Hi Paul,

It seems tricky; but very interesting. There are chances to let a coordinator intervene a catenative verb and its complement (usually, a bare infinitive), as seen in “I can’t go and watch that movie.” Removal of the coordinator would make it clear that the bare infinitive “watch” is a complement of the catenative “go” in this sentence (cf. “I can’t go watch that movie”). Note that an explicit object (that movie) of the complement is somewhat obligatory in this instance.

It’s possible to form a sentence in such a way (catenative & its complement with a coordinator intervention). The normal syntactic analysis, however, would be slightly different. Generally, it’s analysed as a mere coordination of two finite verbs (intransitive “go” + transitive “watch”) that are connected with the negative modal auxiliary “can’t”. We can, though we don’t normally, think of them as catenative and its complement too.

Your explanation also works in a similar manner and is encouraging to think otherwise. You’ve just shown a different way (tricky, of course) to analyse such sentences.

A noun intervening a catenative & its complement is very interesting. I should really thank you to introduce the 'complex catenative’ construction. We’ve seen so many examples of catenative verbs and their different forms of non-finite verbal complements, but I really couldn’t come across such a scenario where an NP intervening between them while playing two different roles: syntactic object of the catenative verb and semantic subject of the catenative’s complement — which is a subordinate clause comprising a single word. Isn’t it cool!

This is helpful stuff!

Thanks.

Ah, you misunderstood my reply!

A coordinator cannot intervene in a complex catenative construction. A catenative construction involves one or more non-finite verbs forming a chain. Sometimes there is an intervening noun between two of the verbs, in which case it's called a complex catenative construction. Here are some more examples, but note that I have used bare infinitivals, to-infinitivals and participials since they both kinds occur in the catenative construction:

Simple Catenative (no intervening noun)

(1) I promised to read the report.
(2) Max regrets locking the door.
(3) Pat got nominated for treasurer.

Complex Catenative (with intervening noun)

(4) We persuaded Sue to read the report.
(5) We helped Kim move the furniture.
(6) I remember Ed locking the door.

The catenative analysis is not an alternative one, it's not a choice. If the subordinate clause is non-finite and it follows a catenative verb, then it's always a catenative construction. If the clause is finite then it is never a catenative construction. Consider:

(7) I can’t go and watch that movie. (Your example, not catenative)
(8) I want to watch that movie. (simple catenative)
(9) I want Kim to come with me. (complex catenative)

Your example (7) is not catenative; it a coordination of two verb phrases linked with a coordinator. But in (8) the non-finite clause "to watch that movie" is a simple catenative complement of the catenative verb "want". And in (9) the non-finite clause "to come with me" is a catenative complement of "want". The intervening noun "Kim" is syntactic object of the matrix verb "want" and semantic subject of "come" in the subordinate catenative clause.

Essentially, catenatives occur only with non-finite verbs where there is no coordination and only when the verbs are back-to-back except for a possible intervening object as in the examples (4)-(6)and (9 .


PaulM

Hi Paul,

I'm sorry for being idle. This is really a great help. There was a terrible mix-up over coordinator intervention and NP intervention in my understanding. I was really lucky to make that mistake, though.

See, had it not been the case, I would have missed your further comprehensive explanation.

Thank you very much, my friend.