Martha McGinnis: "light" verbs in English (reply to Carson Schutze)

[Martha McGinnis]

>The idea for getting Martha's contrasts
>would then be that finite 'be', because it's finite, can raise higher than any
>nonfinite 'be' (participial or infinitival), or to put it the other way
>'round, in Martha's (c) sentences the modal is filling up the position to
>which finite 'be' would have raised, hence even if it is inserted for the same
>reason, it cannot wind up as high. (This will require having another head
>position around, I think.)

Hmm...  Carson snipped the last few lines of my message:

>(1) a.	She has probably prepared her lectures.
>     b. She will probably have prepared her lectures.
>     c.?*She will have probably prepared her lectures.
>
>(2) a.	She is probably preparing her lectures.
>     b. She will probably be preparing her lectures.
>     c.?*She will be probably preparing her lectures.
>
>A similar contrast arises if you replace "probably" with "not", which
>allows a sentential negation reading for the (a) and (b) examples,
>but not for the (c) examples, which get a VP-negation reading.

If the interpretive contrast with 'not' is genuine (it seems so to
me), then an analysis that involves raising of finite 'be'/'have' in
(1a) and (2a) means that once again we have (only) auxiliaries
raising past Neg.

Cheers,
Martha