Talk:Movement paradox

Relative clause as noun equivalent

I know that a relative clause can function as the object of a preposition ("[that she wasted paper] displeased me"), but "we talked about [that he was sick] for days" doesn't sound any more or less natural than "[that he was sick] we talked about for days." Both of them sound fishy and unnatural. Is there a more natural example that could go there instead?

Aren't I

I have removed the following:

A more striking example of a movement paradox can be found in English morphology:

*I aren't allowed to do that

Aren't I allowed to do that?

In a transformational analysis, the question is formed by the movement of aren't to the front of the sentence, which does not explain why aren't is acceptable (in some dialects) as a contraction of am not only after movement. The problem may be alleviated if one assumes that morphological processes apply after movement, but this raises a further problem:

*Am not I allowed to do that?

If morphological processes applied after movement then the sentence above would presumably be the one from which "Aren't I allowed to do that" would derive, but it is clearly ungrammatical.

Since "aren't/amn't/ain't I" is a sui generis anomaly, I don't see the value of using it to illustrate a general point. jnestorius^(talk) 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. I think "aren't I" is anomalous precisely because "I aren't" isn't possible in standard English. Why do you think it's an anomaly of its own kind? -- UKoch (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to view this as a irregularity in the use of the particular verb. It is encapsulated and recognised explicitly in: I am, aren't I? 78.33.185.122 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)