Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:08:28 -0500 From: "Peter L. Patrick" Subject: For-To again I'm not sure what the original interest in these was-- location of "for to" constructions regionally or ethnically, I suppose, for which E. W. Gilman is certainly right to point us to DARE and other published sources. But as I hazily recall my syntax courses of a decade ago, the non-acceptability of "for to" (or "for __ to", as they would have it) constructions in standard English was important evidence motivating the distinction between S and S' complement clauses, and restrictions on the occurrence of "big PRO". (This was in the days of Chomsky and Lasnik '77 and filter theory, and I have no idea what the current view is.) So far as I know, though Chomskyan syntax recognized that "for to" occurred in non-standard dialects, the consequences of these dialects for the organization of grammar were not explored. More to the point of this list, I don't know of a source for exploring the regional distribution of such syntactic constructions in a systematic way-- a syntactic atlas of English dialects. Those with dictionary entries can be traced through dictionaries, but what does one do with more abstract items? Any suggestions? Sure there are a few articles here and there, and Trudgill edited a book on regional syntax a few years ago; and I've heard of an Italian syntactic atlas, I believe; but what about our own much-examined language? Has the opposition between traditional dialectology and generative syntax prevented the emergence of such reference works? --plp