In the sentence They are more familiar with this, the predicative complement more familiar with this is an AdjP, with the adjective head familiar. But what about a sentence such as They are more at home with this? Could at home be seen as a complex adjective here, despite its actual PP form? If not, how would we parse the predicative complement here (all levels)?
Asked
Active
Viewed 100 times
1
-
Related, maybe: When can “very” modify a prepositional phrase? – herisson Jan 17 '19 at 12:20
-
1No, not a complex adjective; rather, an idiomatic was of saying "at ease with". I'd say that "more" is a dependent of "at home", where "at" is the head and "home" is its complement. – BillJ Jan 18 '19 at 14:58
-
@BillJ Thanks!! But what would the form of the predicative complement as a whole be then? – Hannah Jan 18 '19 at 15:33
1 Answers
2
We cannot analyze one syntactic form as another one. Each grammatical form is defined by a set of criteria that makes it distinguishable from another one. So, a preposition cannot be an adjective, a noun cannot be a verb etc. Grammatical forms can be distributionally/functionally comparable or similar in certain syntactic contexts, but one cannot be the other. So, my general answer to the title question is no and never.
They are more at home with this.
The whole thing is an ascriptive predicative complement with the form of a prepositional phrase. There is a lot to say about this one. First, there is a number of prepositional phrases which are gradable (completely in control, very much out of sorts, wholly out of order etc. CGEL p643), typically functioning as the predicative complement. In the sentence at hand the adverb "more" modifies the following head PP "at home".
Which brings us to the interesting part. The head of a phrase doesn't have to be a word - it can be another phrase. This is the case here. The head of the PP "more at home with this" is another PP - "at home". The PP "with this" is a complement of the head PP "at home".
The authors of CGEL say "..one PP can function within a larger one, as head, complement, or modifier" (p646), which is followed by sentences illustrating each use.
-
Yes; I'm not anti-CGEL per se, far from it. Though I prefer the splitting off of the set of prepositional-phrase-modifiers (I'll add the examples just behind the door, rather under the weather, right into the middle of the hole) from the adverb ragbag. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 06 '20 at 11:51
-
@Edwin Directional prepositional modifiers are even more common than adverbial ones: look UP into the sky, put it BACK on the shelf etc. – Feb 06 '20 at 11:58
-
I'd not class those as PP modification; the adverbs here don't modify the PP but rather the verb. 'Look [up] [into the sky]' but 'She putted it [right into the middle of the hole]'. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 06 '20 at 12:23
-
@Edwin Good point! I've checked CGEL, p645 for examples and the authors would clearly parse the latter sentence as I put it [back on the shelf] (as opposed to "I put it [back] [on the shelf] . The same would go for your example of course: She putted it [back into the hole] . The adverb "right" and the directional preposition "back" would be analyzed the same then. I'd also be tempted to parse the "look up into the sky" as you did, and I wouldn't mind analyzing the other one the same, as : I looked [up] [into the sky]. – Feb 06 '20 at 12:46
-
Off the top of my head, I could come up with a lot of (with a non-literal interpretation of the preposition) examples where the test they offer fails to prove anything (including the previous sentence: I came with a lot of .. won't do) . But then, there are no intransitive examples among those on p645, so let's take a similar one(also non-literal meaning) : I put it down to his stressful job. (Clearly, the interpretation in this one doesn't depend on the PP "to his stressful job" ) What should this implicate is a question that will take me more thinking :) – Feb 06 '20 at 12:57
-
I took just a quick glance at the page, I might go back to it later and see if there is more to it than how I understood it. It may not be possible to draw definitive conclusions about this question from what they said on this point in CGEL. – Feb 06 '20 at 13:00
-
The starting point 'definitive conclusions [about a correct grammatical model] from what [they] say' seems to cut across the idea of the scientific method. Who decides when the best interpretation has finally been arrived at? How? – Edwin Ashworth Feb 06 '20 at 13:57
-
The one that is logically unassailable within the proposed grammatical model is going to take the cake :) Actually, people who aspire to be good linguists have to learn logic. I haven't and I won't but I understand why logic matters in language. – Feb 06 '20 at 14:31
-
'The one that is logically unassailable within the proposed grammatical model is going to take the cake' is demonstrably false. The definition of 'idiom' is 'a construction containing an irregular/non-standard sense of a word, irregular/non-standard grammar, or both'. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 06 '20 at 16:11
-
Okay, the model which is logically the most consistent will be the one that will be most widely accepted. – Feb 07 '20 at 06:47
-
The bogus-ditransitive (actually misconstrued as an actual ditransitive construction by one authority) 'He led her a merry dance' is vastly preferred over the logical 'He led her in a merry dance' (and 'He led her up the garden path in what might be termed a merry dance' etc). I have a list of extra-grammatical idioms (one term that has been used is 'non-grammatical', but usage eventually trumps standard grammar (and logic) where there is a conflict. 'More than one of them was killed' (an example of grammatical illogicality, highlighted by CS Lewis). – Edwin Ashworth Feb 07 '20 at 12:35