What examples are you thinking of, Andrew. If it's short phrases like I don't know if he does but he ought to can't you account for that for more simply with back reference and context without resorting to claims of invisible verbs?Invisible verbs may exist with other catenatives, but they surely must exist with modal equivalents such as "ought to", "be about to", "be on the point of", etc
Invisible verb, or not?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Yes, I would look for anaphor in such examples.lolwhites wrote:What examples are you thinking of, Andrew. If it's short phrases like I don't know if he does but he ought to can't you account for that for more simply with back reference and context without resorting to claims of invisible verbs?Invisible verbs may exist with other catenatives, but they surely must exist with modal equivalents such as "ought to", "be about to", "be on the point of", etc
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
"I don't know if he does, but he ought to," is indeed anaphoric and back-referential, but importantly, it refers back to a verb. "Ought to" cannot exist by itself, it must overlay its meaning on another verb and it does not matter that this verb has been used before.Invisible verbs may exist with other catenatives, but they surely must exist with modal equivalents such as "ought to", "be about to", "be on the point of", etc
What examples are you thinking of, Andrew. If it's short phrases like I don't know if he does but he ought to can't you account for that for more simply with back reference and context without resorting to claims of invisible verbs?
Yes, I would look for anaphor in such examples.
As to what examples I was thinking of; I regard any catenative that cannot make a sensible sentence without another verb as a modal equivelent. Some other catenatives may be intransitive, and not require an object either, others will require an object or compliment to make sense.
If you want a list of modal equivalents, then look at my Venn diagram, the one I give to my FCE and advanced students, not the unreadable monster that I had before (it still exists, though.) Modal equivalents are written above the headings:
Home page:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson
Coloured diagram:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/Cat.html
Colourless diagram:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/colourless.html
Verb patterns quiz:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/ ... hoice.html
Andrew Patterson wrote:"I don't know if he does, but he ought to," is indeed anaphoric and back-referential, but importantly, it refers back to a verb. "Ought to" cannot exist by itself, it must overlay its meaning on another verb and it does not matter that this verb has been used before.Invisible verbs may exist with other catenatives, but they surely must exist with modal equivalents such as "ought to", "be about to", "be on the point of", etc
What examples are you thinking of, Andrew. If it's short phrases like I don't know if he does but he ought to can't you account for that for more simply with back reference and context without resorting to claims of invisible verbs?
Yes, I would look for anaphor in such examples.
As to what examples I was thinking of; I regard any catenative that cannot make a sensible sentence without another verb as a modal equivelent. Some other catenatives may be intransitive, and not require an object either, others will require an object or compliment to make sense.
If you want a list of modal equivalents, then look at my Venn diagram, the one I give to my FCE and advanced students, not the unreadable monster that I had before (it still exists, though.) Modal equivalents are written above the headings:
Home page:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson
Coloured diagram:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/Cat.html
Colourless diagram:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/colourless.html
Verb patterns quiz:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/ ... hoice.html
Well that's a blessing, Andrew.not the unreadable monster that I had before

-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact: