tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post6128935386463552730..comments2024-03-14T10:31:26.918+00:00Comments on DCblog: On to or notDChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-20973418116714467002008-04-22T08:50:00.000+00:002008-04-22T08:50:00.000+00:00Yes, (3) and (4) are so-called pseudo-clefts, i.e....Yes, (3) and (4) are so-called pseudo-clefts, i.e. SVC sentences with a nominal relative clause as subject or complement. The issue discussed in that post is nothing to do with <I>do</I>. These were just a couple of sentences chosen at random by my correspondent. Having said that, there is an association with substitute-verb <I>do</I> in pseudo-clefts, because using that verb allows a secondary focus to anticipate the main focus which comes at the end of the sentence, as in:<BR/><BR/>What Mike did was leave.<BR/>What I'm doing is reading.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-13845156009398843832008-04-21T21:08:00.000+00:002008-04-21T21:08:00.000+00:00I've actually just been looking at so-called "pseu...I've actually just been looking at so-called "pseudo-cleft sentences" and it seems that some of the examples given by your correspondent are such sentences.<BR/><BR/>Was wondering whether the ellipsis of the "to" might also have something to do with the fact that the verb "do" is used. Every example has a "do". Perhaps it is this that licenses the omission of the "to"? I have no idea why though. Maybe you can tell me? (assuming that it's not just a coincidence that all of the examples contain "do" in some formAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com