WELCOME TO COROLLARY THEOREMS
 
 

COROLLARY THEOREMS

 
> HOME PAGE
> ENGLISH GRAMMAR
> TO LSEG4
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

GRAMMAR NOTES: SENTENCE SYNTAX

 
LSEG4: Syntax
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, Syntax is an abstract analysis, a functional one, as opposed to the morphologic analysis, a concrete one based on the concrete morphologic “form”.
LSEG4: Sentence Syntax


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 following:
1. the functionality of the constituent syntactic elements, less “the attribute”;
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.

LSEG4: SYNTACTIC ELEMENTS







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!

LSEG4: INTERPRETING RLSF


"Relational-Logic Syntactic Framework" has been specifically designed for LSEG4. This exceptional mechanism explains Sentence Syntax as it functions in English grammar, and in any other language as well.

Unfortunately we cannot display the graphic RLSF model in this page (due to copyright issues). In the picture on right is a fragment of "interpreting the RLSF model".

LSEG4: CATEGORIES OF SUBJECTS BASED ON MORPHOLOGIC FORM

Considering its morphologic form the subject can be:
A. simple
B. compound
C. double

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.
L4EW: FRAGMENT OF AN EXERCISE FROM CHAPTER SUBJECTS




Considering its logic function, the subject can be:
1. “grammatical subject” [SJG], syntactical element in nominative;
2. “logic subject” [SJL], 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.
 
LSEG4: TYPES OF PREDICATES
There is a lot of 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 are of capital importance in (any) Grammar.
LSEG4: SETS OF DEFINITIONS





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 LSEG4, do not present the predicate quite to its fullest potential: this aspect proves our relentless efforts in discovering “the logic predicative functionality”.
LSEG4: TYPES OF ATTRIBUTES BASED ON SYNTACTICAL FUNCTIONAttention: in spite of its simplicity, it appears the attribute [with its attributive functions] is the least understood syntactical element in 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!
L4EW: FRAGMENT OF AN EXERCISE FROM CHAPTER ATTRIBUTES




Even worse, syntactical category of attribute, plus the attributive functions, are both missing from the rudimentary Sentence Syntax that can be “deciphered” in the new descriptive English grammar, 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 in a strange, absurd, hermetical mess.
LSEG4; CATEGORIES OF SYNTACTIC OBJECTS
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 made a prepositional object (or something else).
L4EW: FRAGMENT OF AN EXAMPLE FROM CHAPTER ONJECTS





In order to determine the “right” direct object, the sentence should be changed to the passive voice; in the new context, the “true” direct object becomes the “logic subject” accompanied by the preposition “by”.
LSEG4: MAIN CATEGORIES OF ADVERBIALS



It seems that adverbial is the nice and cozy spot in Grammar where the linguists have unleashed their wild imagination [in many languages]. In LSEG4, however, we have concluded that there are absolutely no reasonable grounds to transform “grammatical analysis” into . . . “adverbial analysis”!
L4EW: FRAGMENT OF AN EXAMPLE FRON CHAPTER ADVERBIALS




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 society.
LSEG4: PREDICATE AGREEMENT WITH COMPOUND SUBJECTS





The subject has to agree with the predicate in order to satisfy the existence condition of syntactical sentence. This mandatory condition also explains why impersonal verbs cannot form a valid grammatical predicate—since they cannot agree with the subject.
L4EW: SYNTACTICAL SENTENCE ANALYSIS










Fragment from L4EW: syntactical sentence analysis.

LSEG4 AND L4EW






Learn the simple, classic, universal English Grammar. Now in a complete series.

 
 
 
x
Send your comments regarding this page using support@corollarytheorems.com
Page last updated on: November 01, 2014
© SC Complement Control SRL. All rights reserved.

OUR CANADIAN FLAG

 

Valid HTML 4.01!

Site pages valid according to W3C

Valid CSS!

Stylesheets pages valid according to W3C