McTag wrote: Clary wrote:
To loose, McT, I would say is now more literary or poetic than archaic - like you.
I thought for a moment you meant to say "more literary or poetic- like you" but no.
But YES! Forgivve my ungainly English...
That pair of sentences was used to illustrate Chomsky's 'transformational grammar' which looks at the 'deep' grammar underpinning the apparent classification.
That pair look the same but as Letty says, one is passive and one active, so to say
John - subject, easy/eager to please - predicate which is how we tended in the days of grammar lessons to parse it, we should be looking at the real subject (John in the eager sentence, and 'one', an undefined subject in the easy sentence which can be turned round into 'One can please John easily'.
God I'm getting lost in all this, but it's to do with words looking the same, but not being. In Walter's sentence, of course, it is purely superficial that flies noun is the same as flies verb, and that like has two distinct meanings. But we do get trapped in superficialities!
Just thought it would be a bit of fun really.....
Letty, I find this a most refreshing way to banish those early morning or late night blues. Thanks for noticing!