equivocal  +  78671 Sat, 05 Mar 05 01:14 PM This is however ungrammatical: -> *who did you give the book Oh, I meant to add that its ungrammatical by my grammaticality judgment. So I try to explain its ungrammaticality from that point of view. If it's ok for you then your grammar allows to elision in actives as well. Who did you give: a raise, a mango, all the canoes, the most personal care of this kind, the money intended for the KLA, the nickname Shorty, that envelope, that? In fact for your examples, the heavier the complement the more grammatical it seems, so for me: ?Who did you give a raise ?Who did you give a mango Who did you give the mosts personal care of this kind ?Who did you give the money intended for KLA Who did you give the nickname Shorty? eq equivocal Joined on Tue, Mar 1 2005 Junior Member 58 Grammar, Whom

	CalifJim  +  78734 Sat, 05 Mar 05 06:14 PM the heavier the complement the more grammatical it seems Yes, Yes, Yes!!!!! But what's that about? The applicants had all lined up at the Vatican. As the officials looked them over, the big question on their minds was "Who would the officials grant permission to see the Pope?" ... permission to to see the Pope? (?) ... permission to see the Pope to? (?) Who did we offer the job last year? (This one doesn't seem at all strange to me!) Who has the boss assigned the duty of cleaning the kitchen? ... cleaning the kitchen to? (?) Who have we issued the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes so far this month? (OOF!) ETC.... CJ CalifJim Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004 California Veteran Member 22,454 "There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche Whom

	paco2004  +  78784 Sun, 06 Mar 05 12:34 AM Hello People For me it's very difficult to get the logics that underlie the passive voice of ditransitive verbs. You could say both (1) and (2): (1) I gave Mary the book. (2) I gave the book to Mary. As a passive voice for (1), you would say either: (3) The book was given Mary. (4) Mary was given the book. But you would pasivize (2) only into (5), not (6); (5) The book was given to Mary. (6) * Mary was given the book to. And still queerer to me is you'd not passivize (7) the way like (8) (7) I wrote him a letter. (8) * He was written a letter. How come such messy rules to exist? Could anyone explain the logics behind them? paco paco2004 Joined on Wed, Nov 17 2004 Senior Member 4,095 In Japan today even dogs are learning how to bow-wow in English. Verbs, Whom

	equivocal  +  78816 Sun, 06 Mar 05 03:18 AM Ok, here's what a friend of mine said... 1a. who did you give the book to? 1b. *who did you give the book? 1c. who was given the book? The derivational source of (1a) is as discussed previously: you give the book to who? -> who did you give the book to (wh-wovement and do-support) The derivational source of (1b) is a double object construction, not a dative construction and wh-movement is disallowed: you give who the book -> *who-i did you give the book Ti (wh-movement and do-support) And in (1c) as well where the object 'who' is raised to subject position as per passivisation rules, not wh-movement: (null) give who the book -> who was given the book (null) eq equivocal Constructions, Whom

	equivocal  +  78819 Sun, 06 Mar 05 03:28 AM the heavier the complement the more grammatical it seems I mean heavy NP-shifting as you show in this example: Who have we issued the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes so far this month? (OOF!) It's better to say "Who have we issued so far this month with the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes." ... permission to to see the Pope? (?) ... permission to see the Pope to? (?) Sorry, I'm not sure what you are saying with these examples. Who did we offer the job last year? (This one doesn't seem at all strange to me!) It's not ok for me, I think it's not in standard english. Not positive though, someone check it up? I can only say: "Who did we offer the job to last year?" eq equivocal Whom

	Casi  +  78822 Sun, 06 Mar 05 03:41 AM CJ: Who did we offer the job last year? (This one doesn't seem at all strange to me!) Eq: It's not ok for me, I think it's not in standard English. Not positive though, someone check it up? I can only say: "Who did we offer the job to last year?" "doesn't sound all that strange to me", either. Not the standard though, as I'm sure Jim would agree. Oddly enough, I've heard something like it (Do Jim and I watch the same TV shows, movies?) I believe it's an example of implied "to". Casi Joined on Sat, Sep 25 2004 Regular Member 547 Whom

	paco2004  +  78825 Sun, 06 Mar 05 04:01 AM Hi Equivocal Thank you for the nice explanation. And in (1c) as well where the object 'who' is raised to subject position as per passivisation rules, not wh-movement: I think some clue required for soving my doubts would be here. Do you mean 'who was given the book?' is created by using 'prescriptive grammar rules' rather than by 'generative grammar' (I mean a kind of human instinctive brain work by this term)? paco paco2004 Grammar, Whom

	CalifJim  +  78836 Sun, 06 Mar 05 05:22 AM Hi, eq, I wrote: "Who have we issued the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes so far this month?" (OOF!) You responded: It's better to say "Who have we issued so far this month with the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes." I found this hilariously funny! Then I thought, "Gosh, maybe he was serious!" (Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic came to mind!) CJ CalifJim Whom

	CalifJim  +  78838 Sun, 06 Mar 05 05:42 AM I think it's not in standard english Yes? In that case, who do we ask? Who is the authority for saying this is standard English - that is not? Where is the authoritative source of what is included and what is not included in standard English? Or isn't there one? CJ CalifJim Whom