Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • I agree that their explanation is inadequate, particularly as "what" can in fact be a fused determiner-head in, for example, "I don't like what she wrote", where "what" is simultaneously determiner and head. Commented Sep 2, 2023 at 7:56
  • @BillJ It gets mind-bogglingly confusing, but the what in I didn't like what she wrote is not a fused determiner-head, it's a fused head-prenucleus. Commented Sep 2, 2023 at 8:54
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Yes, it's important to distinguish fused relatives and fused determiner-head NPs. But I still think H&P's explanation in SIEG is inadequate. Commented Sep 2, 2023 at 9:04
  • @BillJ I agree. It's not wrong, but it needs unpacking a whole lot to be a) convincing and b) coherent. Have they change it for the 2nd ed? Commented Sep 2, 2023 at 9:06
  • 1
    @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. I haven't got a copy of SIEG2 But I'm aware of a few inconsistencies with SIEG1 / CGEL, which I've discussed at length with GKP. He agrees, and says he'll get them corrected in the first reprint. It's apparent from the little I've heard/read that RDH has made little input in SIEG2, but then you and I know why. Commented Sep 2, 2023 at 9:20