Joe:
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> > What does Quirk mean by saying that that-clauses are objects?  That they
> > are just NPs?
>
> Yes, I think so (except in the case of "It seems that X").
>
>
> >  If so, then how does he account for the contrast between
> > (3) and (4)?
> >
> > (3) *I want that Bill is still president.
> > (3') ?????I want it that Bill is still president.
> > (4)  I want it.
>
> Okay, good, if that-clauses were NPs (or in WG terms, if complementizers
> were nominals),

For this to work in WG terms, finite verbs would also have to be nouns.
Semantically that is not implausible, but distributionally it creates more
proeblems than it solves.

> then we would expect things to work the other way in the
> opposite direction too.
>
> But, playing the devil's advocate, couldn't we say that that-clauses
> are a subclass of objects. Thus, all (post-verbal) that-clauses are
> objects, but not all objects are that-clauses.
>
> Of course, this still leaves (3') to be dealt with, though.
>
> Joe

that-clauses can be complement of adjectives and common nouns, and in
those positions don't alternate with nouns. And of course they can
be subjects.

And in

  I'll bet you five quid that Chelsea will draw tonight.

it would be "five quid" that I'd be likeliest to call 'object'.

So I couldn't accept that all that-clauses are objects. As for whether
*some* are, I my attempt to address that is in the previous message.

 --And.
 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%