GRAMMAR NOTES: SENTENCE 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
The applications domain/realm in Sentence Syntax is “syntactical
sentence”. Further, 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 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 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".
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” [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.
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
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”.
in spite of its simplicity, it appears the attribute [with its
attributive functions] is the least understood syntactical element in
the 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, are in fact 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.
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).
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”.
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 . . .
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 syntactical sentence. This mandatory condition
also explains why impersonal verbs cannot form a valid grammatical
predicate—since they cannot agree with the subject.
Fragment from L4EW: syntactical sentence analysis.
Learn the simple, classic, universal English Grammar. Now in a complete