Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 2002. Vol. 3. Eger Journal of English Studies.(Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 29)

Csaba Ceglédi: On the Constituent Structure of Infinitives and Gerunds in English

INFINITIVES AND GERUNDS IN ENGLISII 83 (24) a. That Gödel proved the continuum hypothesis was his greatest achievement. b. For Gödel to prove the continuum hypothesis would have been his greatest achievement. c. To prove the continuum hypothesis would have been Gödel's greatest achievement. (Cf. Köster and May 1982:129-30.) d. (Gödel) proving the continuum hypothesis was a great achievement. 2.8 Complementizers in Dutch Assuming that only embedded clauses but not phrases may be introduced by complementizers, the presence of a complementizer may be taken as evidence that the constituent it precedes is a clause. Dutch om, like English for

; is not a singular category but a phonological entity that corresponds to two different grammatical categories: preposition and complementizer. The former may take an NP complement, the latter introduces a clause. The parallel between the complementizers for and om introducing infinitival complements extends to both being optional (in certain dialects of the respective languages (cf. Köster and May 1982, and Chomsky and Lasnik 1977). (25) a. Would you like for Agnes to reply? b. Would you like Agnes to reply? (26) a. John probeerde om het boek te lezen. John tried C the book to read 'John tried to read the book' b. John probeerde — het boek te lezen. 'John tried to read the book' Assuming that complementizers but not prepositions may be optional (cf. Chomsky and Lasnik 1977), the absence of for and om in the respective examples is evidence to their status as complementizers (as opposed to prepositions),

2 and the presence of these complementizers in 2 For additional empirical evidence that the preposition om is distinct from its complementizer homonym in Dutch see Köster and May 1982.