Gramatyka opisowa - składnia (PILNE!)

Witam. Czy mógłby ktoś mi sprawdzić te zadania ? Proszę również o kontakt ze mną przez fb https://www.facebook.com/jakub.baranowski.7 ponieważ chciałbym, aby ktoś sprawdził mi również zdania do analizy a przez forum może być ciężko. Dzięki z góry !

Taks 1:
Enumerate all grammatical functions of a Noun Phrase.
ANSWER: Noun phrase head, Subject, Subject complement, Direct object, Object complement, Indirect object, Prepositional complement, Noun phrase modifier, Determinative, Appositive, Adjunct adverbial

Name subcategories of the verb.
ANSWER: full verbs/ auxiliary verbs, copula, intransitive, monotransitive, ditransitive, complex-transitive, prepositional verbs.

Task 2: Decide which of the statements are true and which are false, and indicate the answer by means of letters T for ‘true’ and F for ‘false’ nest to the statement.

1. A clause consists of at least two verbs. F
2. A noun phrase can function as an adverbial. F
3. Prepositional phrase can function as a complement of the subject. F
4. Both ditransitive verbs and complex transitive verbs take two objects. F

w drugim jedno dobrze.

a można dokładniej ?

nie, Ty masz sam dojsc do poprawnych odpowiedzi.

Aha. Czyli rozumiem, że oprócz zadania 2 zadanie 1 jest w całości ok ?

prawdopodobnie tak
mozna dodać phrasal verbs

Czy teraz jest ok ?
1. A clause consists of at least two verbs. F
2. A noun phrase can function as an adverbial. T
3. Prepositional phrase can function as a complement of the subject. T
4. Both ditransitive verbs and complex transitive verbs take two objects. T

a jakies uzasadnienie?

Task 4. Analyze the structure of the complex sentences indicating: the clause structure: main clause / subordinate clause; the type of subordinate clause: NCl, AdjCl, Rel Cl, that-CL, etc,; Name functions the subordinate clauses perform: Subject, Od, Oi, Cs, Co, Adv.; the type of structure of the subordinate clause: finite / infinitival, participial.

1. Who destroyed the fence remains a mystery.
(subordinate clause) (main clause)
Type of SC - Relative Cl
Function of SC - Subject
Type of structure of SC - Finite.

czy to jest ok ?

jaka funkcje ma 'the fence'?
podaj przyklad relative clause

1. Who destroyed the fence remains a mystery.
(subordinate clause) (main clause)
Type of SC - Relative Cl
Function of SC - Subject
Type of structure of SC - Finite.
Czy teraz ok ? Who destroyed the fence - to jest Relative clause.

jaka jest definicja relative clause?

Zdanie składowe, w którym jest informacja o osobie albo o przedmiocie. Zaczyna się często od who, whose, which itd. A może inaczej - czy mógłbyś podać jakieś źródło z przykładami tego typu ? Konkretnymi zdaniami, które już są rozpisane i wytłumaczone ? Staram się do tego jakoś dojść, ale ciężko mi to idzie (jak pewnie widzisz). :)

no wiec do jakiego przedmiotu czy osoby odnosi sie to zdanie z who?
Nie ucze opisowej i nie wiem, moze definicje sie zmienily, ale dla mnie to nie jest relative clause, bo nie okresla rzeczownika.

"Who destroyed the fence" to jest 'nominal relative clause' gdzie its 'wh-element is merged with its antecedent'.
W zadniu np. ..the man who destroyed the fence' to bedzie normalne relative clause ( adnominal) gdzie tym elementem 'antecedent' jest 'man. W tamtym zdaniu ten antecedent jest tak jakby nieobecny

a dla mnie to jest pytanie
widze roznice miedzy
who destroyed the fence remains a mystery
i
who(ever) destroyed the fence will also destroy the wall.

bo to jest tak jakby pytanie
quote, Nomial Relative Clause 15.8
Nominal relative clauses resemble wh-interrogative clauses (cf 15.5) in that
they are also introduced by a wh-element. Indeed, a major reason for
including nominal relative clauses in this chapter is that it is often difficult to
distinguish them from the interrogative clauses.
On the other hand, in some respects nominal relative clauses are more like
noun phrases, since they can be concrete as well as abstract and can refer
even to persons. In fact, we can paraphrase them by noun phrases containing
a noun head with general reference that is modified by a relative clause:
Whoever did that should admit it frankly.
['The person whodid that. . .']

zdania z remains a mystery nie da sie przeksztalcic przy uzyciu 'noun phrase containing a noun head' itp.

dalczego?

zamiast pytania z who daj np. pytanie z when
when he did it remains a mystery.
i sprobuj dodac noun head

Jezeli zdanie who + mystery i who + wall sa takie same gramatycznie, to zdania podrzedne w
I don't know who he met / when he met her itp.
rowniez musisz uznac za relative clauses

Czyli w tym zadabiu to 'who destroyed the fence' sklasyfiokowalbys jak 'wh-interrogative jako subject:
Who destroyed the fence remains a mystery.
The man who destroyed the fence remains a mystery.

A w tych 'I don't know who he met / when he met her itp' wh-interrogative jako object, prawda?

tu byly jeszcze dwa takie przyklady:
I took what they offered me.
[' . . . the thing(s) that they offered me.']
Macy's is where I buy my clothes.
[' . . . the place where I buy my clothes.']

tak, to sa wh-interrogative

dwa ostatnie przyklady mozna zaklasyfikowac jako te nomainal relative clauses, choc dla mnie wszystkie cztery to beda noun clauses

tylko ze jest jest jeden problem, chodzi o wystepowanie jak funkcja dlatego uwazam ze to zdanie askera mozna zaklasyfikowac jako nominal relative clause
bo jak czesto mozna uslyszec who jako wh-element w zadaniu 'Who he met I don't know', chcociaz to nie jest kryterium restrykcyjne

nie rozumiem tych argumentow
Who me met I don't know = I don't know who he met - to jest object fronting, nie wplywa na status zdania

wiem ze nie wplywa

@mg Only

>...to zdania podrzedne w I don't know who he met / when he met her itp.
rowniez musisz uznac za relative clauses'

Mg zobacz za moim tokiem rozumowania i powiec prosze co myslisz. Jakby ja mialbym ten test, tak sobie mysle ze zalozmy nadal to zdanie askera jako podmiot zaklasyfikowalbym jako 'nominal relative clause'. Dlaczego?

Na koniec tego paragrafu 15.8. w Note(a) Quirk pisze "Nominal relative clauses
have also been called 'independent'or 'free' relative clauses.

Renaat Declerck w swojej "When-clauses and Typology Structure" w WHEN-CLAUSES AS FREE RELATIVE NOUN CLAUSES pisze:

"I will begin by briefly setting off free relatives from indirect questions, because
it is important to distinguish carefully between these homophonous structures.
.....
A useful test to distinguish between a question word and a homophonous free relative is that the former allows clefting of the clause it introduces, whereas the latter does not (unless it is a free relative in -ever or receives the same interpretation, i.e. the interpretation which Donnellan (1966) calls ‘attributive’):

(26)
(a) I asked what (it was that) he had said to her.
(b) I threw away what (*it was that) he had given me, viz. a book.

This test is also applicable to when:
(27)
(a) I asked when it was that he had left.
(b) These memories of when (*it was that) I was in India are gradually fading.
The test makes clear that when is a question word in (27 a), but a free relative in
(27 b).
WCs in which when is a free relative can be used in various nominal
functions.

unquote,

so far so good, tak , teraz w tych dopelnienia sa niewatpliwe pytania
I don't know when ( it was that) he met her
I don't know who ( it was that) he met
I don't know who (it was that) destroyed the fence.

Ale z tym trzecim wlasnie wchodzi tu ten wyjatek ktory zacytowala Renaat Declerck 'unless it is a free relative in -ever or receives the same interpretation, i.e. the interpretation which Donnellan (1966) calls ‘attributive’)'

idac tym krokiem znajdujemy iterpretacje Donnellan:

Attributive/Referential Interpretations

"Definite desriptions appearing in transparent context have been explained as having two
different uses by Donnellan, viz, the attributive and the referential use.
These can be combined with the de re and de dicto interpretations in interesting ways.

The attributive use states something about whoever is the so-and-so:
Smith's murderer [whoever it is] is insane.

whereas the referential use picks out a certain referent:
Smith's murderer[viz. Mr.Jones] is insane.

The important characteristics of the referential use is that it picks out an idividual
the attributive use gives a description, which some individual might satisfy"

Teraz w zdaniu
Who destroyed the fence ..., 'who' jest niewaptliwe attributive
a z kolei to by oznaczalo ze to free relative, czyli nominal relative clause a nie po prostu wh-interrogative.

Jakbys byl w panelu egzaminacyjnym, musialbys mi to dac A:)
Albo nawet A+, i to nawet jakbym nie mial dla ciebie zadnego 24-letniego malt'a:)
Nie mialbys wyjscia.:)

Who destroyed the fence ..., 'who' jest niewaptliwe attributive

podaj przyklad zdania pytajacego, w ktorym wyraz pytajacy jest referential.

Ja mialem na mysli w zdaniu 'Who(ever) destroyed the fence remains a mystery.
W tym zdaniu 'who' wydaje sie byc attributive i dlatego moze byc free relative, i pradopodobnie jest

We all expected Jane to win the first prize.
Climbing the highest mountains in winter is very dangerous.

Czy to są main clauses w tych zdaniach ?

Co to znaczy main clauses?