woman alive

Hello paco, yes, it's tricky.
I take [to burn the woman [while she is still alive]] as a Verb Phrase (in this case at least).

I know I have explained almost nothing, but I cannot see clearly what bothers you, paco. I got your purpose. Then I won't impose my opinion on you.

You've asked why I think "alive" should be the modifier of "the woman." Why not?

Nice talking to you,

Hello Anon

Thank you for the reply.

Are you asking why I ask your thought? It's because you said in the post 145815 that you would read "alive" as an object complement.

The reason I am saying that "alive" is not a usual object complement is that the sentence can make sense even if we can delete this "alive". As you know, a complement is a constituent needed to complete the sentence. For example, take "She always leaves the door open" [1]. Suppose we delete "open" from this. Then "She always leaves the door" [2]. It could make some sense but the sense may be different from that of [1]. On the hand, in the case of "They burned the woman alive", a part of the sense of this sentence would remain intact even if we delete "alive" (that is "They burned the woman"). By this reason I take "alive" as an adverbial (or adjunct) rather than a complement. However, this "alive" is not a modifier of "burn". It is in a nexus relation with "the woman": "the woman was alive". This nexus relation is a component independent from the event stated in the main predicate "They burned the woman" but it gives a situational explanation to the event. It is the reason I am saying that this "alive" is a sort of sentential adverbs.

As for your way of parsing the sentence, I take it says only that any constituents other than the subjective NP is VP. I don’t say it is wrong but I am wondering if that way of parsing could give us productive information.

Please understand I write this not to offend you.

best regards

paco

"eating fish alive" does indeed sound unnatural, both semantically and pragmatically!
Nevertheless, "boiling them alive" sounds fine, and brings us back to the original structure again.

How about thinking of phrasal verbs like "throw away" and "take apart" as a means of analyzing the situation before us?

"The child threw the toy away."  The toy is 'away' as a result of the operation.  But is it therefore an 'away toy' we are talking about?  At the end of the event it is, perhaps, a discarded toy, but not an away toy.
"The child took the toy apart."  The toy is 'apart' as a result of the operation.  But is it therefore an 'apart toy' we are talking about? At the end of the event it is, perhaps, a disassembled toy, but not an apart toy.

The child can throw the toy or throw it away.  The child can take the toy, or take it apart.
I see these as four separate verbs:  "to throw", "to throw away", "to take", and "to take apart".

Similarly, although "alive" is not the resultant state,
"They burned the woman alive."  The woman is 'alive' during the operation.  But is it therefore an 'alive woman' we are talking about?  During the event she is, perhaps, a living woman, but not an alive woman.

I think we are concerned here more with the manner of doing the burning than with the state of the woman, strange as that may seem.  We are more interested in describing the burning than the woman.  That it is a living woman is part of the definition of "woman" already, so to say that "alive" describes the woman is to say that "alive" is placed in the sentence redundantly.  We say, "The woman bought a dress", not "The living woman bought a dress."

I propose that 'alive' is an adverbial particle used to form phrasal verbs just the same as shown in the examples "throw away" and "take apart".

Thus, we have the phrasal verbs "burn alive", "boil alive", and "bury alive", each denoting a particular form of execution.  In this analysis, "alive" cannot possibly be an adjective - unless we are also willing to accept "away" and "apart" as adjectives. Beside these verbs we have "burn", "boil", and "bury".  "burn" is just as different from "burn alive" as "take" is from "take apart".

CJ

Hello CalifJim. I'm that 'Anon.'
............................................................................................

"eating fish alive" does indeed sound unnatural, both semantically and pragmatically! {{=> Not so strange. It's a common practice here! ha-ha ;-）}}
Nevertheless, "boiling them alive" sounds fine, and brings us back to the original structure again.

How about thinking of phrasal verbs like "throw away" and "take apart" as a means of analyzing the situation before us?
............................................................................................
It's a new twist. I like your analysis much. Let me think it over.

With my best regards,