2020年5月3日 · That "for" is a complementizer. If it were a preposition, it would take an object which could be pronominalized with "it" or "that", but *"John won't stay though I'd prefer for it". On the other hand, when it is a complementizer, pronominalization of the entire nominalized construction may be possible: "John won't stay, though I'd prefer that."

2017年4月9日 · A complementizer is a conjunction which marks a complement clause. And the Lexicon of Linguistics at the Utrecht Institute of Linguistics defines complementizer as an. element introducing a subordinate clause. CGEL † doesn't use complementizer at all, but it does use subordinator in a very similar sense.

There is also no evidence of any invisible complementizer in the sentence. Nominalized clauses can be joined without a complementizer, because they denote something (similarly to a noun) whereas complementized clauses represent themselves as clauses, more or less. There are wh- words that are complementizers, such: whom, which, whether.

2017年7月12日 · In spite of what elementary textbooks tend to say, i.e., that the values of Comp are that (or 'null that'), whether, if and for (or 'null' for) in English, there is well established syntactic evidence that that initial analysis - dating back to the late 60's and early 70's - was incorrect.

2019年4月30日 · Actually, the complementizer is usually called "for-to" (not just "for") to keep it apart from the preposition "for". I do not see a case for "on" or "of" as complementizers. Rather, these are prepositions whose objects can be for-to complements.

2024年3月18日 · @Keelan The paper shows examples (57)-(60) on pages 28-29 to present arguments against NP+CP forming a constituent. Specifically, (57) rebuts your 'possibility of conjunction' argument. That said, how to analyze this construction is not an issue here. How a complementizer can have an NP and a CP as complements is. –

‘There is no consensus regarding the application of the word “complementizer” to makers of subordinate status that are inflectional (the genitive marker, -ing, and possibly to)’ says McCawley (1998, Ch. 5). But the non-finite clause what to name them is certainly a complement (the direct object) of the verb think. Its subject “I” is ...

The finite clause (with or without the complementizer that) is a different syntactic category than the noun phrase, as can be seen from the fact that finite clauses have a different distribution than noun phrases. Some examples are given in your question and in @curiousdannii’s answer above; two more examples are given in (1) and (2).

2019年10月22日 · which is not grammatical only because a sentence cannot be the subject of a sentence. This is a syntactic requirement. Without any change to the meaning, if we just add the complementizer "that" as syntactic sugar, we get the acceptable. That Maude was naughty surprised us all.

2021年8月12日 · This question is based on several suppositions: For as a preposition is able to be transformed into a wh- question with the wh- phrase preposed with for, as below with senators John acting as the