The fourth sentence from the introduction to Syntactic Structures:

"The ultimate outcome of these investigations should be a theory of linguistic structure in which the descriptive devices utilized in particular grammars are presented and studied abstractly, with no specific reference to particular languages."

The ultimate outcome of these investigations: this is the subject of the sentence. It is not a subject that has volition. No. It is a subject that is described. Described by whom? By C? "outcome" is the simple subject. "the" and "ultimate" and "of these investigations" all serve to specify "outcome." The word "these" is a demonstrative determiner that serves a discourse function. Words like This, That, These, and Those all show relativity, relationships. These determiners are said to show "deixis." Shown by whom? Not by C. "these investigations" has a discourse function, a wider function, in that it points back--ties directly to--another instance of investigation--that is, an investigation that appears in the first or second sentence. I forget which. Which what?

All this reminds me of the time a forty-two foot male sperm whale washed up on a seashore a few hours south of Arcata, California. Marine biologists from Humboldt State were so excited to see the thing. It was dead. They, the biologists, came with large knives--these large blades that were on the ends of things that looks like thick broomsticks. They brought a special, generator-powered large knife sharpener. All this reminds me of that.

should be: this is the main verb of the sentence. This is a copular verb--as in linking or copulation. "should be" is a linking verb in that it links one thing with a description of that thing. "should" carries the tense of this verb--I think the tense is in the past, but "should" is so interesting because it can be only in the past. You cannot have a present tense should--which makes sense. (The "which" I just used--in no way--is directly attached to a preceding noun. The "which" I just used, instead, is attached to an as-of-yet unnamed concept that is somehow inside what I'm writing. Does it seem natural enough? And what is it?)

a theory of linguistic structure in which the descriptive devices utilized in particular grammars are presented and studied abstractly, with no specific reference to particular languages: this whole long thing--not quite 42 feet long--as long as a washed up male sperm whale--is the subject complement--more specifically the predicate noun--of the sentence. The marine biologists had brought those large knives to dissect the whale. They wanted to see what had killed the whale. They had wanted to perform an autopsy. They were also, though, just happy to have their long knives out and a dead whale waiting for them to open. Where had they, those biologists, kept those knives when they, the knives, weren't in use? Did they have a closet? They brought that large sharpener--the one with its own generator--to sharpen their knives. The skin and blubber of the whale is tough. It can really take the edge off a knife.

"theory" is the simple subject complement. "a" is a determiner--an indefinite article. "of linguistic structure" is a prepositional phrase that modifies "theory." "in" is another preposition that introduces a phrase that modifies "structure." "which" is a relative proform. It signals the oncoming relative clause, and it also--in the straightened out clause--serves as an adjective. "in which structure" is how the straightened out clause would read. "the descriptive devices" is the subject of the embedded clause that's in the prep. phrase. This subject, really, isn't a true subject in that it is the subject of a passive construction. "utilized" is a past participial that acts as an adjective in that it modifies "devices." Also, there's something about "utilized" that--even though it's a past part--has something about the passive in it. Utilized by whoooom, we could ask. "in particular grammars" is a prep phrase that works as an adverb. It modifies the passive verb "utilized." "are presented and studied" is the main verb of this embedded clause. This verb is compound--a compound of both "to present" and "to study." What's more, this main compound verb is passive--or doubly passive. Presented by whom? Studied by whom? Utilized by whom? (So this whole thing is actually triply passive.) "abstractly" is an adverb that modifies the main, compound, passive verb. "with no specific reference to particular languages" is a string, a concatenation, of prep phrases.

This long sentence is copular, very passive, and filled with prep phrases.

The whale had no plastic netting in its stomach. It just died, and they marine biologists couldn't figure out why. The whale had been a young male--10--just reaching sexual maturity. I would have thought that it would have scars all over its snout--its muzzle?--but it didn't. It looked clean. I would have thought its skin to be black, but it wasn't. It was dark gray with a tinge or green.

What is the third sentence of Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures?

"More generally, linguists must be concerned with the problem of determining the fundamental underlying properties of successful grammars."

"generally" is an adverb, an adjunct--I suppose--that modifies the main verb of the sentence. Linguists must be generally concerned? I don't know. Maybe it is a disjunct in that it casts something over the whole sentence. But I don't think so. "More" modifies or intensifies "generally."

linguists: this is the subject of the passive sentence. It is a concrete and count noun.

must be concerned: this is the main verb. It is in the passive voice. "must" is a modal auxiliary. It is deontic? "be concerned" is the passive construction because it has a verb in the past participial form that follows the verb "to be." The tense carrying portion of this verb is "must"--which is, I think, in the past tense.

with the problem: this is a prep phrase that acts as an adverb in that it modifies the main verb. The object of this prep phrase, "problem," could be used as the subject of an active sentence. (Used by whom? Chomsky?) A problem concerns linguists.

of determining the fundamental underlying properties of successful grammars: this is another prep phrase that acts as an adjective. It modifies the word "problem." "of" is the prep. "determining" is a gerund, a verbal noun. "the fundamental underlying properties of successful grammars" is the object of the gerund. What's interesting in this direct object is that there is no comma between "fundamental" and "underlying." If there had been a comma, then that would have indicated that these two adjectives are coordinate--that they carry the same weight. But, because there is no comma, that means that these adjectives are cumulative. Really, the "underlying" must have a strong attachment to "properties"--such that it couldn't change places with "fundamental."

The more I think about it, the more I want to think "as its goal" is some kind of complement to the direct object. Though "as its goal" is a prepositional phrase, without that phrase, the sentence doesn't look to make much sense at all. So maybe it's a complement.

The second sentence of Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures is this:

Syntactic investigation of a given language has as its goal the construction of a grammar that can be viewed as a device of some sort for producing the sentences of the language under analysis."

The entire Noun Phrase, the complete subject of this sentence is "Syntactic investigation of a given language."
Syntactic: this is an adjective that modifies "investigation"

investigation: this is the simple subject of the sentence. An investigation is a noun, but, more specifically, I would have to say that this noun is abstract. An investigation is an idea, an abstraction of something. We have archaeological investigations and Sherlockian investigations--all sorts of them.

of a given language: this is a prepositional phrase that modifies "investigation." So this investigation has been modified on both sides--once by "Syntactic" and now by this prep phrase. "of" is the head of the prep phrase. "a" is the indefinite article and a determiner of a noun. "given" is a past participial that functions as and adjective. It modifies "language." "language" is the simple object of the preposition. Though language feels like something we all have a handle on--we can almost touch it with out tongues--I will say that language is an abstract noun. A chair is concrete, but a language--even a given one--or an aria is an abstract thing. It does not really exist in a concrete way.

has: this looks like the main verb to me. So this is a little odd. Here, C is saying that an investigation can have something, can own something. I have a language. An investigation has something.

as its goal: this is a prep. phrase that modifies the main verb ("has"). "as" is the head of the prep phrase. "its" is a genitive determiner. "goal" is the object of the prep and is an abstract noun.

the construction of a grammar that can be viewed as a device of some sort for producing the sentences of the language under analysis: this is long and, I think, is the direct object of the main verb ("has"). So, really, the Investigation has This. It has this long piece of language. I don't see how this makes sense. How can an investigation have a construction? "the construction" is the simple direct object of the verb. "of a grammar" is a prep phrase that serves as an adjective in that it provides more info about the preceding noun--"construction." "that can be viewed" is a relative clause that functions as an adjective. It gives more info about the word "grammar." "that can be viewed" is in the passive voice. It is a clause that has no real subject. Viewed by whom? Anyone can view, or the "who" that does the viewing is not important, so this is an excellent use of the passive voice. The passive voice is used well here. Used by whom? "as a device" is a prep phrase that works as an adverb. It modifies the preceding passive verb. "of some sort" is a prep phrase that modifies "device." "for producing the sentences" is another prep phrase that also modifies "device." "of the language" is a prep phrase that modifies "sentences." "under analysis" is a prep phrase the modifies "language." But I'd also like to say that it could modify "sentences," too. This brings up a problem of the Part and the Whole.

Chomsky, in this sentence, makes an Investigation have a strange thing. Also, Chomsky again uses passive voice and a lot of prep phrases. His prep phrases interlock in odd--not quite direct--ways because of the Parts and Wholes he's discussing.

Mention Richard Lanham--his rules, how they apply to the first Chomsky sentence. Mention Someone Similar--similar to whom?

Nim, Hans, A.L.Ex, Me

Noam Chomsky's book Syntactic Structures was seminal, but I'm not sure how seminal it is these days. Maybe people have rejected certain of his concepts. I am almost certain certain of his concepts have been rejected--maybe by Lacanians. It's one of those cases in which someone at a grad school writes a thesis and then nails it to Chomsky's door in Massachusetts. There once was an ape by the name of Nim Chimsky. This ape was thought to possess the ability to generate sentences. As it turned out, though, it was all a sham. The scientist in charge of Nim said it was a sham and that Nim made sentences by rote. He wasn't using the kind of intelligence we believe homo sapiens to be in charge of. Of which we are in charge. So Nim wasn't real. I once tried to write about a fictional Nim. Since my Nim was fictional, I had to change his name. So I changed it to Gnome Chimpskly. See? I had the gall to add the "p" where the previous scientist didn't. What's more, I added that "l," making the creature's name even more whimsical. There was also once a shame horse. He was called Clever Hans. People thought Clever Hans could count and tell time by the sun. Really, though, he couldn't. The trainer had taught his pet to notice certain ways that he, the trainer, tensed muscles in his body. So Hans was a sham, too. What's funny is that "clever"--in the world of horses--does not have anything to do with intelligence. Just quality. (Look it up in Strunk&White if you don't believe me. Those boys, S&E, love those kinds of distinctions.) Hans was a good horse, but he wasn't smart. A.L.Ex also once existed, but now he's dead. Alex stands for Avian Language Experiment. This thing was a bird, an African gray parrot, that people thought was smart. (If I had written "who people thought was smart," then, with that simple relative pronoun "who," I would have implied that I, too, thought Alex was smart. I would have implied this in that "who" is the pronoun used for humans, while "that" and "which" are the ones reserved for inanimates or unsapiens.) They thought Alex was smart--no, intelligent--because he could identify blocks of certain colors and shapes. He also had a vocabulary of a few hundred words, and they thought he could use those words. Some budgerigars--little yellow birds--have been known to have vocabs of upwards of 2000 words. The thing, though, is that these birds cannot use their words in any sort of context. For a while, there were all sorts of contests in England in which people would pit their Budgies against other Budgies and see which ones could say the most words. And the winner would get a recording contract with Parlophone. And those records sold big! But those budgies couldn't use language, while some thought that Alex--though he knew only a few hundred words--could use them in context. For example, if he wanted a nut, he could say, "Want a nut." And if he wanted a banana, he could say, "Want a nanner." If you proffered him a nut when he had really asked for a banana, he would insist, "Want a nut." So I had Gnome Chimpskly, though I don't remember what his story was about. The first line in Chomsky's intro to Syntactic Structures goes:

"Syntax is the study of the principles by which sentences are constructed in particular languages."

The subject of this sentence is "Syntax." This subject is abstract and has no volition. It is a described subject. The main verb here is "to be"--that is, "is." The simple subject complement here--or the predicate nominative (Niminative!) is the study. "the" is a determiner or the definite article. "study" is an abstract noun. "of the principles" is a prepositional phrase that acts as an adjective in that it provides more information about the previous noun, "study." "of" is the preposition--or the head of the prep phrase. "the principles" is a noun phrase--or the object of the prep. "by which sentences are constructed in particular languages" is another prep phrase that acts as an adjective. It modifies the preceding noun, "principles."

Or maybe I've gotten a little confused? I always don't know what to do with these "by which" things--or "for whiches" or "from whiches." "by" is a preposition. "which" is a relative proform that also acts as a subordinate clause marker. If this clause were to be straightened out, then, really, "which" would serve as an adjective--that is, it modifies "principles." I could straighten it by saying, "sentences are constructed in particular languages by which principles." Yes. That is how that works. Ha! Nim! Hans. "sentences" is the subject of the subordinate clause. "are constructed" is the main verb. It is in passive voice. I could therefore ask, "Constructed by whoooom, Nim?" "in particular languages" is another prep phrase, but this one does not serve as an adjective. No, it does the work of an adverb in that it modifies the verb "are constructed."

The first sentence of Syntactic Structures is highly modified--especially by prep phrases. The main verbs are also a bit weak in that one is stative ("to be") and the other is in the passive voice.

I should write a sentence like that one. First, I need an abstract noun.

"At night, we kept watch for turtles."

The above starts with an into prep. phrase and is followed by a simple sentence. "We" is the subject. The subject seems to have volition, desire, so it must be an agent, a causer. "kept" is the verb. It is in past tense. "watch," I guess, is the direct object, but I don't know. That sounds sort of odd. We kept Something, and that Something is Watch? But what is Watch, really? I don't know. It sounds a bit idiomatic. "for turtles" is a prep. phrase. It modifies "watch" in that it tells us what kind of watch is being kept.

How would I write a similar sentence. Like Noy Holland, will I choose to start with an intro phrase? No, I will not. I don't like the idea of starting with an intro phrase. She has a first person narrator here--a "we"--so would I like to have that, too. No. I'll make it a "he." So the first word of my sentence must be he.

He

What should my verb be? I'll simply look at the dictionary and pick a verb. The verb will then govern what I'll have to do next. Dislodge.

He dislodged

Like Holland, I've elected to use the past tense. The word "dislodge," though, must take a direct object. One doesn't simply dislodge. I could use dislodge as an intransitive verb, I guess--there are no rules here--but I don't want to break a rule in the first sentence. I am looking to captivate all readers here. I want to pull them into my beautiful composition. I want them to imagine all the movies they've ever seen--all the paintings they've seen on their vacations--all the oceans and mountains and trees. That's what I want--and no less--with this project. But this is just the first sentence, and I am not really even in control here. The verb is in control, and I need a direct object for the thing. So I'll just look in the dictionary and find a good noun.

The idiot in me would like to select "his sex" or "his hound" or "the hound" or "a hound." (I have to select the appropriate determiner here. Or I could use this or that or these or those." He dislodged those sexes, for example, is very different to his sex or her sex or its sex. If it were its sex, then maybe he's working with insects. If it's her sex, then maybe he's in a relationship--or maybe he has a golden retriever. If I were to select a word like "confession," then I'm getting figurative. No one, really, dislodges a confession. That's just a figurative way to say it.

He dislodged his slip.

I like this a little. What I don't like, though, is the sound of those esses. To many esses, and this is a problem I have. So I should select a different kind of sound.

He dislodged the crow funeral from the metal house.

Great. That's sensible enough. He didn't just dislodge. He dislodged a crow funeral. This is good. A funeral is something that everyone experiences. And a crow is something we've all seen, so a crow funeral must be a pretty obvious thing. Plus, Noy Holland ended her sentence with a prep. phrase, so that means I should do that, too. My prep. phrase works as an adverb that modifies the main verb. The "dislodged." So, this he isn't just dislodging a crow funeral--he's doing so from a metal house. Everyone knows what a house is. And everyone know about metal. Plus, here, I have no strong ess sounds. Well, I have the house at the end, but no esses aside from that. Great sentence here.

"We made out beds one bed to lie across together, our pillows pushed up in the window we had popped the screen from."

Noy's second sentence.