• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
    No IPIs with verbs of perception
    quickinfo

    Neither the argument Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo construction (IPI) nor the adjunct IPI can be found with verbs of perception.

    readmore

    Verbs of perception select a gerundial infinitival clause containing a subject, as shown in the example below:

    Example 1

    Hy seach ien by de reinpiip op klatterjen
    he saw one at the rain.pipe up climb
    He saw someone climbing up the rain pipe

    Neither the adjunct IPI nor the argument IPI can be found with these verbs, as shown in the example below:

    Example 2

    a. *Hy seach ien by de reinpiip op klatterjen en tikje op it rút
    he saw one at the rain.pipe up climb and knock on the window
    He saw someone climbing up the rain pipe and knock on the window
    b. *Hy seach (it) en klatterje ien by de reinpiip op
    he saw it and climb one at the rain.pipe up
    He saw someone climbing up the rain pipe

    The ungrammaticality of the adjunct IPI is surprising. If this IPI functions as an ordinary adjunct, it should be acceptable. Apparently, the adjunct IPI must be controlled by a modal element, that is, a modal verb or the non-finite complementiser omfor. The ungrammaticality of the argument IPI is surprising as well. However, the distribution of argument IPIs is a subset of the distribution of infinitival clauses optionally introduced by the non-finite complementiser omfor. To-infinitives may not be found with verbs of perception either:

    Example 3

    a. *Hy seach (it) (om) ien by de reinpiip op te klatterjen
    he saw it for one at the rain.pipe up to climb
    He saw someone climbing up the rain pipe
    b. *Hy seach (it) (om) by de reinpiip op te klatterjen
    he saw it for at the rain.pipe up to climb
    He saw himself climbing up the rain pipe

    It is not just the presence of the subject which causes the ungrammaticality of to-infinitivals with verbs of perception, since leaving out the subject is ungrammatical as well. If the subject is absent with ordinary infinitival complements to perception verbs, the result is a mild ungrammaticality:

    Example 4

    ?Hy seach by de reinpiip op klatterjen
    he saw at the rain.pipe up climb
    He saw (one or more) persons climbing up the rain pipe

    Why do verbs of perception resist to-infinitivals? Presumably, to-infinitivals differ from ordinary infinitivals with respect to certain semantic properties involving modality, subjunctivity, factivity and the like. However this may be, the net effect is that verbs of perception select neither to-infinitivals nor argument IPIs.

    References:
      Suggestions for further reading ▼
      phonology
      • Dutch
      • Frisian
      • Afrikaans
      Show more ▼
      morphology
      • Dutch
      • Frisian
      • Afrikaans
      • -k
        [76%] Frisian > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Suffixation > Verbal suffixes > Noun as base
      • Strong and other irregular verbs
        [76%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
      • General categories
        [75%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
      • Weak verbs
        [75%] Frisian > Morphology > Inflection > Verbs
      • ûnt-
        [75%] Frisian > Morphology > Word formation > Derivation > Prefixation > Verbal prefixes > Verb as base
      Show more ▼
      syntax
      • Dutch
      • Frisian
      • Afrikaans
      • 2.2.3. Resultative constructions
        [79%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure > 2.2. Complementives (secondary predicates)
      • 3.2.1.1. General properties of passives
        [78%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations > 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument > 3.2.1. Passivization
      • 5.2.3.2. Modal verbs
        [78%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses > 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses > 5.2.3. Bare infinitivals
      • 1.2.2. Syntactic classification of main verbs
        [78%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 1 Characterization and classification > 1.2. Verb classifications
      • 2.2.3.1. Agentive er-nominalizations
        [77%] Dutch > Syntax > Nouns and Noun Phrases > 2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation > 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements > 2.2.3. Deverbal nouns
      • Predicate
        [76%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Adjective Phrases > Predication
      • Argument types
        [75%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Adjective Phrases > Predication
      • Equative
        [74%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Adjective Phrases > Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative degree
      • Excessive degree te 'too'
        [74%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Adjective Phrases > Modification and degree quantification
      • Mood
        [74%] Afrikaans > Syntax > Introduction to Verb Phrases > Characterization and classification
      Show more ▼
      ABOUT THIS TOPIC
      Author(s):
      Eric Hoekstra
      Category:
      Frisian Syntax
      Publication date:
      07 August 2019
      Keywords:
      IPI-construction
      cite
      print
      Jump to:
      X