GRAMMAR NOTES: SENTENCE SYNTAX
No wonder this "Sentence Syntax" page is the
one of all Grammar Notes we present—Grammar
IS Sentence Syntax,
Now, the beauty with our book LGEG4 is the fact that it is
the only book in the entire World to present a correct and a complete Sentence Syntax.
This may sound like a fantastic exaggeration to you, but it is just the
unbelievable, unknown, true reality!
We have been working for about two decades on English grammar,
and we know what it is out there, in other grammar books—therefore, our comparison is sufficiently accurate.
On the other hand, that massive amount of grammatical knowledge we have acquired
over the years allowed us to develop the exceptional "Relational-Logic Syntactic
Framework" mechanism, which simplifies a lot the process of
assimilating Grammar—and this one comes as a premiere in the entire Grammar history!
Anyway, our promise to you is, "You will learn Grammar using our
books, LSEG4 and L4EW!"
First of all, "Sentence Syntax"
is a functional interpretation of Grammar, and it is exactly the same
in any language known (and even in the entire Universe). Note
that the English subject remains "the subject" in any translation:
Russian, French, Japanese, Korean, Indian, etc. Exactly the same thing happens with the predicate, the objects, the adverbials and,
naturally, the attributes. In a functional analysis, all language-specific barriers disappear, since they are, in fact, irrelevant!
Consequently, Sentence Syntax is an universal grammatical interpretation.
amazingly), Sentence Syntax works with only 5 syntactic elements,
though their simple syntactic functionality is not much known
World-wide! In our books, we provide the "Relational-Logic Syntactic
Framework" model which explains, graphically, the entire syntactic
functionality: this is an exceptional tool [as you can see further down on this page], and it is incredibly simple to use.
Lastly, it needs to be stressed that syntactic
functionality is wrongly interpreted in most grammar books. This is
a great problem for our entire Human Civilization, because Sentence
Syntax works exactly the same in any language known: as an abstract
mathematical model. It is not that "we say" that Sentence Syntax is
wrongly interpreted in other grammar books: anybody can understand
logically/mathematically that our books are the only ones "working"
correctly in Grammar. [This also explains why we have the audacity
to state that our grammar books have no match in the entire
Grammatical analysis starts in “Sentence Syntax”, therefore it is
particularly important to understand “the nature”, plus “the extents” and “the limits” of the “Sentence Syntax domain/realm”.
It needs to be
highlighted that Sentence Syntax is only “an abstract functional
analysis”. As a result, in Sentence Syntax there are no concrete
“syntactic elements”; in Sentence Syntax there are only “functions”, and
we use the term of “syntactic element” to name one of those functions.
Again, Sentence Syntax is an abstract analysis, a functional one, as opposed to
the morphologic analysis, a concrete one based on the concrete
The applications domain/realm in Sentence Syntax is “syntactical
sentence”. Therefore, syntactical sentence is characterized by two major
aspects: “the type of syntactical sentence”, plus “syntactical
functionality”. Further, syntactical functionality is one of the
1. the functionality of the constituent syntactic elements, less “the
2. the attributive determining functions, as they apply to all syntactic
elements less “the predicate”;
3. the accomplishment of the global meaning in syntactical sentence.
One sentence can be considered a "morphologic
sentence" in Morphology, and a "syntactic sentence" in Sentence
Syntax, in the same time. However, a morphologic sentence can be "just
any sentence", while a "syntactic sentence" needs to abide by some particularly tough
Consequently, all sentences belong to the Morphology Domain, though only a
subset of them may also qualify as "syntactic sentences". As a
corollary, Syntactical Domain is way narrower than the Morphologic one.
Sentence Syntax is far more difficult to understand than Morphology,
because it requires a certain degree of abstract logic. Note that all 5
syntactic elements name exactly 5 syntactic functionalities—which is not
very much. However, all 10 concrete morphologic elements need to have
some syntactical correspondence (or not) within the mentioned 5
This aspect creates confusion, because Morphology is not mirrored into
Sentence Syntax. There is only a “correspondence” relation—via
category of case—between the two different grammatical domains.
Leaving the required modesty aside, LSEG4 is the only book in the entire World (and in the history of
Grammar) to present correctly the category of
case—in any language. Note that the category of case is the very building brick of any Grammar.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that the category of case is only partially reflected into the morphologic form, almost all English
grammar books present it chaotically "simplified"—and this generates mayhem in Grammar. It is clear that
most English authors
never understood the way this "grammatical category of case" actually works.
Grammatical category of case is only "a functional characteristic": the fact that the English morphologic elements do not
change their form to reflect appropriately the category of case IS TOTALLY NOT IMPORTANT! The case is still there,
functionally, in (any) one morphologic element, irrespective of its morphologic form, because
the case is just A FUNCTION that element has, always.
The novelty in LSEG4 is the fact that it presents—for the first time in
grammar history—that there
are 2 morphologic cases, plus 3 syntactical ones [in English grammar, and in any grammar; this is, as a minimum]. Let's take an example.
The morphologic "genitive case" (aka "the possessive case") is clearly expressed in English grammar since it
has a specific morphologic form, a specific morphologic functionality (a local possessive relation), and a clear semantic
meaning (possession). However, in Sentence Syntax the genitive case does not exist, since all nouns in genitive case
become attributes. Note that the attribute "borrows" the case of its determined element, therefore its case can be only "nominative",
"dative", or "accusative".
Without understanding appropriately the category of case, we cannot talk/discuss/write about grammar—English
grammar, or any other grammar. Sentence Syntax itself is functionally built only on the universal, logic, category of case.
One syntactic element names a particular functionality, within the
sentence structure, which can be characterized as being “a relation to
other syntactic elements”. All syntactical functions are just relations
developed between syntactical elements, and all of them work both ways
(they are inter-related).
To the users, the most important aspect, about
syntactical functionality, is the fact that it is perfectly logic!
"Relational-Logic Syntactic Framework"
model has been specifically
designed for LGEG4. This exceptionally simple mechanism explains
graphically the manner in which Sentence Syntax
functions in English grammar, and in any other language as well.
In spite of its perplexing simplicity, it took us about 10 years to develop, and
then to test appropriately, the above RLSF mechanism.
Most important, we had to make sure that it functions correctly in all atypical instances, in addition to the typical ones.
Considering its morphologic form the subject can be:
Morphologically, simple subject is a noun, or an equivalent noun.
Further, an equivalent noun may be: a pronoun, an adjective, a numeral,
a gerund verb, a past participle verb, an infinitive verb, or any
expression/phrase/ sentence working as one equivalent noun.
Considering its logic function, the subject can be:
1. “grammatical subject”, syntactical element in nominative;
2. “logic subject”, the true subject executing the action/state of
the predicate; this could be either the subject in nominative, or an
explicit/implicit direct object in accusative case.
There is a terrible confusion in most grammatical publications about what
is a “nominal predicate”. However, the stinging pain that hurts the most
is the fact that only a few grammatical sources explain correctly what a
“predicative name” really is. Both topics,
though, are of capital importance in
The predicate is presented chaotically in most grammar books, plus in
countless of Internet articles that have been consulted over a period of
roughly twenty years. Even more, in order to “decipher” predicate’s
functionality, it took a lot of time, and incredible mental efforts. Note
that even our LSEG editions, previous to LGEG4, do not present the
predicate quite to its fullest potential: this aspect proves our
relentless efforts in discovering “the logic predicative functionality”.
in spite of its simplicity, it appears the attribute [with its
attributive functions] is the least understood syntactic element
English grammar [and in other foreign grammars as well]. Just an
example, many authors of grammar books appear to be fascinated by
subject/object complements, and by appositions. Unfortunately, it looks
like they have no idea that subject/object complements, and the
appositions, function syntactically as attributes!
Even worse, syntactical category of attribute, plus the attributive
functions, are both missing from the rudimentary Sentence Syntax that
can be “deciphered” in most "modern" descriptive English grammar books, although the
attributive functions do appear, mysteriously, in their underdeveloped
Complex Sentence Syntax. Fact is, in those books Morphology, Sentence
Syntax, and Complex Sentence Syntax are entangled together into a strange,
absurd, hermetical mess.
Attention: two direct objects in one sentence are not allowed in
Grammar! In any language, two direct objects transmit a confusing
ungrammatical message. When it happens, in some particular sentences, to
have two direct objects, one of them must be rendered a prepositional object
(or something else).
In order to determine the “right” direct object, the sentence needs to be
changed to the passive voice. In the new context, the “true” direct
object becomes the “logic subject” accompanied by the preposition “by”.
It appears the adverbial is the nice and cozy spot in Grammar where the
linguists have unleashed their wild imagination [in many languages]. In
LGEG4, however, we have concluded that there are absolutely no
reasonable grounds to transform “grammatical analysis” into . . .
The only information we port from Sentence Syntax to Morphology is the
“adverbial nature/functionality”. Further in Morphology, we do analyze
the category and the subcategory of the corresponding adverb, though
without exaggerations regarding the level of details. Grammar must be
preserved as simple as possible in order to function properly in our
The subject has to agree with the predicate, in order to satisfy the
existence condition of a syntactical sentence. This mandatory condition
also explains why impersonal verbs cannot form a valid grammatical
predicate—since they do agree with the subject.
Fragment from L4EW: syntactical sentence analysis.
+C. S. Syntax
PARTICULAR PROBLEMS IN SENTENCE SYNTAX
The problems presented briefly in the following paragraphs are specific to English,
though they may be identified in other languages as well.
1. Subjective functionality is
commonly misinterpreted, since only a handful of books trouble to explain that
the subject can be "logic" and "grammatical". Note
that "logic subject" is, in particular sentences, the object!
2. Predicative functionality is the Achilles' heel in most
grammar books—if not in all of them. Two aspects are particularly
alarming, given their erroneous syntactic interpretation: first
is the identification of the predicate itself; secondly is
the structure and the function of the nominal predicate.
The predicate is the very backbone of grammar: failing to
identify it correctly leads to . . . a total mess. Now, syntactical
predicate is expressed using a morphologic verb, only the mentioned
verb may exist in a common/continuous aspect, and also in an
active/passive voice. Only a few books trouble to explain
the predicate in a common/continuous aspect plus
in a passive voice,
although these aspects are of capital importance—regardless, none does
it as thorough and complete as it is presented in
Nominal predicate is interpreted as—bluntly said—a gross error in any
language. Most frequently, a "copulative predicate" is
presented—somehow!—as being a nominal predicate. Like it or not,
people do not know, lately, what a nominal predicate really is; as
for its syntactic functionality . . . Well! Note again that
grammatical analysis starts only from syntactical predicate (verbal,
copulative, or nominal): failing to identify the predicate
appropriately leads to catastrophic grammatical interpretations!
3. Direct/indirect/prepositional object functionality is
presented chaotically, at best, in those a few books that do bother to
"touch" Sentence Syntax—again, in the entire World. However, with a
passive voice predicate, the object becomes the "logic subject":
this is, a principal/major syntactic element. As for the object
being accompanied by a preposition, or not, that is a morphological
form aspect which is totally not important in functional Sentence
4. Adverbial functionality is presented differently and
illogically in each book ever published up to now, anywhere in the
World. [As a note, things are so difficult in Sentence Syntax, that
even our previous LSEG editions are not recommended as accurate
references of Sentence Syntax.] In
LSEG4, the readers are going to
discover the simplest logic classification of only 4 major groups of adverbials—and this is perfectly
5. Lastly comes the attributive functionality, incredibly simple
though wrongly presented in each other grammar book ever published
anywhere! Attributive functionality is the least known of all
syntactic functions, regardless of the language used. On the other
hand, the elementarily simple attributive functionality is an
integral component in subjects, objects, and adverbials,
therefore it becomes mandatory in controlling the meaning—and
syntactical analysis as well.
Practically, the only book presenting
the attributive functionality correctly, in the entire World, is
LSEG4. Again, this is not because we say so: it is Grammar itself
that proves, logically, this exceptional reality.
A complete grammatical reference, very easy to learn: Logically Structured English Grammar 4—as theory plus exercises!