The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

put forward is that a reanalysis took place in the (for) NP to V construction,in such a way that for came to be analysed as a complementizer rather than apreposition. The idea that word order changes must have played a crucial rolein this was first sparked off by the awareness that Dutch and German, both ofwhich have firmly retained the OV word order patterns also occurring in OldEnglish, did not undergo any reanalysis of this type.Thus, consider the following sentence type, which is acceptable in Englishand German/Dutch:(4) a. It is bad for you to smoke.b. Es ist ungesund für dich zu rauchen.c. Het is slecht voor je om te roken.Here the phrase for you/für dich/voor je functions as a prepositional phrasewhich receives its thematic role from the adjectival matrix predicate is bad/istungesund/is slecht. In other words, the structure of (4a–c) would be as in (4).(4)[ APbad/ungesund/slecht [ PPfor you/für dich/voor je]] [ CPPRO to smoke/zurauchen/om te roken]Sentences like (5), however, only occur in English.(5) a. It is intolerable for John to get away with this.b. *Es ist inakzeptabel für Johann ungeschoren davon zu kommen.c. *Het is onverdraaglijk voor Jan om hieronder uit te kunnen komen.In (5a) for cannot be interpreted as a preposition because the lexical entry ofintolerable does not allow for a benefactive role, i.e. for John cannot be accountedfor in the same way as in (4). Rather, the NP John functions as the subject of theinfinitival clause, and the structure of (5a) would be as given in (5).(5)[ APintolerable] [ CPfor [ IPJohn to get away with this]]In German and Dutch a dass/dat-clause as in (5b,c) would be necessary toexpress the same meaning since, unlike for, the prepositions für and voor didnot develop into complementizers.(5)b. Es ist inakzeptabel, dass Johann ungeschoren davon kommt.c. Het is onverdraaglijk dat Jan hieronder uit zou kunnen komen.Notice that for in English still allows both the benefactive reading and thecomplementizer reading. An example combining the two different readings isgiven in (6).(6) It is bad for the baby for you to smoke.Changes in infinitival constructions 215Here, the benefactive role is pre-empted by the prepositional phrase for thebaby, so that the sequence for you can only be interpreted as consisting of acomplementizer (for) followed by the subject (you) of the embedded clause.