Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 22, 2016 at 16:13 vote accept KItis
Nov 22, 2016 at 15:34 history edited tchrist CC BY-SA 3.0
Added parse.
Nov 22, 2016 at 15:22 history edited tchrist CC BY-SA 3.0
Added parse.
Nov 22, 2016 at 15:17 history edited tchrist CC BY-SA 3.0
Added parse.
Nov 22, 2016 at 14:59 comment added Edwin Ashworth 'Extra-grammatical' is not 'ungrammatical'. However, Quirk & Svartvik did postulate a five-point 'acceptability' scale.
Nov 22, 2016 at 14:55 comment added tchrist When linguists find a grammatical construction in common use, they do not pass approval or disapproval of it. That isn’t their job. Rather, they explain how its grammar behaves. Feel free to ask Lawler.
Nov 22, 2016 at 14:53 comment added Edwin Ashworth I'd say it's extra-grammatical, but (I'm estimating from the number of Google hits, and experience) not unacceptable.
Nov 22, 2016 at 14:51 comment added tchrist @EdwinAshworth We do not know the testing context in which the sentence occurred. The poster asked for help analysing its grammar. Have you another parse in mind? Just read causes of as reasons for; the grammar is identical.
Nov 22, 2016 at 14:50 comment added Edwin Ashworth Logically, it's the [people's] not doing physical activities that is caused. As I said in the comment earlier, the POSS-ing structure would seem more fidelitous. It could be that the (apparently idiomatic) mismatch of the use of the ACC-ing is what is worrying OP.
Nov 22, 2016 at 14:47 comment added tchrist @EdwinAshworth I don’t understand: what can you “not accept” here? Are you simply saying you dislike the sentence?
Nov 22, 2016 at 14:46 history edited tchrist CC BY-SA 3.0
added 126 characters in body
Nov 22, 2016 at 14:46 comment added Edwin Ashworth I can't accept this. 'People not doing physical activities' are not caused.
Nov 22, 2016 at 14:36 history answered tchrist CC BY-SA 3.0