promise + INF

[linguoboy]

Today I started to write:

• I promised my better half to pick up some bread...

and swiftly changed that to:

• I promised my better half I'd pick up some bread...

The first version shouldn't be ambiguous in context, but sounds quite awkward. I guess there's a rule in English to take the nearest NP as the subject of a dependent infinitive clause? Anyone have any good counterexamples? What about examples with a potential agent in a PP?

[Legion]

Today I started to write:

• I promised my better half to pick up some bread...

and swiftly changed that to:

• I promised my better half I'd pick up some bread...

The first version shouldn't be ambiguous in context, but sounds quite awkward. I guess there's a rule in English to take the nearest NP as the subject of a dependent infinitive clause? Anyone have any good counterexamples? What about examples with a potential agent in a PP?

Today I started to write:

• I promised my better half to pick up sme bread...

I promised my better half to pick up sme bread...

I promised my better half

my better half

God, first you're on facebook, and now this?

[Pthagnar]

i am sure he has also used the word "hubby" in the past and if he hasn't, he will soon and if he doesn't soon then it is the sort of thing he would do

[linguoboy]

i am sure he has also used the word "hubby" in the past and if he hasn't, he will soon and if he doesn't soon then it is the sort of thing he would do

Calling my husbear "hubby"? How heteronormative!

[spats]

Today I started to write:

• I promised my better half to pick up some bread...

and swiftly changed that to:

• I promised my better half I'd pick up some bread...

The first version shouldn't be ambiguous in context, but sounds quite awkward. I guess there's a rule in English to take the nearest NP as the subject of a dependent infinitive clause? Anyone have any good counterexamples? What about examples with a potential agent in a PP?

I think it's more of a case of having two different, closely related usages of "to promise".

One is promising a future action. The general form is ditransitive: Person X promises person Y [that] action Z will be performed. Examples: "I promised Kim that I would pay her back next week." "I promise to wash the car." (The recipient in the second example is implied from context.)

The other is promising a thing. The general form is ditransitive, but usually puts the dative argument in a "to" phrase: Person X promises thing Y to person/purpose Z. Examples: "I promised him the first signed copy of my new book." "I promised my firstborn daughter to the Faerie Queen."

The ambiguity comes in that the first usage allows you to use an infinitive phrase in place of the "[that]" subordinate clause, as long as the subjects of both clauses would have been the same. This works fine and is unambiguous when the recipient is omitted - example: "I promise to bring it back tomorrow."

When the recipient is not omitted, there are two competing readings:
X promises Y [to do some action] (first usage)
X promises Y to [some action/purpose] (second usage)

So the sentence: "I promised my spouse to pick up some bread" can be read:
I (subject) promised my spouse (recipient) [that] I (implied) would pick up some bread (object)
I (subject) promised my spouse (object) to [the purpose/task of] picking up some bread (recipient)

Even though we probably would never intentionally use the second reading in normal conversation, it's still a competing reading in terms of parsing the sentence, which is why it feels awkward and/or looks wrong.

[Gulliver]

Calling my husbear "hubby"? How heteronormative!

I prefer "manwife".

[Wattmann]

Calling my husbear "hubby"? How heteronormative!

I prefer "manwife".

That's redundant.

Call him "werewife", it's even more redundant and far more attractive sounding!

[Torco]

I get the feeling it's more a pragmatics thing: I often see the verb 'promise' used more with relative clauses, and not so much with... is direct objects the word? the kind of constructions behind "I'm going to kill you".

[Travis B.]

To me at least, the form X promised Y to Z where Y is someone being promised to and Z is a verb being promised simply sounds ungrammatical; this pattern is only grammatical to me if Z is someone being promised to and Y is something being promised to them. Putting an infintiive after to is only grammatical to me if the pattern is X promised to Z, without the Y argument. To me, to make this pattern grammatical, you have to use the pattern X promised Y (that) X would Z, which sounds cumbersome but which I cannot find anything better or more succinct for.

[zompist]

Today I started to write:

• I promised my better half to pick up some bread...

and swiftly changed that to:

• I promised my better half I'd pick up some bread...

The first version shouldn't be ambiguous in context, but sounds quite awkward. I guess there's a rule in English to take the nearest NP as the subject of a dependent infinitive clause? Anyone have any good counterexamples? What about examples with a potential agent in a PP?

I'm not seeing the ambiguity, or anything wrong with the first sentence.

But curiously most verbs using the same surface form have a very different interpretation, where the husbear is the subject:

I told my better half to pick up some bread.

Also in this category: invited, ordered, advised, forced, nagged, wanted, texted, warned, dared, inspired, goaded...

Offhand I can't think of a verb besides "promise" that makes LB the subject, not even near-synonyms like "pledge".

[installer_swan]

Today I started to write:

• I promised my better half to pick up some bread...

and swiftly changed that to:

• I promised my better half I'd pick up some bread...

The first version shouldn't be ambiguous in context, but sounds quite awkward. I guess there's a rule in English to take the nearest NP as the subject of a dependent infinitive clause? Anyone have any good counterexamples? What about examples with a potential agent in a PP?

I'm not seeing the ambiguity, or anything wrong with the first sentence.

But curiously most verbs using the same surface form have a very different interpretation, where the husbear is the subject:

I told my better half to pick up some bread.

Also in this category: invited, ordered, advised, forced, nagged, wanted, texted, warned, dared, inspired, goaded...

Offhand I can't think of a verb besides "promise" that makes LB the subject, not even near-synonyms like "pledge".

The misreading I can think of for the first sentense is: I promised my better half [to the slavers], [in order] to pick up some bread.

[clawgrip]

Today I started to write:

• I promised my better half to pick up some bread...

and swiftly changed that to:

• I promised my better half I'd pick up some bread...

The first version shouldn't be ambiguous in context, but sounds quite awkward. I guess there's a rule in English to take the nearest NP as the subject of a dependent infinitive clause? Anyone have any good counterexamples? What about examples with a potential agent in a PP?

I'm not seeing the ambiguity, or anything wrong with the first sentence.

But curiously most verbs using the same surface form have a very different interpretation, where the husbear is the subject:

I told my better half to pick up some bread.

Also in this category: invited, ordered, advised, forced, nagged, wanted, texted, warned, dared, inspired, goaded...

Offhand I can't think of a verb besides "promise" that makes LB the subject, not even near-synonyms like "pledge".

The misreading I can think of for the first sentense is: I promised my better half [to the slavers], [in order] to pick up some bread.

I'm pretty sure this is the reason. Grammatically, it seems to carry the meaning above, i.e. promising you will hand this person over to someone else in order to accomplish a goal. Even though we can of course apply logic and reason to understand the true meaning, we recognize the grammatical incongruity, and that's why it sounds awkward. However, because we almost never make promises to anyone/anything that we also have the ability to promise away to someone else means that there is basically never any overlap or ambiguity, so we can easily find people using it.