# What's the problem? [grammatical subject?]



## JungKim

In "What's the problem?", which is the subject, "what" or "the problem"?
Theoretically, it could be either, but I'd like to hear what native speakers think.


----------



## perpend

Do you have some context?
Which do you think is the subject?


----------



## JungKim

Sorry, I don't have any particular context but the normal context where you would ask "What's the problem?" in everyday English. I initially thought "What" is the subject but then I realized why not "the problem"? Hence, the posting.


----------



## Cagey

According to my understanding, _'the problem'_ is the subject. 
I say this because questions are marked by an inversion of the usual word order.  In a question, the subject comes after the verb (or the auxiliary in some sorts of questions.)


----------



## JungKim

Cagey said:


> According to my understanding, _'the problem'_ is the subject.
> I say this because questions are marked by an inversion of the usual word order.  In a question, the subject comes after the verb (or the auxiliary in some sorts of questions.)


Really?
Who told you that?
In this question, "who" is the subject and the inversion does not occur.


----------



## Cagey

Right you are. I was generalizing too far. 

I still understand 'the problem' as the subject of the first question.


----------



## boozer

Hmm, when you have a linking verb like 'to be', which is in fact the most typical linking verb and, in effect, amounts to an equal sign, the question which of the two linked nouns is a subject can be a diffuse matter.  I can say that I firmly believe in this case the word 'what' is in subject position:
_What is the problem?
Who are you?
_whereas in the following example 'the problem' is in subject position:
_The problem is what?
You are who?

_I suppose this is why some linguists talk of 'subject territory' before the verb and 'object territory' after the verb. It's complicated.


----------



## bearded

JungKim said:


> Really?
> Who told you that?
> In this question, "who" is the subject and the inversion does not occur.


 Hello
I think the correct comparison should not be between 'what's the problem' and 'who told you that', but between 'what's the problem' and 'who is that man' (with the verb 'to be' requiring inversion in a question). The possible replies (e.g. the problem is my ignorance / that man is her lover) clearly show that in the questions the subject and predicate positions have been inverted, therefore the subjects in the questions are the problem and that man respectively.


----------



## bearded

Hi
I would like to read boozer's opinion about my #8 above, in which I substantially agree with Cagey. I do not think that by changing the word order from 'what is the problem' to 'the problem is what' the grammatical  function of the single elements would also change.  The latter is just a less formal expression of the same question, in my view.


----------



## boozer

My opinion is unchanged - it is not easy to tell which of the two nouns is the subject because the verb 'to be' acts as an equal sign. However, one of them is always in subject position - the one before the verb.


----------



## bearded

boozer said:


> My opinion is unchanged - it is not easy to tell which of the two nouns is the subject because the verb 'to be' acts as an equal sign. However, one of them is always in subject position - the one before the verb.


 Would you say that in ''how are you'' the subject is you, and in 'what are you' what may be the subject because it is in the position before the verb? Don't you consider the inversion in questions?


----------



## boozer

'How are you' is completely different because generally 'how' cannot be a question about the sentence subject - it usually asks a question about the sentence's secondary parts. Consider this pair:
_Jonh is the man.
The man is John._
The emphasis and meaning can be different but they are perfectly symmetrical and the nouns are linked by the verb 'to be'. One noun can emerge as the more likely subject candidate based on its position alone.


----------



## bearded

@ boozer
So I understand that you accept my 'what are you' as a valid example (same structure as 'what is the problem'), but the verb 'are' in the 2nd person is an evidence that 'you' is the subject. The sentence structure is not altered if you change the person from 'you' to 'the problem', therefore - in my opinion - in 'what is the problem'  the problem is the subject.  You cannot say 'what is you'.


----------



## wandle

bearded man said:


> the verb 'are' in the 2nd person is an evidence that 'you' is the subject. ...
> You cannot say 'what is you'.


We can argue that the verb is in the second person by attraction to the complement 'you' and that 'what' is still the subject.

Where a logical equivalence is asserted or implied between the substantive elements of the sentence, it does seem possible to analyse it in more than one way.


----------



## boozer

bearded man said:


> So I understand that you accept my 'what are you' as a valid example.


I never said that.  When combined with 'you', 'what' usually asks about the subject complement, though in itself a weird and potentially disrespectful question:
A. What are you?
B. I am a teacher/a man/a carrot, etc. 

But that is not so important, I think. Question words, even when subjects, have no person or number. When a question word is combined with nouns that do have person and number, the verb has to agree with something so it agrees with the latter.


----------



## perpend

boozer said:


> I suppose this is why some linguists talk of 'subject territory' before the verb and 'object territory' after the verb. It's complicated.



I agree with that.


----------



## JungKim

bearded man said:


> Hello
> I think the correct comparison should not be between 'what's the problem' and 'who told you that', but between 'what's the problem' and 'who is that man' (with the verb 'to be' requiring inversion in a question). The possible replies (e.g. the problem is my ignorance / that man is her lover) clearly show that in the questions the subject and predicate positions have been inverted, therefore the subjects in the questions are the problem and that man respectively.



This post is a bit belated, but I have to say I like this analysis by bearded man.
Indeed, 'who is that man?' looks similar to 'what's the problem?'

Unfortunately, however, I'm not 100% convinced by the bearded man's premise that 'the problem is my ignorance' is the only type of possible responses.

For example, look at the following conversation:
A: _What's the problem?_
B: _Nothing._

In this conversation, when B said "Nothing." did B mean "The problem is nothing."??
It's more likely that B meant "Nothing's the problem." No?
And if that's what B meant by "Nothing.", then the subject in B's response is "nothing", which corresponds to "what" in A's question. Hence, you could argue that "What" is the subject in A's question.

I'd like to know what others, especially bearded man, think about this idea.


----------



## srk

A.  _What's the problem?_
B.  _I don't have a problem_.

A asks the same question as in your post #17.  What does B's answer have to do with the identification of subject in A's question?  Because "I don't have a problem" does not correspond to "What" in the question, is "What" no longer the subject in your view?

A.  _What's the problem?_
B.  _The problem is that I've run out of money_.

B certainly meant that "The problem is that I've run out of money".  That's exactly what B said.   Does that now mean that the subject in A's question is "the problem" rather than "What"?


----------



## JungKim

srk said:


> A.  _What's the problem?_
> B.  _I don't have a problem_.
> 
> A asks the same question as in your post #17.  What does B's answer have to do with the identification of subject in A's question?  Because "I don't have a problem" does not correspond to "What" in the question, is "What" no longer the subject in your view?



Here, B's answer "I don't have a problem" does not directly answer A's question. So, my answer to your question is "No." This particular answer of B's does not reveal anything about the real subject of A's question.

Now, unlike this answer of B's, B's answer in post #17 "Nothing." directly answer A's question, because B means "Nothing is the problem."



srk said:


> A. _What's the problem?_
> B. _The problem is that I've run out of money_.
> 
> B certainly meant that "The problem is that I've run out of money". That's exactly what B said. Does that now mean that the subject in A's question is "the problem" rather than "What"?



At least, that's what bearded man has been arguing in his posts so far, with which approach I agree at least in principle.
And I think it can be a test for determining the real subject of A's question.


----------



## srk

I can't agree that they way a listener responds to a question can have any effect on the grammar in the question.

You're saying that if B answers "Nothing" that the subject in A's question is "What", and if B answers "The problem is that I've run out of money", the subject in A's question switches to "the problem."

Edit:  I can agree that some questions or statements can be interpreted in more than one way, with a consequent change in perception of grammar.  I can't see more than one way to interpret "What's the problem?"


----------



## JungKim

srk said:


> I can't agree that they way a listener responds to a question can have any effect on the grammar in the question.
> 
> You're saying that if B answers "Nothing" that the subject in A's question is "What", and if B answers "The problem is that I've run out of money", the subject in A's question switches to "the problem."
> 
> Edit:  I can agree that some questions or statements can be interpreted in more than one way, with a consequent change in perception of grammar.  I can't see more than one way to interpret "What's the problem?"



Actually, I agree that the response shouldn't affect how we construe the question.
And I wasn't postulating that the response should, but merely was saying that the bearded man's approach makes sense when it's hard to determine which is the subject or least it's hard to explain why the subject is "the problem" or "what".

Since you rejected the bearded man's approach, would you please present a different approach or at least tell me which you think is the subject? ("What" or "the problem") And please don't forget to mention why you think what you think is the subject is the subject.


----------



## bearded

@ JungKim
I refer to your post #17 and your well founded objection in it.
My initial point was that in 'what's the problem' for me the problem is the subject and 'what' is the predicate, and I tried to explain why: in particular, the inversion of the positions of subject and verb in a question with the verb 'to be' or other auxiliaries, as Cagey put it.
 Now let's take another question like ''How is the problem?' (I know it is not the same thing).  Possible replies could be ''the problem is serious'' or ''serious is the problem'', and the problem would remain subject in both cases.  You say that a possible reply to 'what's the problem' could be 'nothing', meaning either 'the problem is nothing' or 'nothing is the problem' (hence your doubt). Now, I feel that, out of analogy with 'how is the problem', no matter what the word order is in the reply, both in 'the problem is nothing' and in 'nothing is the problem', the problem remains the subject (the latter corresponds to 'serious is the problem' in my view). You could transform the question from 'what is the problem' to 'the problem is what', and the grammatical function of the two elements would not change, as I maintained before. If you ask 'that man is who' instead of 'who is that man', the man would be the subject in both cases, being the former question somewhat more informal than the latter.
No doubt that in a question like 'what is good' the subject is what, but if there is a noun like 'the problem', then in my opinion words like 'what/ who' resume their nature of interrogative particles, just like why/how etc. and cannot represent the subject of the sentence.


----------



## boozer

bearded man said:


> No doubt that in a question like 'what is good' the subject is what, but if there is a noun like 'the problem', then in my opinion words like 'what/ who'.


Depending on how we choose to analyse this question, the subject can be either 'what' or 'good' because 'good' is also a mass noun, as described here:
1_ [mass noun]_ That which is morally right; righteousness
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/good

Thus, you have already admitted that you are ready to accept a word as a subject when it is in 'object territory', i.e. after the verb - in 'what is the problem'. You have now admitted that in certain cases you are also ready to accept the question word as a subject when it is, indeed, in 'subject territory'. I think the time has come for you to finally acknowledge the fact that it is difficult to pinpoint the subject in perfectly symmetrical sentences where two nouns are linked by the verb 'to be'.


----------



## bearded

@ boozer
I understand your point pretty well, although I have a different opinion. In the interpretation of a sentence there should be not only grammar, but also logic, and I think one should carefully consider the meaning of  words.  By saying that in 'what is good?'  good might be the subject, it seems to me that you are defending an untenable position or, as we say in Italian, you are ''trying to climb on mirrors''. 
  In that sentence, it would be impossible for me to understand 'good' (especially 'good' without article) as a noun meaning 'that which is morally right'. In my view, and I think also according to common sense, in the question 'what is good?' the word 'good' is an adjective in predicate position.


----------



## boozer

We have to agree to disagree then, BM - 'good' is defined also as 'righteousness' and 'What is righteousness?' is a perfectly valid question without any article.


----------



## bearded

@ boozer
OK we disagree but our friendly exchange of opinion was interesting all the same, for me at least. Just one final remark:  in your opinion, what is the difference in structure between 'what is silly?' and 'what is good?'  Only the fact that 'good' may be a noun and 'silly' may not? To me, the two sentences are identical in structure, and both 'silly' and 'good' are adjectives here.  But my understanding of 'common sense' might be different from yours.


----------



## Loob

Just a thought....

One way of approaching JungKim's query might be to look at the corresponding indirect question, given that subject always comes before verb in indirect questions.

I think that in 89.7% of cases, we'd say "I don't know what the problem is", rather than "I don't know what is the problem". 

So I reckon "the problem" would normally (NB!) be acting as subject in JungKim's original sentence.


----------



## boozer

I agree that this is probably the more usual interpretation, Loob. I was just saying that it is not the only possible interpretation. And I am not the only one saying it - as a student I must have read this in some thick grammar book written by a linguist. I suppose I will have to find it and quote it...


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Don't we normally determine the subject by what dictates the number and person of the verb form?

*Who was there?* and *Who were there?* are both possible questions, and *Who* is singular in the first case, and plural in the second.

So the fact that we say *What were the problems* doesn't mean that *What *can't be the subject of the sentence; *what?* can be plural.

Clearly the difficulty with JungKim's question arises from the fact that this is a question in which* to be* is the main verb.

We don't have the same difficulty with *What hit him?* (*What* is the subject) or *What did he hit?* (*What* is the object).

Granted that the problem stems from the fact that *to be* is the main verb here, shouldn't we ask ourselves how we treat ordinary sentences in which *to be* is the main verb?
*
My cat is a creature of the night* - isn't *my cat* the subject and *a creature of the night* the complement?

If it is, then I'd call *What* the subject in *What is the problem?* and *The problem* the subject in *The problem is what?* just because they come first, like my cat.


----------



## boozer

This is exactly what I was trying to say, TT.  In addition, when the verb 'to be' is involved we may choose to point one logical subject and one grammatical subject. Thus we may also say that in 'What is the problem?' 'what' is the grammatical subject while the logical one is 'the problem'. Insisting that either is the only subject, however, may be dicey and artbitrary.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm back in the dark ages, Boozer.

When JungKim asked what was the subject, I assumed he meant the grammatical subject.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It was just such considerations which made me doubtful of your changing-to indirect-question test, Loob.

If you must ask *What am I?* I'd say *What* was the subject, just as *Who* would be the subject in *Who am I?*


----------



## PaulQ

I think the problem is the terminology.

In "What is the problem?" there is no real object, there is instead a subject complement:





> A subject complement follows a linking verb and modifies or refers to the subject. A subject complement can be an adjective, a noun, a pronoun, a word, or a group of words which acts as an adjective or noun:
> 
> I am a teacher, but I am not yet experienced. ("Teacher" and "experienced" are both subject complements that modify the subject "I.")
> 
> Subject complements have two subgroups: predicate adjectives and predicate nouns.
> Predicate Adjectives
> 
> A predicate adjective is a subject complement that is an adjective (see appositives):
> 
> I am not yet experienced. ("Experienced" is a predicate adjective that modifies the subject "I.")
> 
> Predicate Noun
> 
> A predicate noun (nominative) is a subject complement that is a noun:
> 
> I am a teacher. ("Teacher" is a predicate noun that refers to the subject "I.")


http://www.cws.illinois.edu/workshop/writers/complements/


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> I was just such considerations which made  me doubtful of your changing-to indirect-question test, Loob.
> 
> If you must ask *What am I?* I'd say *What* was the subject, just as *Who* would be the subject in *Who am I?*


Sorry, TT, I'd deleted the post to which I think you're replying.

For  me, it's absolutely clear that the subject in "What am I?" is "I", not  least because, as you said in your earlier post*, it's the "I" that  determines the form of the verb.

The "changing to indirect question" test helps to illustrate that fact:
_I don't know what I am.
I don't know what am I._

Well, it does for me, anyway.
------

*EDIT: Sorry, this is misleading.  What I mean is that I  agree with the point in the first sentence of your post 29 that it's the  subject that determines the form of the verb.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> Sorry, TT, I'd deleted the post to which I think you're replying.
> 
> For  me, it's absolutely clear that the subject in "What am I?" is "I", not  least because, as you said in your earlier post*, it's the "I" that  determines the form of the verb.
> 
> The "changing to indirect question" test helps to illustrate that fact:
> _I don't know what I am.
> I don't know what am I._
> 
> Well, it does for me, anyway.
> ------
> 
> *EDIT: Sorry, this is misleading.  What I mean is that I  agree with the point in the first sentence of your post 29 that it's the  subject that determines the form of the verb.


Just a tiny point, Loob, before I answer: did you have a reason for making the question *What am I?* rather than* Who am I?*

I wondered if you felt *What?* less capable than *Who?* of being first person singular in this construction?

Do you feel differently about *Who am I?*


----------



## Loob

I chose "what" only because JungKim's original query was about a sentence containing "what", TT.  I feel the same about *Who am I?

*For me, the issue is quite clear-cut with *What am I?/Who am I?* It's not as clear-cut with JungKim's *What is the problem?* because either "what" or "the problem" could determine the form of the verb.


----------



## JungKim

I think I need to clarify my own question in the OP.

When a question starts with an interrogative pronoun such as "what", there are two possibilities: 
(1) The interrogative pronoun is not the subject, as in "Who are you?" Here, "Who" is not the subject but is fronted because it's an interrogative pronoun. Now, the subject "you" and the auxiliary verb "are" change their positions because it's a question. (a.k.a., the subject-auxiliary inversion)
(2) The interrogative pronoun is the subject, as in "What's going on here?" Here, "What" is the subject *and *the interrogative pronoun at the same time. In this case, there's no need for the subject-auxiliary inversion, because the auxiliary verb "is" cannot come in front of "what".

Having said all that, my question in the OP was whether we should categorize "What's the problem?" as belonging in (1) or (2).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> I chose "what" only because JungKim's original query was about a sentence containing "what", TT.  I feel the same about *Who am I?
> 
> *For me, the issue is quite clear-cut with *What am I?/Who am I?* It's not as clear-cut with JungKim's *What is the problem?* because either "what" or "the problem" could determine the form of the verb.


There's one thing which puzzles me here.  I expect there's an easy answer:

Why can't *What* determine the verb-form in *What am I?* while it can in *What is the problem?*

I suggested earlier that these pronouns take on the person and number of their complements, or vice versa.  Maybe wrongly.


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> When JungKim asked what was the subject, I assumed he meant the grammatical subject.


Ahh, and now I see that 'grammatical subject' is also mentioned in the thread title. You are right. In that case I am inclined to think that, based on its position, 'what' is the grammatical subject of 'What is the problem?' and this is the second case described by JK in his last post.


----------



## bennymix

So, boozer, after 39 posts, is the matter, in your opinion, settled?


----------



## Loob

bennymix said:


> So, boozer, after 39 posts, is the matter, in your opinion, settled?


Well, benny, so far, we've got:

*"The problem" is the subject*: _Cagey, bearded man, Loob_

*"What" is the subject*: _boozer, TT_

*The sentence can be analysed more than one way*: _wandle_

(I'm not sure which way srk sees it.)

So I think it would be hard to describe it as "settled"


----------



## bennymix

I was partly tongue in cheek, of course.   We have some amazing and insightful experts, here, no doubt.   From the point of view of a learner, however, who might be reading this thread, I wonder if it wouldn't be useful to give at least a sample of the opinions of the experts in print, that is in the authoritative grammar books, articles in professional journals, and so on.  This topic--including sentences such as that in the OP-- has surely been canvassed hundreds of times.   I notice that that has been done to some extent, if not explicitly: Thomas T, for example, mentioned the (a) technical definition of 'subject' of a sentence.   Such expositions are useful in helping others see the linkages between the opinions here and the opinions and expositions in the standard texts and professionally oriented books and articles.

I greatly appreciate all the postings of this thread and thank those wise people who took the trouble to explain.




Loob said:


> Well, benny, so far, we've got:
> 
> *"The problem" is the subject*: _Cagey, bearded man, Loob_
> 
> *"What" is the subject*: _boozer, TT_
> 
> *The sentence can be analysed more than one way*: _wandle_
> 
> (I'm not sure which way srk sees it.)
> 
> So I think it would be hard to describe it as "settled"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

For what it's worth, here is someone, who thinks and writes about these problems, supporting the Cagey-Bearded Man-Loob point of view:

(c) Formation of _Wh_- interrogatives: 

  History is what? (‘echo question’) (Basic -- SVCnominal) 

  ‘What is history?’ (Title of a book by E.H. Carr) (Derived -- CnominalVS)  

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the code.  I think he's saying that the grammatical status of the parts are* History* (Subject) *is* (Verb) *what *(Noun Complement)*?* and* What* (Noun Complement) *is* (Verb) *History* (Subject)*?*

I leave it to everyone to follow his argument, which is interesting.


----------



## boozer

bennymix said:


> So, boozer, after 39 posts, is the matter, in your opinion, settled?


My opinion has remained unchanged - both can be seen as the subject of the sentence depending on the perspective. However, I recently noticed, thanks to TT, that the question is about the grammatical subject, in which case I have to choose 'what' as such based on its position. I thought my opinion was clear. But I am happy that the sentence only has two likely subject candidates.


----------



## bearded

@ boozer
I would very much prefer not to re-open a polemic, but in your conclusion there is something which surprises me. How can you affirm ''if the question is about the grammatical subject, I have to choose 'what' as such *based on its position''?* The position would rather suggest that the problem is the subject. The issue of inversion in interrogations has not been enough investigated or solved in our discussion.


----------



## boozer

bearded man said:


> The issue of inversion in interrogations has not been enough investigated or solved in our discussion.


This issue is, I believe, irrelevant in such symmetrical utterances:
Mary is my sister.
My sister is Mary.
Who is my sister?
Who is Mary?
Mary is who?
etc.

Here is a link to something written by someone from the University of Rhode Island who seems to be saying what I myself remember being told years ago:
_These Is verbs (is, are, was, were, has been, had been)  contain little action; they weren't intended to!  This pattern, and  these verbs, are merely linking two subjects (one as part of another) or.._.
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/com/Logan/teaching/html/wrt533/notes/S&R/agent_&_action.htm


----------



## bennymix

Thank you, Thomas.   For me, at least, I want to see connections with present positions in the forum and those published. 
<< Not needed. >>



Thomas Tompion said:


> For what it's worth, here is someone, who thinks and writes about these problems, supporting the Cagey-Bearded Man-Loob point of view:
> 
> (c) Formation of _Wh_- interrogatives:
> 
> History is what? (‘echo question’) (Basic -- SVCnominal)
> 
> ‘What is history?’ (Title of a book by E.H. Carr) (Derived -- CnominalVS)
> 
> In case anyone is unfamiliar with the code.  I think he's saying that the grammatical status of the parts are* History* (Subject) *is* (Verb) *what *(Noun Complement)*?* and* What* (Noun Complement) *is* (Verb) *History* (Subject)*?*
> 
> I leave it to everyone to follow his argument, which is interesting.


----------



## boozer

bennymix said:


> Thank you, Thomas.   For me, at least, I want to see connections with present positions in the forum and those published. << Not needed. >>


I will gladly oblige you, Mr. Mix. 
I hope a title like "A Practical English Grammar" issued by Oxford University Press, written by AJ Thompson and AV Martinet, p.48, is good enough and passes as scholarly writing.
It goes:

_56         Examples of the use of who, whom, whose, which and  what

A who, whom, whose

who as subject: 

Who keeps the keys?
 (affirmative verb) 
Who took my gun?
 (affirmative verb)  
Who are these boys?
__ (interrogative verb) 

_http://www.gunaygunaydin.com/FileUp...rsity_press_-_a_practical_english_grammar.pdf

I think this goes a long way towards explaining my inclination to accept both nouns as subjects depending on the perspective. Especially the question word, be it what or who, when it is in subject position.


----------



## Loob

bennymix said:


> ... From the point of view of a learner,  however, who might be reading this thread, I wonder if it wouldn't be  useful to give at least a sample of the opinions of the experts in  print, that is in the authoritative grammar books, articles in  professional journals, and so on.  This topic--including sentences such  as that in the OP-- has surely been canvassed hundreds of times.    ...





bennymix said:


> ...   For me, at least, I want to see connections with present positions in the forum and those published. ...


As regards the framework given by JungKim in post 37, there's quite a lot "out there", including the Wiki article on subject-auxiliary inversion. 

Before posting post 27, I looked for something specific "out there" about JungKim's sentence, but failed to find anything. Perhaps you'll have better luck.


----------



## bennymix

Thanks for the book, boozer!  

I gather "subject" is the name of a constituent or component of a sentence.   Together these constituents make up, for example a sentence structured as S V O.  The dog killed the rat.

For the issue at hand there seem to be two questions regarding the interrogative sentence of the OP.

1) Is this true?  If the interrogative begins with a pronoun, that is the *subject* by virtue of its position.   _Who_ killed the rat.  but equally _Who_ did the dog kill?    ALTERNATIVELY.

2)Is this true?  If the interrogative begins with a pronoun, its being 'subject' or 'object' will be determined by the referent's constituent role in the corresponding declarative sentence.  

This latter seems to be what Thompson and Martinet do, in this passage (p. 48):


> *who* as subject:
> _Who keeps the keys_? (affirmative verb)
> _[...]_
> _Who are these boys?_ (interrogative verb)
> 
> *who*, *whom* as objects of a verb:
> Normal English: _Who did you see?_



Boozer, friend, I ask you, are your answers to these questions 'no,' and 'yes' respectively?   Same question to Bearded, Thomas, Jungkim.

============================


boozer said:


> I will gladly oblige you, Mr. Mix.
> I hope a title like "A Practical English Grammar" issued by Oxford University Press, written by AJ Thompson and AV Martinet, p.48, is good enough and passes as scholarly writing.
> It goes:
> 
> _56         Examples of the use of who, whom, whose, which and  what
> 
> A who, whom, whose
> 
> who as subject:
> 
> Who keeps the keys?
> (affirmative verb)
> Who took my gun?
> (affirmative verb)
> Who are these boys?
> __ (interrogative verb)
> 
> _http://www.gunaygunaydin.com/FileUp...rsity_press_-_a_practical_english_grammar.pdf
> 
> I think this goes a long way towards explaining my inclination to accept both nouns as subjects depending on the perspective. Especially the question word, be it what or who, when it is in subject position.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> 1) Is this true?  If the interrogative begins with a pronoun, that is the *subject* by virtue of its position.   _Who_ killed the rat.  but equally _Who_ did the dog kill?    ALTERNATIVELY.
> 
> 2)Is this true?  If the interrogative begins with a pronoun, its being 'subject' or 'object' will be determined by the referent's constituent role in the corresponding declarative sentence.
> 
> This latter seems to be what Thompson and Martinet do, in this passage (p. 48):
> Boozer, friend, I ask you, are your answers to these questions 'no,' and 'yes' respectively?   Same question to Bearded, Thomas, Jungkim.



An open interrogative sentence, which asks for an open-ended answer, not just yes/no, does not always start with the subject. In your example, "Who" in "Who did the dog kill?" is not the subject any more than "That argument" in "That argument I find baseless" is. It's a no-brainer.

And I agree with 2). But that's not dispositive of the issue when it comes to the verb 'be'.


----------



## boozer

bennymix said:


> Boozer, friend, I ask you, are your answers to these questions 'no,' and 'yes' respectively?   Same question to Bearded, Thomas, Jungkim.
> 
> ============================


In JK's question we are dealing with a long list of limiting factors.
1. We need two nouns in a sentence, as opposed to a noun + something else:
These boys are young. 
These boys are my brothers. 
2. We need a linking verb, preferably the verb to be, as opposed to an action verb.
These boys stole my sister. 
These boys are my brothers. 
3 We need a question word asking about the sentence's subject, as opposed to some other part of the sentence
Who did these boys steal? 
Who are these boys? 

Only in the presence of all these limiting factors together do we have the right set of circumstances allowing the differing lines of reasoning offered in this thread. Only then can we say that the position of the noun alone is capable of makimg it the subject of the sentence.

Throughout this whole thread I have maintained that pinpointing the subject in such symmetrical utterances can be tricky and depends on whether we base our conclusions on general logic or grammar functionality. The quote I gave in my earlier post proves that there is a strong academic inclination to regard the question word as sentence subject based on its subject position, i.e. before the verb. Indeed, I agree that the grammatical subject is the question word in sentences like:
What is the problem?
Who are these boys?


----------



## JungKim

boozer said:


> In JK's question we are dealing with a long list of limiting factors.
> 1. We need two nouns in a sentence, as opposed to a noun + something else:
> These boys are young.
> These boys are my brothers.
> 2. We need a linking verb, preferably the verb to be, as opposed to an action verb.
> These boys stole my sister.
> These boys are my brothers.
> 3 We need a question word asking about the sentence's subject, as opposed to some other part of the sentence
> Who did these boys steal?
> Who are these boys?
> 
> Only in the presence of all these limiting factors together do we have the right set of circumstances allowing the differing lines of reasoning offered in this thread. Only then can we say that the position of the noun alone is capable of makimg it the subject of the sentence.
> 
> Throughout this whole thread I have maintained that pinpointing the subject in such symmetrical utterances can be tricky and depends on whether we base our conclusions on general logic or grammar functionality. The quote I gave in my earlier post proves that there is a strong academic inclination to regard the question word as sentence subject based on its subject position, i.e. before the verb. Indeed, I agree that the grammatical subject is the question word in sentences like:
> What is the problem?
> Who are these boys?



I'm not sure about 'Who are these boys?' but I know 'Who' in 'Who am I?' is not the subject. Wouldn't you know?
So, the strong academic inclination you've mentioned is not applicable to 'Who am I?'.
Now, my question is how do you know it is applicable to 'What's the problem?'


----------



## boozer

JungKim said:


> I'm not sure about 'Who are these boys?' but I know 'Who' in 'Who am I?' is not the subject. Wouldn't you know?
> So, the strong academic inclination you've mentioned is not applicable to 'Who am I?'.
> Now, my question is how do you know it is applicable to 'What's the problem?'


I have no intention of arguing the point if you cannot or you do not want to see the parallel between 'Who are these boys?' and 'Who am I?' and 'What is the problem?', JungKim. I tried to demonstrate the complexity of this whole issue but I am glad you finally have an answer, whether it is the one I offered or a different one.


----------



## JungKim

boozer said:


> I have no intention of arguing the point if you cannot or you do not want to see the parallel between 'Who are these boys?' and 'Who am I?' and 'What is the problem?', JungKim. I tried to demonstrate the complexity of this whole issue but I am glad you finally have an answer, whether it is the one I offered or a different one.


Had I found an answer, I wouldn't be still hanging around here.
Your argument that "Who" in "Who are these boys?" can be also plural, and that "Who" is indeed the subject--That argument of yours I can accept at least technically. But I seriously doubt that the speaker would have intended "Who" to be the subject in that sentence under virtually any conceivable context. That's because of the word "these", which reveals that the speaker was uttering about "these boys" rather than "who" and that "these boys" is the subject of the sentence. 

That said, I am still willing to accept that at least technically "Who" could possibly be the subject. I cannot, however, draw a parallel between that sentence and "Who am I?", because "Who" simply couldn't have "am" as its verb if "Who" were the subject of the latter sentence.


----------



## boozer

That is better, Jung. Providing a reason why you disagree is always better than simply saying you disagree.


JungKim said:


> But I seriously doubt that the speaker would have intended "Who" to be the subject in that sentence under virtually any conceivable context.


I know speakers that carefully consider every grammatical and semantical aspect of what they are going to say before actually saying it. Those are not fluent speakers.  Fluent speakers hardly ever have specific intentions pertaining to the syntax of the sentence they are about to produce. What matters to them is that the sentence adequately conveys their thoughts. 


JungKim said:


> That's because of the word "these", which reveals that the speaker was uttering about "these boys" rather than "who.


It equally well reveals the fact that the speaker is wondering who they are and asks 'Who are they?' and thus places 'who' before the verb, in subject position. Whether you want to treat is as a subject only technically and not logically is your choice. I have already quoted linguists who treat 'who' as a subject. 


JungKim said:


> I cannot, however, draw a parallel between that sentence and "Who am I?", because "Who" simply couldn't have "am" as its verb if "Who" were the subject of the latter sentence.


The parallel between 'Who am I?' and 'Who are they?' is the paragon of a grammatically neat parallel. The issue of verb agreement was treated by Thomas Tompion a page ago.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think that the subject of a sentence has two defining characteristics: a. it's what determines the number and person of the main verb, b. it's the main agent in the sentence; it's the noun which the sentence is primarily concerned with.

In this question we are faced with a copular verb linking two nouns with the same number and person.  This means that criterion a. is no use to us in determining the subject.

So we are thrown back on characteristic b.  How do we determine which noun is more important in such a sentence?

Sometimes the subject is whichever comes first:

_Charlie is an idiot _- Charlie is the subject because the complement tells us something about Charlie.

However if we reverse the sentence - _An idiot is Charlie_ - I'm not clear that we are being told much about idiots, though we are being told that Charlie is one.  At most we are being invited to induce something about idiots from this fact.  I think the sentence is still about Charlie: Charlie remains the subject.
_
Charlie is what?_ - this is clearly a question about Charlie, asking probably if he is a station master or a gamekeeper.

_What is Charlie?_ - I'd say that this was also a question about Charlie, asking probably if he is a station master or a gamekeeper.
_
What is the problem?_ - I'd say that this was analogous to _What is Charlie?_  It's a question about the problem; it's asking about the nature of the problem, so the problem qualifies as the subject under criterion b.

Sorry guys!  I've changed my mind, unless you can persuade me that my definition of what constitutes the subject of a sentence is awry, or that sentences like _An idiot is Charlie_ are more about idiots than about Charile.


----------



## Loob

I'm not 100% sure I agree with your definition of "subject", TT.  As I've said before, I do agree that it's normally the subject of a verb which determines the person/number of the verb.  I'm not quite so sure that you can equate "subject" with "theme" or "topic".

I still think that my post 27 offers a relatively straightforward rule of thumb.  But I would, wouldn't I?

------

PS.  All that said, I _am_ glad that you've changed your mind and agree with Cagey, bearded man, and me.  I always feel uncomfortable disagreeing with you!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> I'm not 100% sure I agree with your definition of "subject", TT.  As I've said before, I do agree that it's normally the subject of a verb which determines the person/number of the verb.  I'm not quite so sure that you can equate "subject" with "theme" or "topic".
> 
> I still think that my post 27 offers a relatively straightforward rule of thumb.  But I would, wouldn't I?
> 
> ------
> 
> PS.  All that said, I _am_ glad that you've changed your mind and agree with Cagey, bearded man, and me.  I always feel uncomfortable disagreeing with you!


And I with you.

You must explain to me how your rule of thumb - that the subject is what comes before the verb in indirect questions - is a. more than a derivation, and b. easily applied to something other than a question.

Looking at these in turn:

a.  A derivation - In this case we say more often _I don't know what the problem_ (subject) _is_, than _I don't know what_ (subject)_ is the problem_.

I worried about this for two reasons: because it wasn't clear cut - we can say_ I don't know what is the problem_, so the formula seems to give two possible answers; and secondly because it seemed to me that we use the conventional order more often because _the problem_ is the subject - the problem is what we are really concerned about, so we give it that status, put it in that position in the indirect question.

So your proposed rule-of-thumb seemed to me to put the horse after the cart.  It was our criterion which caused us to place _the problem_ in that position, not the fact that we placed_ the problem_ in that position which gave us our criterion.

b.  How do we apply your rule of thumb for defining a subject to sentences which are not direct questions?  _The cat is on the mat _- _I don't know which mat the cat is on_; _I don't know which cat is on the mat_.  Can that be what you mean?  Certainly _the cat_ immediately precedes the verb in each case.


----------



## Loob

Yes, it definitely puts the horse after the cart.

I'm simply saying that the "changing to the indirect question" test might help us to determine what the subject was in the original direct question.

I'm not saying anything about non-questions.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thanks very much, Loob.  That's a great help.


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think that the subject of a sentence has two defining characteristics: a. it's what determines the number and person of the main verb, b. it's the main agent in the sentence; it's the noun which the sentence is primarily concerned with.



I agree with your "b" but only with the second portion (it's the noun which the sentence is primarily concerned with). The first portion (it's the main agent in the sentence) I do not agree with. In English, the subject doesn't have to be the agent of an action expressed by the verb. Case in point: the passive voice. 

Actually, this second portion of yours is exactly what I've talked about (in post #55) in rebutting boozer's claim that "Who" is the subject of "Who are these boys?". I said in post #55 that the speaker was uttering about "these boys" rather than "who" and that "these boys" is the subject of the sentence. 



Thomas Tompion said:


> _What is the problem?_ - I'd say that this was analogous to _What is Charlie?_  It's a question about the problem; it's asking about the nature of the problem, so the problem qualifies as the subject under criterion b.
> 
> Sorry guys!  I've changed my mind, unless you can persuade me that my definition of what constitutes the subject of a sentence is awry, or that sentences like _An idiot is Charlie_ are more about idiots than about Charile.



We should distinguish these two uses of the verb "be":
A. _Charlie is an idiot._ (*_An idiot is Charlie._)
B. _Charlie is the idiot I talked about yesterday._ (= _The idiot I talked about yesterday is Charlie._)

As can be seen, _Charlie is an idiot_ is not reversible, whereas _Charlie is the idiot I talked about yesterday_ is. 
And both of these are possible and have virtually identical meaning:
_Is Charlie the idiot I talked about yesterday?
__Is __the idiot I talked about yesterday __Charlie? _

But only the first one of these is possible:
_Is Charlie an idiot?
_*_Is an idiot Charlie?
_
So the question remains: Does _What's the problem?_ belong in A type or B type?


----------



## bennymix

Hi Thomas,
I was interested in your definition.
Now a professor Kies, in English and Linguistics had this to say, in his Hypertext Grammar.   Care to comment?  Esp. since you seem to drift towards your b., for the case in hand--whereas b. is what Kies would drop.  I am not taking a position on this matter, nor implying I think you're wrong, simply trying to shed light on some differences and why people choose as they do.

ADDED, NOTE TO ALL:  I focused on Thomas's proposal for convenience and to contrast with Kies.   It almost goes without saying that my query is addressed to all discussants, esp. those who hold grammatical subject is determined, at least in part by the issue,  "what's being talked of?"


Kies*:


> Traditional grammar books and school grammars often define the subject along semantic lines: they refer to the subject as "what the sentence is about" or as "the topic of the sentence" or as the "actor performing the action described by the verb. From the perspective of grammar, however, such definitions are misleading, since those older definitions blend and conflate different ideas that are best understood if kept apart. As we will see [...] the subject is a distinct entity, related to, but separate from, notions like 'theme' or 'topic' or 'actor.'



Kies goes on to list properties of grammatical subjects that can be used to identify them.  He lists, 
"form, position, agreement, pronouns, and voice. "

*Kies, hypertext grammar.
http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/cl_subj.htm

===========
TT in full: 





Thomas Tompion said:


> I think that the subject of a sentence has two defining characteristics: a. it's what determines the number and person of the main verb, b. it's the main agent in the sentence; it's the noun which the sentence is primarily concerned with.
> 
> In this question we are faced with a copular verb linking two nouns with the same number and person.  This means that criterion a. is no use to us in determining the subject.
> 
> So we are thrown back on characteristic b.  How do we determine which noun is more important in such a sentence?
> 
> Sometimes the subject is whichever comes first:
> 
> _Charlie is an idiot _- Charlie is the subject because the complement tells us something about Charlie.
> 
> However if we reverse the sentence - _An idiot is Charlie_ - I'm not clear that we are being told much about idiots, though we are being told that Charlie is one.  At most we are being invited to induce something about idiots from this fact.  I think the sentence is still about Charlie: Charlie remains the subject.
> _
> Charlie is what?_ - this is clearly a question about Charlie, asking probably if he is a station master or a gamekeeper.
> 
> _What is Charlie?_ - I'd say that this was also a question about Charlie, asking probably if he is a station master or a gamekeeper.
> _
> What is the problem?_ - I'd say that this was analogous to _What is Charlie?_  It's a question about the problem; it's asking about the nature of the problem, so the problem qualifies as the subject under criterion b.
> 
> Sorry guys!  I've changed my mind, unless you can persuade me that my definition of what constitutes the subject of a sentence is awry, or that sentences like _An idiot is Charlie_ are more about idiots than about Charile.


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> ... So the question remains: Does _What's the problem?_ belong in A type or B type?


My answer is that it belongs to both. The question "What is the problem?" is ambiguous in more ways than one.

Let us assume that the person asking the question has composed the question according to the normal rules of grammar. If that person does not mean to ask for the problem's identity but for information about the problem, "the problem" will be the subject: The problem may be intractable, or it may be quite resolvable. What is the problem (intractable, resolvable, or what)?

But if that person does mean to ask for the problem's identity, either "the problem" or "what" can be the subject because both "The fly in my soup is the problem" and "The problem is the fly in my soup" identify the problem. The difference is that in the former sentence "the problem" can be interpreted attributively, but in the latter it cannot.

Because of the symmetry in this last situation, we have a choice. However, we tend to say "I am asking what the problem is" rather than "I am asking what is the problem", not because "the problem" really has to be the subject but for two reasons: (1) we wish to avoid the "loose" interpretation mentioned above, and (2) when we have a choice, we tend to choose the indirect question that least resembles a direct one, despite the ambiguity involved.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Hi Thomas,
> I was interested in your definition.
> Now a professor Kies, in English and Linguistics had this to say, in his Hypertext Grammar.   Care to comment?  Esp. since you seem to drift towards your b., for the case in hand--whereas b. is what Kies would drop.  I am not taking a position on this matter, nor implying I think you're wrong, simply trying to shed light on some differences and why people choose as they do.
> 
> Kies*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional grammar books and school grammars often define the subject along semantic lines: they refer to the subject as "what the sentence is about" or as "the topic of the sentence" or as the "actor performing the action described by the verb. From the perspective of grammar, however, such definitions are misleading, since those older definitions blend and conflate different ideas that are best understood if kept apart. As we will see [...] the subject is a distinct entity, related to, but separate from, notions like 'theme' or 'topic' or 'actor.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kies goes on to list properties of grammatical subjects that can be used to identify them.  He lists,
> "form, position, agreement, pronouns, and voice. "
> 
> *Kies, hypertext grammar.
> http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/cl_subj.htm
Click to expand...


I'm not TT, but I'd like to respond to your post above, if I may.
If you could determine the subject of "What's the problem?" using the aforementioned properties of grammatical subjects (i.e., form, position, agreement, pronouns, and voice), then be my guest.
What is the problem with this particular sentence "What's the problem?" is you cannot.
This goes to show that the definition of the professor is inadequate in the sense that you cannot determine the subject of such a type of sentences as "What's the problem? based solely on the aforementioned properties set forth by the professor. And eventually, you'd have to go back to the "semantic" definition of the subject.


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> My answer is that it belongs to both. The question "What is the problem?" is ambiguous in more ways than one.
> 
> Let us assume that the person asking the question has composed the question according to the normal rules of grammar. If that person does not mean to ask for the problem's identity but for information about the problem, "the problem" will be the subject: The problem may be intractable, or it may be quite resolvable. What is the problem (intractable, resolvable, or what)?
> 
> But if that person does mean to ask for the problem's identity, either "the problem" or "what" can be the subject because both "The fly in my soup is the problem" and "The problem is the fly in my soup" identify the problem. The difference is that in the former sentence "the problem" can be interpreted attributively, but in the latter it cannot.
> 
> Because of the symmetry in this last situation, we have a choice. However, we tend to say "I am asking what the problem is" rather than "I am asking what is the problem", not because "the problem" really has to be the subject but for two reasons: (1) we wish to avoid the "loose" interpretation mentioned above, and (2) when we have a choice, we tend to choose the indirect question that least resembles a direct one, despite the ambiguity involved.



If the speaker intended to ask for the attribute of the problem (e.g., _the problem is serious_, _the problem is a serious one_, _the problem is very serious_, _the problem is a very serious one_, etc.), would the speaker ask "What's the problem?"? I don't think so. It's much more likely that the speaker would ask "What's the problem like?" or "How's problem?" or "How serious is the problem?" etc. 

So I would argue that "What's the problem?" asks for the problem's identity, but not its attribute. If that's the case, the question corresponds to either "The fly in my soup is the problem" or "The problem is the fly in my soup". In the former, "the fly" is the subject, whereas in the latter "the problem" is the subject. 

In the corresponding interrogative sentence "What's the problem?", however, you would never know whether "what" or "the problem" is the subject, because either can. Perhaps, that's why native speakers find both "I don't know what the problem is" and "I don't know what's the problem" grammatical, albeit the former may be preferred.


----------



## bennymix

Thank you Jung Kim.   I meant to ask you for feedback.   So is it your view that for some declarative sentences the grammatical subject cannot be determined?  or cannot be determined by text-based [non semantic] rules in the manner Prof Dies suggests?




JungKim said:


> I'm not TT, but I'd like to respond to your post above, if I may.
> If you could determine the subject of "What's the problem?" using the aforementioned properties of grammatical subjects (i.e., form, position, agreement, pronouns, and voice), then be my guest.
> What is the problem with this particular sentence "What's the problem?" is you cannot.
> This goes to show that the definition of the professor is inadequate in the sense that you cannot determine the subject of such a type of sentences as "What's the problem? based solely on the aforementioned properties set forth by the professor. And eventually, you'd have to go back to the "semantic" definition of the subject.


----------



## boozer

JungKim said:


> Actually, this second portion of yours is exactly what I've talked about (in post #55) in rebutting the boozer's claim that "Who" is the subject of "Who are these boys?".


You may have noticed that this claim is not mine alone. Initially it belonged to linguists published by Oxford University Press, as quoted. I am glad you believe you have managed to rebut it single-handedly.

In addition, you will surely understand that referring to me as 'the boozer' is not appreciated. My nickname is 'boozer', no article. A little more respect would be appreciated.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Thank you Jung Kim.   I meant to ask you for feedback.   So is it your view that for some declarative sentences the grammatical subject cannot be determined?  or cannot be determined by text-based [non semantic] rules in the manner Prof Dies suggests?



No, it is not. For declarative sentences with no inversion, what comes first is the subject. So in "the fly is the problem" "the fly" is the subject, whereas in "the problem is the fly" "the problem" is the subject.
What I was referring to in post #65 was some open interrogative sentences such as "What's the problem?"


----------



## JungKim

boozer said:


> You may have noticed that this claim is not mine alone. Initially it belonged to linguists published by Oxford University Press, as quoted. I am glad you believe you have managed to rebut it single-handedly.
> 
> In addition, you will surely understand that referring to me as 'the boozer' is not appreciated. My nickname is 'boozer', no article. A little more respect would be appreciated.



If my memory servers right, the Oxford publication did not explain why "Who" should be the subject and not "these boys" in "Who are these boys?" They simply listed the sentence under the category of "Who as a subject". So, the Oxford publication was not clear about whether "Who" *can be or should be* viewed as a subject. 

Now, my putting "the" before your nickname is purely a mistake on my part. And no offense. I was writing it fairly hurriedly and "the" is a typo, erroneously meant for "claim" but definitely not for "boozer". I knew that you don't have to put "the" before a possessive to modify the noun "claim" but sometimes knowing it is one thing and speaking/writing it is another when it comes to a second language. Anyway, sorry if you're offended.
If something good came of this mistake of mine, it would be that I learned that putting "the" in front of a proper name might sound offensive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> I agree with your "b" but only with the second portion (it's the noun which the sentence is primarily concerned with). The first portion (it's the main agent in the sentence) I do not agree with. In English, the subject doesn't have to be the agent of an action expressed by the verb. Case in point: the passive voice.


I take the point. I hoped that the semi-colon would do the work of an _*and*_/*or*, thus:

_b. it's the main agent in the sentence, and/or it's the noun which the sentence is primarily concerned with._

I felt we needed some sort of formal definition of the word we were all using so freely, and maybe in different ways.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> In "What's the problem?", which is the subject, "what" or "the problem"?


The simple answer is that 'what ...'?' is the subject.

Compare the sentence 'That is the problem'. Here, the demonstrative pronoun 'that' is the subject and 'the problem' is the complement of the verb 'is'.
In the sentence 'What is the problem?' the only difference is that the demonstrative pronoun 'that' has been replaced by the interrogative pronoun 'what ...?' 
The structure of the sentence remains the same.

In the sentence 'What are you?' the fact that the verb is plural, agreeing with 'you', even while the sense of 'what ...?' remains singular, can be explained by the phenomenon of attraction, as mentioned earlier. Compare: proximity agreement By Richard Nordquist

Another explanation may be a logical inversion of subject and complement in the speaker's mind. 
However, for the sake of consistency in analysis, it seems to me better to stick to the traditional scheme making 'what ...?' the subject, followed by the verb 'to be' and its complement.


----------



## boozer

JungKim said:


> If my memory servers right, the Oxford publication did not explain why "Who" should be the subject and not "these boys" in "Who are these boys?"


Indeed, no explanation is provided.





JungKim said:


> So, the Oxford publication was not clear about whether "Who" can be or should be viewed as a subject


JK, it is a free... world. You are at liberty to disagree with the quote and you are not the only one, as we all see. But you cannot act as if listing the example under the heading 'who as a subject' meant nothing.  It surely does mean that 'who' can and should be viewed as a subject, according to the authors. By the way, apology accepted.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I wonder if we'd agree that, faced with a group of numbered sentences, one of which was a problem, someone asking 'Which one is the problem?' would be making _Which one_ the subject of his sentence.

I wonder also if there are people here considering 'What's the problem?' in this light.  A question about what falls into the category of being a problem.

I've not been thinking in this way.


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> I wonder if we'd agree that, faced with a group of numbered sentences, one of which was a problem, someone asking 'Which one is the problem?' would be making _Which one_ the subject of his sentence.
> 
> I wonder also if there are people here considering 'What's the problem?' in this light.  A question about what falls into the category of being a problem.
> 
> I've not been thinking in this way.



In that context of "What's the problem?", might "the problem" be interpreted as describing the attribute of the subject "what"?


----------



## bennymix

Hi boozer,
Regarding the sentence ADDED: from your post, linked below.



> there is a strong academic inclination to regard the question word as  sentence subject based on its subject position, i.e. before the verb.



This statement is a bit unclear, but I think it says, 

_there is a strong academic inclination to regard the question word as  sentence subject [the 'sentence' being the question] based on its subject position [in the question/sentence], i.e. before the verb._

Is this reading correct?   If so, it's what I've called position 1, that the introductory wh- word in the question is considered [as to its sentence role] solely in terms of the question;  then the initial position is noted, end of game;  it's the subject.

Position 2., which I've tried to articulate seems to be what Thomson and Martinet say;  as does Mr. Quirk.

Here it is:

T & M





> A who, whom, whose
> who as subject:
> Who keeps the keys? (affirmative verb)
> Who took my gun? (affirmative verb)
> [...]
> 
> who, whom as objects of a verb:
> Normal English: Who did you see?


   {p.48}

In the 'normal English example,' he clearly says that 'who' is the object of the verb, and by inference, remaining 'object in the question.  

Position 2., which seems to have some plausibility, says, for a _Wh_- question,  the category (subject, ..)  is to be determined by looking at a declarative sentence corresponding to the question.   There will be some (in this case) noun-like entity corresponding to the '_wh_', and the label of that entity [S, O, whatever] is, by transference, the label of the _wh_- word.

This seems to be the position of Quirk, in the excerpt, below.


> Initial position in the clause is a general characteric of wh- words whether their role is interrogative, relative, or subordinating.   Through the use of wh word we can ask for the identification of the subject, object, complement...
> [...]
> 
> [[Example of SVOCA]]: They [S] make [V] him [O]  the chairman [C]  every year [A]  [1]
> Who makes him the chariman every year? [wh word as S]   [2]
> Who(m) did them make the chairman every year? [wh word as O]   [3]


     { p 77 CGOEL}

Thanks for your help in these matters.

=======


boozer said:


> In JK's question we are dealing with a long list of limiting factors.
> 1. We need two nouns in a sentence, as opposed to a noun + something else:
> These boys are young.
> These boys are my brothers.
> 2. We need a linking verb, preferably the verb to be, as opposed to an action verb.
> These boys stole my sister.
> These boys are my brothers.
> 3 We need a question word asking about the sentence's subject, as opposed to some other part of the sentence
> Who did these boys steal?
> Who are these boys?
> 
> Only in the presence of all these limiting factors together do we have the right set of circumstances allowing the differing lines of reasoning offered in this thread. Only then can we say that the position of the noun alone is capable of makimg it the subject of the sentence.
> 
> Throughout this whole thread I have maintained that pinpointing the subject in such symmetrical utterances can be tricky and depends on whether we base our conclusions on general logic or grammar functionality. The quote I gave in my earlier post proves that there is a strong academic inclination to regard the question word as sentence subject based on its subject position, i.e. before the verb. Indeed, I agree that the grammatical subject is the question word in sentences like:
> What is the problem?
> Who are these boys?


  {benny's coloring}


----------



## Thomas Tompion

bennymix said:


> Hi boozer,
> Regarding the sentence
> 
> 
> 
> there is a strong academic inclination to regard the question word as   sentence subject based on its subject position, i.e. before the verb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is a bit unclear, [...]
Click to expand...

I'm unclear where this comes from, Bennymix.  Why haven't you posted it with its link, or with some indication of source, in the normal way?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> In that context of "What's the problem?", might "the problem" be interpreted as describing the attribute of the subject "what"?


I'm not clear what you mean by 'the attribute of the subject'.  You seem to be suggesting that the subject has only one attribute.

You did much the same in post 66, several times.


----------



## bennymix

I'm pretty sure it's clear to boozer and anyone reading the complete post, since it's from the linked
post of boozer, below.  But I've added a note, just in case.



Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm unclear where this comes from, Bennymix.  Why haven't you posted it with its link, or with some indication of source, in the normal way?


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> If the speaker intended to ask for the attribute of the problem (e.g., _the problem is serious_, _the problem is a serious one_, _the problem is very serious_, _the problem is a very serious one_, etc.), would the speaker ask "What's the problem?"? I don't think so. It's much more likely that the speaker would ask "What's the problem like?" or "How's problem?" or "How serious is the problem?" etc.
> 
> So I would argue that "What's the problem?" asks for the problem's identity, but not its attribute. If that's the case, the question corresponds to either "The fly in my soup is the problem" or "The problem is the fly in my soup". In the former, "the fly" is the subject, whereas in the latter "the problem" is the subject.
> 
> In the corresponding interrogative sentence "What's the problem?", however, you would never know whether "what" or "the problem" is the subject, because either can. Perhaps, that's why native speakers find both "I don't know what the problem is" and "I don't know what's the problem" grammatical, albeit the former may be preferred.


In other words, you, whose question heads this thread, do not intend the sentence in question "What is the problem?" to be using "the problem" attributively.





Thomas Tompion said:


> I wonder if we'd agree that, faced with a group of numbered sentences, one of which was a problem, someone asking 'Which one is the problem?' would be making _Which one_ the subject of his sentence.
> 
> I wonder also if there are people here considering 'What's the problem?' in this light.  A question about what falls into the category of being a problem.
> 
> I've not been thinking in this way.


This is a good description of an example of "the problem" used attributively, which is a valid use of "What is the problem?", but not what JungKim is asking about and not what you have been discussing.

Merriam-Webster lists three definitions for _be_ that might apply here, and all three leave our question ambiguous as to which is the subject:

1a :  to equal in meaning :  have the same connotation as :  symbolize <God is love> <January is the first month> <let x be 10>  
1b :  to have identity with <the first person I met was my brother>  
1c :  to constitute the same class as  

Definition 1b is the one that has to do with identity, so we are left with either:

_What is the problem?_ = "What has identity with the problem?" [_What_ as subject, _the problem_ as complement]

or, which amounts to nearly the same thing:

_What is the problem?_ = "What does the problem have identity with?" [_The problem_ as subject, _what_ as complement, just as in the _in situ_ question "The problem is what?"]

I don't think we have clear context to decide between these two.


----------



## PaulQ

I cannot understand all this. Four pages! Can someone tell me what is wrong with my post at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2802804&page=2&p=14171558#post14171558?


----------



## bennymix

Hi Paul,
I think the debate rages because there is (mostly) failure to clarify the basics, such as 'grammatical subject' of a sentence.

There is a further issue about which I've gotten limited response, and it touches on your post (assuming I'm looking at the right one;  I only found the page).  Does the labelling of constituents of a question have its self-contained rules, or are such labels to be taken (transferred), directly, from [labels of constituents in] a corresponding declarative sentence?

I think your post is saying (i.e., assuming) 'yes' to this question, but I'm not sure.

===============



PaulQ said:


> I cannot understand all this. Four pages! Can someone tell me what is wrong with my post at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2802804&page=2&p=14171558#post14171558?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

bennymix said:


> I'm pretty sure it's clear to boozer and anyone reading the complete post, since it's from the linked
> post of boozer, below.  But I've added a note, just in case.


But not the link, which is back to a post on a different page.

It's so easy.  I just can't understand why you don't do it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> [...]
> 
> _What is the problem?_ = "What has identity with the problem?" [_What_ as subject, _the problem_ as complement]
> 
> or, which amounts to nearly the same thing:
> 
> _What is the problem?_ = "What does the problem have identity with?" [_The problem_ as subject, _what_ as complement, just as in the _in situ_ question "The problem is what?"]
> 
> I don't think we have clear context to decide between these two.


_What does the problem have identity with?_ is not a way of talking I'm used to.

I've been considering _What is the problem?_ to mean something like _What is the nature of the problem?_ 

I'd assumed that maybe there was some intellectual conundrum or maybe some practical difficulty, like a car malfunctioning, and that the question was asking for some explanation of what was puzzling people or causing difficulty.


----------



## Cagey

This links to the post that I believe PaulQ has in mind:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2802804&page=2&p=14171558#post14171558

It is currently post                                                                                           #33.  (It's prudent to include the number of the post, so the viewer will have a guide if they aren't sure of the place the link takes them to.  Of course, if intervening posts are removed, the number will change.  The link should still take you to the same post.) 

You can get the URL of the individual link by clicking on the post number.  You can also copy and paste the linked post number itself.  It will contain the link.


----------



## PaulQ

I'm obliged.


----------



## Loob

wandle said:


> ... In the sentence 'What are you?' the fact that the verb is plural, agreeing with 'you', even while the sense of 'what ...?' remains singular, can be explained by the phenomenon of attraction, as mentioned earlier. Compare: proximity agreement By Richard Nordquist


  Yes, that happens sometimes.  But I'd say it's quite a stretch to assume it happens routinely ~ which is what you're suggesting if you say that in "What are you?"/"What am I?" *what* is the subject.

I'm an Occam's razor fan, myself - it seems to me to be much simpler to assume that the subject in "What am I?" is "I".


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not clear what you mean by 'the attribute of the subject'.  You seem to be suggesting that the subject has only one attribute.
> 
> You did much the same in post 66, several times.



Yes, in post 66 and 75, I did refer to 'the attribute of the subject'. Let me explain.

In a "Subject(S) + is + Subject Complement(SC)" structure, the SC can describe either the attribute of the S or the identity of the S. The former corresponds to type A (_Charlie is an idiot._) and the latter to type B (_Charlie is the idiot I talked about yesterday._) as shown in post #62 of mine.

Now, Forero did an excellent job of further clarifying the dichotomy of types A and B in post #80 (while I was asleep.)
To re-categorize the M-W dictionary definitions 1a, 1b and 1c in terms of types A and B, both 1a and 1b are subsumed under type B (where the SC describes the S's identity), whereas 1c is the same as type A (where the SC describes the S's attribute).


----------



## boozer

bennymix said:


> Hi boozer,
> 
> This statement is a bit unclear, but I think it says,
> 
> _there is a strong academic inclination to regard the question word as sentence subject [the 'sentence' being the question] based on its subject position [in the question/sentence], i.e. before the verb._
> 
> Is this reading correct?


Hi, Benny
Yes, it is.


bennymix said:


> If so, it's what I've called position 1, that the introductory wh- word in the question is considered [as to its sentence role] solely in terms of the question; then the initial position is noted, end of game; it's the subject.


Agreed. This is my understanding of 'grammatical subject'.


bennymix said:


> In the 'normal English example,' he clearly says that 'who' is the object of the verb, and by inference, remaining 'object in the question.


Agreed. Of course, our case, the one(s) we are dealing with here, are different.


bennymix said:


> Position 2., which seems to have some plausibility, says, for a _Wh_- question, the category (subject, ..) is to be determined by looking at a declarative sentence corresponding to the question. There will be some (in this case) noun-like entity corresponding to the '_wh_', and the label of that entity [S, O, whatever] is, by transferrence, the label of the _wh_- word


It surely does have plausibility. In this way we determine what I earlier described as 'the logical subject'. All of this makes the matter so complicated. All along I have tried to do no more than demonstrate this complexity without disagreeing with anyone following Mr. Quirk's school of thought.*  I just mentioned the existence of another.

*Indeed, how could I disagree with Mr. Randolph Quirk?  For 5 long years he was a central figure in my education. Keeping one of the few copies of his Comprehensive Grammar, borrowed from the British Council library, for more than 5-6 days was a luxury that few, mostly the heartless, could afford. Quoting him in some home assignment earned you a special place in the heart of your professor. Quoting him at an exam secured you a high passing mark.


----------



## bennymix

Thanks, boozer.   You are helping me and helping focus this thread.


----------



## boozer

bennymix said:


> Thanks, boozer. You are helping me and helping focus this thread.


Ah, I have received more help than I have given...


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> Yes, in post 66 and 75, I did refer to 'the attribute of the subject'. Let me explain.
> 
> In a "Subject(S) + is + Subject Complement(SC)" structure, the SC can describe either the attribute of the S or the identity of the S. The former corresponds to type A (_Charlie is an idiot._) and the latter to type B (_Charlie is the idiot I talked about yesterday._) as shown in post #62 of mine.[...]


My point was that, in the first case, what the subject complement describes is *an* attribute not *the* attribute.

To suggest that it is saying that Charlie's only attribute is his idiocy is a misreading of the sentence _Charlie is an idiot_.


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> My point was that, in the first case, what the subject complement describes is *an* attribute not *the* attribute.
> 
> To suggest that it is saying that Charlie's only attribute is his idiocy is a misreading of the sentence _Charlie is an idiot_.



Oh, I got it. Whenever I said "*the *attribute of the subject", I didn't mean that the subject had only one attribute in general, but I was referring to the specific attribute being mentioned in the sentence under discussion (e.g., the attribute of being an idiot).
And if I'm not allowed to use "the" in that sense, please go ahead and let me know. That I'd appreciate very much.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> Oh, I got it. Whenever I said "*the *attribute of the subject", I didn't mean that the subject had only one attribute in general, but I was referring to the specific attribute being mentioned in the sentence under discussion (e.g., the attribute of being an idiot).
> And if I'm not allowed to use "the" in that sense, please go ahead and let me know. That I'd appreciate very much.


I'm not, as you well know, suggesting that you cannot use it in that sense, once you have established that you are talking about a specific attribute.


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> I cannot understand all this. Four pages! Can someone tell me what is wrong with my post at http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2802804&page=2&p=14171558#post14171558?


I see nothing wrong with PaulQ's post 33. That expresses the traditional analysis of the syntax in such sentences.

My post 14  and post 72  both rely on the same basic position.

Because the verb 'to be' asserts the indentity of subject and complement, and because the one may on semantic grounds seem more important than the other, there is a temptation to say in some cases that the complement (the noun, or equivalent, which occupies the predicate position) is really the subject. Unfortunately, doing so creates a case which is not consistent with the analysis we apply to other sentences. For this reason - consistency of analysis - I believe it is a mistake to depart from the traditional scheme.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> _What does the problem have identity with?_ is not a way of talking I'm used to.
> 
> I've been considering _What is the problem?_ to mean something like _What is the nature of the problem?_
> 
> I'd assumed that maybe there was some intellectual conundrum or maybe some practical difficulty, like a car malfunctioning, and that the question was asking for some explanation of what was puzzling people or causing difficulty.


Yes, with this interpretation, _what_ is the subject.

Notice that you have referred to something called "what was ... difficulty", in which _what_ is the subject of _was_ and "the problem" must be a complement, as is _difficulty_.

And "the problem" is also a complement in "the nature of the problem". In fact, isn't the nature of something an attribute rather than identity?





wandle said:


> The simple answer is that 'what ...'?' is the subject.
> 
> Compare the sentence 'That is the problem'. Here, the demonstrative pronoun 'that' is the subject and 'the problem' is the complement of the verb 'is'.
> In the sentence 'What is the problem?' the only difference is that the demonstrative pronoun 'that' has been replaced by the interrogative pronoun 'what ...?'
> The structure of the sentence remains the same.
> 
> In the sentence 'What are you?' the fact that the verb is plural, agreeing with 'you', even while the sense of 'what ...?' remains singular, can be explained by the phenomenon of attraction, as mentioned earlier. Compare: proximity agreement By Richard Nordquist
> 
> Another explanation may be a logical inversion of subject and complement in the speaker's mind.
> However, for the sake of consistency in analysis, it seems to me better to stick to the traditional scheme making 'what ...?' the subject, followed by the verb 'to be' and its complement.


Direct questions have two forms, (1) the common inverted form and (2) the _in situ_ form. When _what_ is the subject, the two forms can be identical; when _what_ is the complement, we have, for example, "This is what?" (_in situ_) vs. "What is this?" (inverted).

When a question is indirect, an interrogative comes first and subject precedes verb. Because I understand _you_ as the subject of _are_, I am more comfortable with "I don't know what you are" than with "I don't know what are you". With different punctuation the latter word order makes sense (e.g. "I don't know. What are you?"), but that is not an indirect question.

Compare "I don't know which you are" and "I don't know which is you". Both are valid sentences, and the respective corresponding direct questions are "Which are you?" and "Which is you?". For me, _you_ is the subject of _are_ and _which_ is the subject of _is_ in these examples. The verb invariably agrees with its subject.

And I don't see _what_ and _which_ behaving differently as far as verbal agreement.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

A difficulty here is that none of the people who hold *what* to be the subject, other than Boozer, that I can remember in this thread explains why they think *What is the problem*? is more about *what* than about *the problem*.

I can see that if you take *What is the problem?* to be what I'd regard as a strange way of asking *Which one is the problem?*: ie. a question asking someone to determine which of a group of sentences or difficulties is the problem - then perhaps the question could be said to concentrate on this important question-word, asking for a determination; but not otherwise.

The question seems to me to be asking for information about the problem.  The big issue in the question is the problem, and that makes the problem a candidate for the subject of the sentence, if the subject of a sentence is the noun to which the sentence as phrased draws most attention.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> A difficulty here is that none of the people who hold *what* to be the subject, other than Boozer, that I can remember in this thread explains why they think *What is the problem*? is more about *what* than about *the problem*.
> 
> I can see that if you take *What is the problem?* to be what I'd regard as a strange way of asking *Which one is the problem?*: ie. a question asking someone to determine which of a group of sentences or difficulties is the problem - then perhaps the question could be said to concentrate on this important question-word, asking for a determination; but not otherwise.
> 
> The question seems to me to be asking for information about the problem.  The big issue in the question is the problem, and that makes the problem a candidate for the subject of the sentence, if the subject of a sentence is the noun to which the sentence as phrased draws most attention.


A lot of attention is drawn to the question word, whether or not it is the subject, both because it is first and because it is the reason for the question.

What I mean to say is that attention does not determine the subject. Specificity, definiteness, and previous mention have something to do with it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> A lot of attention is drawn to the question word, whether or not it is the subject, both because it is first and because it is the reason for the question.
> 
> What I mean to say is that attention does not determine the subject. Specificity, definiteness, and previous mention have something to do with it.


Thanks.

I've been struggling for some precise definition of what a subject is, because I think differences in what we each mean may well explain some of our differences, in general, amongst members contributing to the thread.


----------



## I./KG40_Razor

'the problem' is the subject
'What' is either the predicative or the attribute. I can't say for sure
'What's been happening, then?' - 'What' is the subject
'What was her father?' - 'What' is the predicative
'What did you see in Clensofantrim?' - 'What' is the object
'What sort of a quarrel?' - 'What' is the attribute


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> Compare "I don't know which you are" and "I don't know which is you". Both are valid sentences, and the respective corresponding direct questions are "Which are you?" and "Which is you?". For me, you is the subject of are and which is the subject of is in these examples. The verb invariably agrees with its subject.


I cannot gainsay that. If we say 'I do not know which you prefer', then clearly in the indirect question 'you' is the subject and 'which' is the object. If 'which' can be the object of a transitive verb, then it can also be the complement of the verb 'to be'.
Therefore, in 'I do not know which you are' I agree we must say that 'you' is the subject and 'which' is the complement.

Suppose someone said 'The problem itself will show you the solution'. The reply might be 'I do not know what the problem shows' or just 'What does the problem show?' In each case, 'what' is the object of the verb 'to show'. Once again, if it can be the object of a transitive verb, 'what' can also be the complement of the verb 'to be'. Consequently, I must reverse what I said about 'What are you?' in earlier posts. In that example, 'you' is the subject and 'what' is the complement.

Although I have changed my position on what 'what' is (or do I mean on what is 'what'?), I still want to maintain support for traditional sentence analysis (all the more since I now think I understand it a little better). We simply have to accept that 'what ...?' or 'which ...?' may equally well be subject, object or complement.

The question remains, how to tell whether an interrogative pronoun is subject or complement of the verb 'to be', when number is not a guide. *Thomas Tompion's* suggestion that it depends which of the substantives is semantically more important still seems to me not the right approach. The answer needs to be a grammatical one in my view. 

One line might be to say that interrogative pronouns, when used in conjunction with the verb 'to be', become dependent for their meaning upon the other substantive term. Thus in 'What are you?', whatever sense we attach to 'what ...?' is significantly determined by 'you'. Its meaning is limited by the concept 'you' in a way which does not apply in the sentence 'What hit you?' This limitation of meaning seems in a way similar to subordination, though whether it should be described as subordination, and whether if so (or alternatively) it would make the interrogative in such a case automatically a complement, I would not like to say.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Wandle,
You said [see below]



> The question remains, how to tell whether an interrogative pronoun is  subject or complement of the verb 'to be', when number is not a guide. *Thomas Tompion's*  suggestion that it depends which of the substantives is semantically  more important still seems to me not the right approach. The answer  needs to be a grammatical one in my view.



Do you have this issue with declarative sentences containing a form of 'to be'?  If you do not, then why not simply follow that principle, apparently suggested by Thomson & Martinet (in _Practical English Grammar_) as well as Quirk (p. 77, quoted above, my post #76**), that the constituent label for the Wh- word in a question will mirror the constituent label applied in the corresponding declarative sentence.
===================




wandle said:


> I cannot gainsay that. If we say 'I do not know which you prefer', then clearly in the indirect question 'you' is the subject and 'which' is the object. If 'which' can be the object of a transitive verb, then it can also be the complement of the verb 'to be'.
> Therefore, in 'I do not know which you are' I agree we must say that 'you' is the subject and 'which' is the complement.
> 
> Suppose someone said 'The problem itself will show you the solution'. The reply might be 'I do not know what the problem shows' or just 'What does the problem show?' In each case, 'what' is the object of the verb 'to show'. Once again, if it can be the object of a transitive verb, 'what' can also be the complement of the verb 'to be'. Consequently, I must reverse what I said about 'What are you?' in earlier posts. In that example, 'you' is the subject and 'what' is the complement.
> 
> Although I have changed my position on what 'what' is (or do I mean on what is 'what'?), I still want to maintain support for traditional sentence analysis (all the more since I now think I understand it a little better). We simply have to accept that 'what ...?' or 'which ...?' may equally well be subject, object or complement.
> 
> The question remains, how to tell whether an interrogative pronoun is subject or complement of the verb 'to be', when number is not a guide. *Thomas Tompion's* suggestion that it depends which of the substantives is semantically more important still seems to me not the right approach. The answer needs to be a grammatical one in my view.
> 
> One line might be to say that interrogative pronouns, when used in conjunction with the verb 'to be', become dependent for their meaning upon the other substantive term. Thus in 'What are you?', whatever sense we attach to 'what ...?' is significantly determined by 'you'. Its meaning is limited by the concept 'you' in a way which does not apply in the sentence 'What hit you?' This limitation of meaning seems in a way similar to subordination, though whether it should be described as subordination, and whether if so (or alternatively) it would make the interrogative in such a case automatically a complement, I would not like to say.


----

**http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2802804&p=14178768#post14178768


----------



## JungKim

In determining the grammatical subject of "What's the problem?", how about inserting the verb "seem"?
There are technically two versions of "What's the problem?" with the verb "seem" embedded therein.
(1) What seems to be the problem?
(2) What does the problem seem to be?

If, in a given context, we believe that either one of the modified sentences is closer in meaning to the original sentence, doesn't that modified sentence tell us what the grammatical subject is in the original sentence in that given context?

For example, if in a given context the speaker believes that (1) is closer in meaning to the original sentence than (2), the grammatical subject is "what" in that context. Similarly, if the speaker believes the other way around, then the grammatical subject is "the problem".


----------



## bennymix

Jung Kim, I sort of see what you're getting at, but I must say it's the most rarefied test of a grammatical issue that I've seen.  You deserve some sort of award, I think!    Reminds me of the old conundrum, what is the difference between saying  "I have apples in this basket" and "I have some apples in this basket"?

I really wonder how many speakers can explain the difference between 1) and 2), and besides that, say which is closer to "What's the problem?" as they have just said it.

I ask you the same question I asked Wandle,  do you have issues determining the subject in declarative sentences whose main verb is a form of 'to be.'?



JungKim said:


> In determining the grammatical subject of "What's the problem?", how about inserting the verb "seem"?
> There are technically two versions of "What's the problem?" with the verb "seem" embedded therein.
> (1) What seems to be the problem?
> (2) What does the problem seem to be?
> 
> If, in a given context, we believe that either one of the modified sentences is closer in meaning to the original sentence, doesn't that modified sentence tell us what the grammatical subject is in the original sentence in that given context?
> 
> For example, if in a given context the speaker believes that (1) is closer in meaning to the original sentence than (2), the grammatical subject is "what" in that context. Similarly, if the speaker believes the other way around, then the grammatical subject is "the problem".


----------



## Loob

Benny, what do you see as the corresponding declarative sentence to* What's the problem? -* is it *John's the problem* or* The problem is John*?


----------



## boozer

Loob said:


> Benny, what do you see as the corresponding declarative sentence to* What's the problem? -* is it *John's the problem* or* The problem is John*?


  Back to square one. The subject is 'what. No, the subject is 'the problem'...


----------



## I./KG40_Razor

'What's the problem?' - 'The problem is what he will do next'
'what he will do next' is the predicative clause, so I assume, that 'What' is the predicative.



> the constituent label for the Wh- word in a question will mirror the  constituent label applied in the corresponding declarative sentence.


I think that is what I've just explained above


----------



## I./KG40_Razor

Loob said:


> Benny, what do you see as the corresponding declarative sentence to* What's the problem? -* is it *John's the problem* or* The problem is John*?





boozer said:


> Back to square one. The subject is 'what. No, the subject is 'the problem'...


Hmm, I haven't imagined those 2 possibilities. Now I doubt about my statement above and agree with you


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> I ask you the same question I asked Wandle,  do you have issues determining the subject in declarative sentences whose main verb is a form of 'to be.'?


Not at all, because the subject comes before the verb 'be', unless of course the declarative sentence has not been inverted. Then, the subject may come after the verb. For example, in "Never was I aware that I'd be typing a 109th post when I started this thread.", the subject "I" comes after the verb "was".

The problem with open interrogative sentences such as "What's the problem?" lies in the fact that there occurs an inversion only when the interrogative pronoun such as "what" is not the subject.


----------



## boozer

I./KG40_Razor said:


> Now I doubt about my statement above...


 Do not let that perturb you profoundly. The issue is such that everybody doubts everybody else's statements and their own.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> [...]The problem with the open interrogative sentences such as "What's the problem?" lies in the fact that there occurs an inversion only when the interrogative pronoun such as "what" is not the subject.


Hi JungKim.

You asked me earlier to point out if you used the definite article incorrectly.





JungKim said:


> Oh, I got it. Whenever I said "*the *attribute of the subject", I didn't mean that the subject had only one attribute in general, but I was referring to the specific attribute being mentioned in the sentence under discussion (e.g., the attribute of being an idiot).
> And if I'm not allowed to use "the" in that sense, please go ahead and let me know. That I'd appreciate very much.


  Perhaps I ought then to say that _The problem with the open interrogative sentences such as "What's the problem?" lies in the fact... _should, in my view, be _The problem with open interrogative sentences such as "What's the problem?" lies in the fact..._

I can see no justification for the definite article in your sentence.  I think you are talking about what some language teachers call 'open interrogative sentences' in general, not about some previously mentioned, and, therefore, specific 'open interrogative sentences'.

It's an illustration of what I was talking about earlier.


----------



## wandle

bennymix said:


> why not simply follow that principle, apparently suggested by Thomson & Martinet (in _Practical English Grammar_) as well as Quirk (p. 77, quoted above, my post #76**), that the constituent label for the Wh- word in a question will mirror the constituent label applied in the corresponding declarative sentence.


That is what I was doing implicitly in post 14 and explicitly in post 72. The problem, however, is that raised by *bearded man* in post 13 and by *forero* in post 96, namely, how do you deal with the the question 'What are you?' 

In posts 14 and 72, I tried to deal with it by saying that 'What' is the subject and the verb 'are' is second person by attraction to 'you'. However, *forero's* post 96  persuaded me that the declarative sentence which corresponds to the question 'What are you?' needs 'you' as the subject and 'are' as the verb.
Conclusion: 'you' is the subject in both the declarative and interrogative sentences (not but what another point has just occurred to me, though I have no time for it now).


----------



## JungKim

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi JungKim.
> 
> You asked me earlier to point out if you used the definite article incorrectly.  Perhaps I ought then to say that _The problem with the open interrogative sentences such as "What's the problem?" lies in the fact... _should, in my view, be _The problem with open interrogative sentences such as "What's the problem?" lies in the fact..._
> 
> I can see no justification for the definite article in your sentence.  I think you are talking about what some language teachers call 'open interrogative sentences' in general, not about some previously mentioned, and, therefore, specific 'open interrogative sentences'.
> 
> It's an illustration of what I was talking about earlier.


Thanks! This one's clearly a typo.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JungKim said:


> Thanks! This one's clearly a typo.


Of course.  Like the other one.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Loob,

I think one has to work from principles and definitions, systematically and rigorously.  For example establish what the subject of a sentence is.
It seems reasonable that there be mappings from declarative to interrogative forms (in other words that interrogative forms don't have a self contained and differing grammar).  There seem to be a couple mappings  of interrogative (with wh- words) and declarative,  such as "When is he coming?"  "He's coming at 3 pm."  So 'When' in the question, is adverbial, reasoning by a mirroring principle.   This seems to make more sense than treating the question as self contained with 'when' as the subject. (To a roomful of kids)  "Who is eager to go outside?"  One points to a friend  "He is eager to go outside" or refers to herself,  "I am eager to go outside."  So "who" is the subject in the question by mirroring, as it were.

I'm not in a position to deal with difficult or mushy examples without context--as in the OP.  Perhaps after reading more Halliday and others I will be. If there is no agreement, here, on simple cases, or even on the means to reach agreement, then there's little to be gained and much time to be lost debating the difficult cases.  In my opinion.  

====
Loob, post #105 in full:



Loob said:


> Benny, what do you see as the corresponding declarative sentence to* What's the problem? -* is it *John's the problem* or* The problem is John*?


----------



## Loob

bennymix said:


> ...
> I'm not in a position to deal with difficult or mushy examples without context--as in the OP.  ...


Ah, I see.  I had thought, from your repeated requests to others to draw a parallel with the corresponding declarative sentence, that you had a particular view of what that declarative sentence was.

For the moment, then, I'll stick with the position set out in my post 27.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Loob,
I think your method in that post is similar to that I favor.  Looking for 'corresponding' declarative sentences and using one's analysis of them as a framework.   Perhaps you are being a little more complicated than necessary, for, corresponding to "What's the time?"  is "The time is...."   Hence 'time' is the subject in the question.


----------



## srk

What's the time?  Three o'clock is the time.  The time is three o'clock.
What's the problem?  John is the problem.  The problem is John.

Those don't help me in identifying the the subject in the question.

What is most attractive to me about Loob's idea is that it does minimal violence to the original form.  Wandle's suggestion of replacing "what" with "that" is the next best for me, but it replaces the question entirely with a declaration, just as your's does, bennymix, and that's a big change.


----------



## Elwintee

Forgive me if this post is inappropriate, but we have now got to the 117th post, and no-one has (I think) asked the question as to why the question is being asked.  In inflected languages, where you have to decide which word should be the subject (in the nominative case) or the object (accusative), etc. then this is relevant.  In English I cannot see why it matters, or indeed if it is a reasonable question to ask.  I realise that I am probably being a grammatical ingnoramus, but does anyone think I have a point?


----------



## bennymix

That's a good question, Elwintree.  Markers incorporated into the words themselves, in declension and conjugation are few, and are on the run--for example in the current use of "I" for "me"--so scratch one 'case difference' for pronouns.

There are probably some reason for marking the subject in a declarative sentence, but I'm not sure if this applies to interrogative.   Perhaps it's just a stubborn insistence that "Every sentence has a subject [sometimes elided]" that's at work here.    For declarative, the subject is nice to know for "Tag question" purposes, but natives know it by practice.  "John gave her the ring, didn't he?"   Obviously for the question "Who gave her the ring?" one can't need a tag.

Native writers and speakers probably don't think of rules and are not even internally guided by memories of a stock of rules.   Some rules are handy for explaining to children and learners, but present-day US kids (and many in the past, unschooled) still learn to speak and write reasonably well, if not spectacularly well.  And even the creators of literature don't, I think, consult rules much.   I have trouble thinking of Rimbaud calling to mind actual grammar rules while writing, though obviously he was schooled**.    So maybe there's no point except the usual 'describe and classify' compulsion we humans have.   Your question, then, may not be much different from,  "What's the use of ornithology?   Has it done birds any good?  Us any good?"

===
**Very well schooled, indeed.  Yet my point, above, still holds.   In his youth he was extensively exposed to grammar and its rules.  Notes Wiki:



> She {His mother} would punish her sons by making them learn a hundred lines of Latin verse by heart, and further punish any mistakes by depriving them of meals.[22] When Rimbaud was nine, he wrote a 700-word essay objecting to his having to learn Latin in school.  …Father Ariste Lhéritier succeeded in sparking in the young scholar {of 8 or 9} a love of Greek, Latin and French classical literature, and was the first to encourage the boy to write original verse, in both French and Latin.[31]


===========


Elwintee said:


> Forgive me if this post is inappropriate, but we have now got to the 117th post, and no-one has (I think) asked the question as to why the question is being asked.  In inflected languages, where you have to decide which word should be the subject (in the nominative case) or the object (accusative), etc. then this is relevant.  In English I cannot see why it matters, or indeed if it is a reasonable question to ask.  I realise that I am probably being a grammatical ingnoramus, but does anyone think I have a point?


----------



## EStjarn

Hello JungKim,

Your title has "grammatical subject" in brackets. I think this discussion would benefit from a clarification on your part of what you mean exactly by that term, especially in relation to its counterpart, "logical subject."

I notice you're using "grammatical subject" in post #103:


JungKim said:


> If, in a given context, we believe that either one of the modified sentences is closer in meaning to the original sentence, doesn't that modified sentence tell us what the grammatical subject is in the original sentence in that given context?



I had thought that the process of identifying the logical subject was heavily dependent on semantics, but that that of identifying the grammatical subject was not, having more to do with position than semantics.


----------

