--- In cybalist@..., "petegray" <petegray@...> wrote:
> >What about these sentences?
> >So was gelesen, habe ich nicht.
> >Ein Buch schreiben, will ich nicht.
>
> These are straightforward - the first idea is everything up to your
comma,
> so the verb is still the second idea. This is why even long and
complex
> subordinate clauses can come first. They function as the first
idea, and
> are followed by the main verb, for example:
> Wenn ich in meinem Anzug schlafe, schlafe ich nut so gut.
> I have seen a sentence with over 200 words before the main verb,
but all
> those two hundred words function together as the first idea, grossly
> explanded.
It seems as if you define 'idea' as whatever standing before the
infinite verb. The way I see it, the first part in 'Ein Buch
schreiben, will ich nicht.' represents to ideas, the direct object
and the verbal action involved. I don't see the point in giving a
black and white picture of linguistics.
>
> >Can you give me an example of a grammatical sentence where a verbal
> >particle stands as a topic?
> >*An habe ich ihn gerufen.
>
> This would have to be a very extreme situation of contrast, such as
> Ein ist er gegangen, nicht aus!!!
> Ein kann ich schon steigen, aus nicht!
> But both are much more naturally expressed otherwise. However, the
fact
> that they are possible (just) and strictly speaking grammatical,
may be
> sufficient for the argument.
>
For what argument? Since you like to discard sentence elements by
proving that they may be placed in the initial position, why not
discard the direct object as well?
There is only a formal difference between 'Ich will nicht ein buch
schreiben', 'Ein Buch schreiben, will ich nicht' and 'Ein buch will
ich nicht schreiben'. If you consider what comes before the finite
verb in each sentence as one 'idea', then obiously 'idea' is just
another word for topic.
Either you are constantly changing the definitions or you are
confusing tendencies with grammatic rules. I'll take it all over
again:
(1) The simple declarative sentence with grammatic elements subject,
finite verb and direct object.
Observations will give that the grammar accepts SVO and OVS. The
first one is considered the main tendence.
I don't like defining the word-order only from observation of such a
simple sentence, but that is obviously how they do things. A more
thorough investigation will reveal that both SVO and OVS go fine with
a more general pattern TV(S)(O), where the position of subject and
object depends on which is the topic.
(2) Declarative sentence with grammatic elements subject, finite
verb V1, direct object and infinite verb or verbal particle V2.
Observations will give that the grammar accepts SV1OV2, OV1SV2,
V2V1SO, OV2V1S, revealing a more general pattern
T V1 (S) (O) (V2), where the position of S, O and V2 depends on which
is the topic.
It is therefore obvious that one cannot discard elements from
observations of sentence elements in the initial position in
declarative sentences. If not then the remaining pattern would be TV.
If one wants to define word-order patterns from observation of all
sentence types then even TV should not be accepted as a grammatical
rule covering all sentences.
(3) Interrogative sentence with no topic.
The only acceptable pattern in such sentences is VSO.
V1SOV2 and V2V1SO if one also takes in consideration infinite verbals.
(4) Dependent sentences
The acceptable pattern is SOV. This pattern is however regularily
broken when also the dependent sentence has got a subordinate clause
functioning as one of the sentence elements subject or object.
Accordingly, the word-order pattern depends on the definition of the
sentence on which the observation is based.
Håvard