­ment, or object of a preposition) are also long infinitives.  Some examples of nominal infinitives follow:

    (For them) to leave now would be ridiculous.

    It would be ridiculous (for them) to leave now.

    The newcomers asked (for their names) to be announced at once.

    It would be good (for us) to leave now.

    It was ready (for them) to get on board.

    That's what it was to serve as and to be better than.

    This is what to live forever would be like.

    We had no choice but (except) to leave.