WELCOME TO COROLLARY THEOREMS
 
 

COROLLARY THEOREMS

 
HOME PAGE
LSEG4
ENGLISH GRAMMAR
SENTENCE SYNTAX
 
GREEN LEAF R

GRAMMAR NOTES: SENTENCE SYNTAX

GREEN LEAVES L

NOTE

No wonder this "Sentence Syntax" page is the most visited one of all Grammar Notes we present--Grammar is Sentence Syntax, remember?

Now, the beauty with our book LSEG4 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. In the other side, that massive amount of grammar 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!"


ATTENTION

First of all, "Sentence Syntax" is a functional interpretation of Grammar, and it is the same one 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.

Secondly (and 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, and it is really very simple (as you can see further down on this page).

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 World.]


LSEG4: Syntax
RED LEAVES L
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.

ATTENTION
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 tough syntactical rules.

Consequently, all sentences belong to 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 syntactical functionalities.

This aspect creates confusion, because Morphology is not mirrored into Sentence Syntax. There is only a “correspondence” relation—via the category of case—between the two different grammatical domains.
 


LSEG4: SYNTACTIC ELEMENTSGREEN LEAF L






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 exceptionally simple mechanism explains graphically the manner in which Sentence Syntax functions in English grammar, and in any other languages as well.

NOTE
In spite of its perplexing simplicity, it took us 10 years to develop, and to test, the above RLSF mechanism. Most important, we had to make sure it functions correctly in all atypical instances, in addition to the typical ones.


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 SUBJECTSGREEN LEAF R




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.

 


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 "modern" 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 ONJECTSGREEN LEAF R





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”.

LSEG4: MAIN CATEGORIES OF ADVERBIALS



It appears the 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 SUBJECTSGREEN LEAF L





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 cannot agree with the subject.

L4EW: SYNTACTICAL SENTENCE ANALYSIS

GREEN LEAF R








Fragment from L4EW: syntactical sentence analysis.

GREEN LEAVES


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 the "logic subject" is, in particular sentences, the object!

2. Predicative functionality is the Achilles' heel in most grammars--if not in all of them. Two aspects are particularly alarming, given their erroneous syntactic misinterpretation: 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, the 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 care 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 LSEG4.

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 the 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 the functional Sentence Syntax.

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 sufficient, grammar-wise.

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.


LSEG4 AND L4EW BOOKSGREEN LEAF L






The complete, easy to learn, Logically Structured English Grammar 4 solution: theory plus exercises!

GREEN LEAVES


» ASK A GRAMMAR QUESTION
» LINK TO LEARN HARDWARE FIRMWARE AND SOFTWARE DESIGN
» BACK TO TOP
 
 
 
x
Send your comments regarding this page using support@corollarytheorems.com
Page last updated on: April 09, 2015
© 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