1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
she deems necessary to making a recommendation
to the court.

The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
I am binge watching).

Source:
https://subslikescript.com/series/Big_Little_Lies-3920596/season-2/episode-5-Kill_Me

I understand what the sentence is supposed to mean, but I
have a problem with it, specifically with the phrase: "anybody
and everybody he or she deems necessary to making a
recommendation to the court".

The person is not necessary to making a recommendation to the
court. Interviewing that person is necessary to making a 
recommendation to the court. But the sentence seems to be saying
the former.

Would you agree with that?

2) He or she will interview anybody and everybody he or
she deems necessary to making a recommendation
to the court.

Here, the person is deemed necessary to making a recommendation
to the court. But actually it is interviewing that person that is necessary..

I think it should be

"... anybody and everybody he or she deems necessary
to interview in order to make a recommendation
to the court."

Would you agree?

I am aware that I might be wrong.
Even if I am not, I might be nitpicking.

The sentence is not by me though.

--
Gratefully,
Navi

Moving about awkwardly and cautiously in the Twilight Zone
of the English language
Interested in structures on the margins of grammaticality
Obsessed with ambiguity

Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 08:32:13 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> to the court.
>
> The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
> I am binge watching).
>
> Source:
> https://subslikescript.com/series/Big_Little_Lies-3920596/season-2/episode-5-Kill_Me
>
> I understand what the sentence is supposed to mean, but I
> have a problem with it, specifically with the phrase: "anybody
> and everybody he or she deems necessary to making a
> recommendation to the court".
>
> The person is not necessary to making a recommendation to the
> court. Interviewing that person is necessary to making a
> recommendation to the court. But the sentence seems to be saying
> the former.

IMO, the original sentence is OK and shoud be parsed as:

He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
she deems necessary to [do so] [when] making a
recommendation to the court.

Where "interview" is elliptical as in e.g. "They could interview

>
> Would you agree with that?
>
> 2) He or she will interview anybody and everybody he or
> she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> to the court.
>
> Here, the person is deemed necessary to making a recommendation
> to the court. But actually it is interviewing that person that is necessary.
>
> I think it should be
>
> "... anybody and everybody he or she deems necessary
> to interview in order to make a recommendation
> to the court."

Yes, but it's exactly what the original sentence says. It should be
parsed as:

He or she will interview the parties, the children, your associates, your friends,
anybody and everybody he or she deems necessary to [where "interview the
parties" is elliptical] + [when, in, for] making a recommendation to the court.

I.e. there's no "necessary to making" as you suggest in "Here, the person is deemed
necessary to making a recommendation to the court".

>
> Would you agree?
>
> I am aware that I might be wrong.
> Even if I am not, I might be nitpicking.
>
> The sentence is not by me though.
>
> --
> Gratefully,
> Navi
>
> Moving about awkwardly and cautiously in the Twilight Zone
> of the English language
> Interested in structures on the margins of grammaticality
> Obsessed with ambiguity

Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 09:02:13 UTC+2, Bebercito a écrit :
> Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 08:32:13 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> > 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > to the court.
> >
> > The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
> > I am binge watching).
> >
> > Source:
> > https://subslikescript.com/series/Big_Little_Lies-3920596/season-2/episode-5-Kill_Me
> >
> > I understand what the sentence is supposed to mean, but I
> > have a problem with it, specifically with the phrase: "anybody
> > and everybody he or she deems necessary to making a
> > recommendation to the court".
> >
> > The person is not necessary to making a recommendation to the
> > court. Interviewing that person is necessary to making a
> > recommendation to the court. But the sentence seems to be saying
> > the former.

> IMO, the original sentence is OK and shoud be parsed as:
> He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> she deems necessary to [do so] [when] making a
> recommendation to the court.
>
> Where "interview" is elliptical as in e.g. "They could interview

Sorry, I just realized I forgot to remove the above passage from my
previous post. Please ignore the passage.

> >
> > Would you agree with that?
> >
> > 2) He or she will interview anybody and everybody he or
> > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > to the court.
> >
> > Here, the person is deemed necessary to making a recommendation
> > to the court. But actually it is interviewing that person that is necessary.
> >
> > I think it should be
> >
> > "... anybody and everybody he or she deems necessary
> > to interview in order to make a recommendation
> > to the court."
> Yes, but it's exactly what the original sentence says. It should be
> parsed as:
> He or she will interview the parties, the children, your associates, your friends,
> anybody and everybody he or she deems necessary to [where "interview the
> parties" is elliptical] + [when, in, for] making a recommendation to the court.
>
> I.e. there's no "necessary to making" as you suggest in "Here, the person is deemed
> necessary to making a recommendation to the court".

(The above is the only passage I intended to send in the post.)

>
> >
> > Would you agree?
> >
> > I am aware that I might be wrong.
> > Even if I am not, I might be nitpicking.
> >
> > The sentence is not by me though.
> >
> > --
> > Gratefully,
> > Navi
> >
> > Moving about awkwardly and cautiously in the Twilight Zone
> > of the English language
> > Interested in structures on the margins of grammaticality
> > Obsessed with ambiguity

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:

> 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> to the court.
>
> The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
> I am binge watching).

You cannot expect idiomatic spoken English to obey the "rules"
of Formal Written English. From the couple of excerpts you have
provided so far, it looks like that program is on an Elmore Leonard
level of realistic dialogue.

(It was said that page after page of Leonard's novels could be
transferred to the screen without alteration. How different it was
when Raymond Chandler wrote somewhat apologetically to James
M. Cain that in writing the screenplay for *Double Indemnity* he
and Billy Wilder had to jettison most of the story's original dialog,
because it didn't work on-screen.)

Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 15:14:38 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
>
> > 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > to the court.
> >
> > The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
> > I am binge watching).
> You cannot expect idiomatic spoken English to obey the "rules"
> of Formal Written English.

But no such "rules" have been infringed in the sentence discussed.
The issue was just with the parsing.

> From the couple of excerpts you have
> provided so far, it looks like that program is on an Elmore Leonard
> level of realistic dialogue.
>
> (It was said that page after page of Leonard's novels could be
> transferred to the screen without alteration. How different it was
> when Raymond Chandler wrote somewhat apologetically to James
> M. Cain that in writing the screenplay for *Double Indemnity* he
> and Billy Wilder had to jettison most of the story's original dialog,
> because it didn't work on-screen.)

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:28:39 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 15:14:38 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:

> > > 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > > to the court.
> > >
> > > The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
> > > I am binge watching).
> > You cannot expect idiomatic spoken English to obey the "rules"
> > of Formal Written English.
>
> But no such "rules" have been infringed in the sentence discussed.
> The issue was just with the parsing.

I deleted arthur-Navi's comments because they were misguided.
You seem to be referring to them without citing them.

> > From the couple of excerpts you have
> > provided so far, it looks like that program is on an Elmore Leonard
> > level of realistic dialogue.
> >
> > (It was said that page after page of Leonard's novels could be
> > transferred to the screen without alteration. How different it was
> > when Raymond Chandler wrote somewhat apologetically to James
> > M. Cain that in writing the screenplay for *Double Indemnity* he
> > and Billy Wilder had to jettison most of the story's original dialog,
> > because it didn't work on-screen.)

Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 21:42:37 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:28:39 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 15:14:38 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
>
> > > > 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > > > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > > > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > > > to the court.
> > > >
> > > > The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
> > > > I am binge watching).
> > > You cannot expect idiomatic spoken English to obey the "rules"
> > > of Formal Written English.
> >
> > But no such "rules" have been infringed in the sentence discussed.
> > The issue was just with the parsing.
> I deleted arthur-Navi's comments because they were misguided.
> You seem to be referring to them without citing them.

Just read my post to him, where my point is fully explained.

> > > From the couple of excerpts you have
> > > provided so far, it looks like that program is on an Elmore Leonard
> > > level of realistic dialogue.
> > >
> > > (It was said that page after page of Leonard's novels could be
> > > transferred to the screen without alteration. How different it was
> > > when Raymond Chandler wrote somewhat apologetically to James
> > > M. Cain that in writing the screenplay for *Double Indemnity* he
> > > and Billy Wilder had to jettison most of the story's original dialog,
> > > because it didn't work on-screen.)

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:09:24 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 21:42:37 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:28:39 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 15:14:38 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> >
> > > > > 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > > > > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > > > > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > > > > to the court.
> > > > >
> > > > > The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
> > > > > I am binge watching).
> > > > You cannot expect idiomatic spoken English to obey the "rules"
> > > > of Formal Written English.
> > >
> > > But no such "rules" have been infringed in the sentence discussed.
> > > The issue was just with the parsing.
> > I deleted arthur-Navi's comments because they were misguided.
> > You seem to be referring to them without citing them.
> Just read my post to him, where my point is fully explained.

But it is irrelevant, because you try to apply Formal Written English
grammar to a passage that isn't intended to be Formal Written English.

> > > > From the couple of excerpts you have
> > > > provided so far, it looks like that program is on an Elmore Leonard
> > > > level of realistic dialogue.
> > > >
> > > > (It was said that page after page of Leonard's novels could be
> > > > transferred to the screen without alteration. How different it was
> > > > when Raymond Chandler wrote somewhat apologetically to James
> > > > M. Cain that in writing the screenplay for *Double Indemnity* he
> > > > and Billy Wilder had to jettison most of the story's original dialog,
> > > > because it didn't work on-screen.)

On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 10:14:35 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mardi 3 octobre 2023 à 15:12:03 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:09:24 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 21:42:37 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:28:39 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 15:14:38 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > > > > > > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > > > > > > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > > > > > > to the court.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
> > > > > > > I am binge watching).
> > > > > > You cannot expect idiomatic spoken English to obey the "rules"
> > > > > > of Formal Written English.
> > > > >
> > > > > But no such "rules" have been infringed in the sentence discussed..
> > > > > The issue was just with the parsing.
> > > > I deleted arthur-Navi's comments because they were misguided.
> > > > You seem to be referring to them without citing them.
> > > Just read my post to him, where my point is fully explained.
> > But it is irrelevant, because you try to apply Formal Written English
> > grammar to a passage that isn't intended to be Formal Written English.
>
> No, all I'm saying is that nothing in the sentence discussed runs counter to
> Formal Written English, with the implication of "let alone idiomatic spoken
> English, which is far less rigorous".

It is jut as rigorous, only different.

For the mot part, its grammar has been described only in tiny fragments,.
because acauiring data is so difficult.

C. C. Fries in the 1930s tried to describe it by taking as his corpus letters
written to President Roosevelt by uneducated rural people who wrote to
the government for help or because he touched them with his radio addresses..

This is a remarkably incompetent article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carpenter_Fries

The relevant titles are *American English Grammar* (1940) and *The Structure
of English* (1952).

Le mardi 3 octobre 2023 à 18:47:26 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 10:14:35 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mardi 3 octobre 2023 à 15:12:03 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:09:24 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 21:42:37 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:28:39 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > > Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 15:14:38 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:32:13 AM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > > > > > > > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > > > > > > > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > > > > > > > to the court.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies (which
> > > > > > > > I am binge watching).
> > > > > > > You cannot expect idiomatic spoken English to obey the "rules"
> > > > > > > of Formal Written English.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But no such "rules" have been infringed in the sentence discussed.
> > > > > > The issue was just with the parsing.
> > > > > I deleted arthur-Navi's comments because they were misguided.
> > > > > You seem to be referring to them without citing them.
> > > > Just read my post to him, where my point is fully explained.
> > > But it is irrelevant, because you try to apply Formal Written English
> > > grammar to a passage that isn't intended to be Formal Written English..
> >
> > No, all I'm saying is that nothing in the sentence discussed runs counter to
> > Formal Written English, with the implication of "let alone idiomatic spoken
> > English, which is far less rigorous".
> It is jut as rigorous, only different.
>
> For the mot part, its grammar has been described only in tiny fragments,.
> because acauiring data is so difficult.
>
> C. C. Fries in the 1930s tried to describe it by taking as his corpus letters
> written to President Roosevelt by uneducated rural people who wrote to
> the government for help or because he touched them with his radio addresses.
>
> This is a remarkably incompetent article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carpenter_Fries
>
> The relevant titles are *American English Grammar* (1940) and *The Structure
> of English* (1952).
Interesting, thanks, but in the case at hand, the issue was with a misparsed
elliptical to-construction, which (if I'm not mistaken) is run-of-the-mill and
common to all registers of English.

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:02:13 AM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 08:32:13 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> > 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > to the court.
> >
> > The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies

> IMO, the original sentence is OK and shoud be parsed as:
> He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> she deems necessary to [do so] [when] making a
> recommendation to the court.
>
> Where "interview" is elliptical as in e.g. "They could interview
?
> >
> > 2) He or she will interview anybody and everybody he or
> > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > to the court.
> >
> > Here, the person is deemed necessary to making a recommendation
> > to the court. But actually it is interviewing that person that is necessary.
> >
> > I think it should be
> >
> > "... anybody and everybody he or she deems necessary
> > to interview in order to make a recommendation
> > to the court."
> Yes, but it's exactly what the original sentence says. It should be
> parsed as:
> He or she will interview the parties, the children, your associates, your friends,
> anybody and everybody he or she deems necessary to [where "interview the
> parties" is elliptical] + [when, in, for] making a recommendation to the court.
>
> I.e. there's no "necessary to making" as you suggest in "Here, the person is deemed
> necessary to making a recommendation to the court".
>

Thank you both very much,

Berbecito, your reading is very interesting. I think 'necessary to making a
recommendation' is a unit though. I heard the sentence and that is the
impression I had. In speech, most probably one would not add, 'making
a recommendation' instead of 'when making a recommendation'. And
even saying that might be a bit off because the interviews are carried out
before making the recommendation. That said, the speaker might have
had the whole process of coming up and making a recommendation in mind.
So your reading works, as far as I can see. However, when I heard the sentence
I thought 'necessary to making a recommendation' was a unit. I might be wrong.

Having heard the sentence, I think that Peter's explanation is sound. But your
input was very useful and interesting. I hadn't thought of parsing it like that.

--
Respectfully,
Navi

Seeing things and hearing things in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Interested in sentences on the margins of grammaticality
Obsessed with ambiguity

Le mercredi 4 octobre 2023 à 00:16:59 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:02:13 AM UTC-7, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le lundi 2 octobre 2023 à 08:32:13 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> > > 1) He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > > to the court.
> > >
> > > The sentence is from the TV series Big Little Lies
> > IMO, the original sentence is OK and shoud be parsed as:
> > He or she will interview the parties, the children, your
> > associates, your friends, anybody and everybody he or
> > she deems necessary to [do so] [when] making a
> > recommendation to the court.
> >
> > Where "interview" is elliptical as in e.g. "They could interview
> ?
> > >
> > > 2) He or she will interview anybody and everybody he or
> > > she deems necessary to making a recommendation
> > > to the court.
> > >
> > > Here, the person is deemed necessary to making a recommendation
> > > to the court. But actually it is interviewing that person that is necessary.
> > >
> > > I think it should be
> > >
> > > "... anybody and everybody he or she deems necessary
> > > to interview in order to make a recommendation
> > > to the court."
> > Yes, but it's exactly what the original sentence says. It should be
> > parsed as:
> > He or she will interview the parties, the children, your associates, your friends,
> > anybody and everybody he or she deems necessary to [where "interview the
> > parties" is elliptical] + [when, in, for] making a recommendation to the court.
> >
> > I.e. there's no "necessary to making" as you suggest in "Here, the person is deemed
> > necessary to making a recommendation to the court".
> >
> Thank you both very much,
>
> Berbecito, your reading is very interesting. I think 'necessary to making a
> recommendation' is a unit though. I heard the sentence and that is the
> impression I had. In speech, most probably one would not add, 'making
> a recommendation' instead of 'when making a recommendation'. And
> even saying that might be a bit off because the interviews are carried out
> before making the recommendation. That said, the speaker might have
> had the whole process of coming up and making a recommendation in mind.
> So your reading works, as far as I can see. However, when I heard the sentence
> I thought 'necessary to making a recommendation' was a unit. I might be wrong.
>
> Having heard the sentence, I think that Peter's explanation is sound. But your
> input was very useful and interesting. I hadn't thought of parsing it like that.

Thanks. I admit the parsing is rather counterintuitive, but what prompted me to
embrace it is that "necessary to + gerund" ("making a recommendation", here)
sounds very strange to me to express purpose: "necessary to make a
recommendation" or "for making a recommendation" come to mind naturally.

That, plus, as you said, the fact that "actually it is interviewing that person that is
necessary", may well tip the balance in favour of an elliptical construction, as the
other interpretation involves two striking oddities in one, short sentence - making
it rather unlikely IMO. But I didn't hear the sentence pronounced and the intonation
may indeed indicate otherwise and prove me wrong.

>
> --
> Respectfully,
> Navi
>
> Seeing things and hearing things in the Twilight Zone of the English language
> Interested in sentences on the margins of grammaticality
> Obsessed with ambiguity

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 9:13:04 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 4 octobre 2023 à 00:16:59 UTC+2, arthurvv vart a écrit :

> > Having heard the sentence, I think that Peter's explanation is sound. But your
> > input was very useful and interesting. I hadn't thought of parsing it like that.
>
> Thanks. I admit the parsing is rather counterintuitive, but what prompted me to
> embrace it is that "necessary to + gerund" ("making a recommendation", here)
> sounds very strange to me to express purpose: "necessary to make a
> recommendation" or "for making a recommendation" come to mind naturally.

That would be absolutely correct -- and I chose not to point it out -- if you
were adopting the Chomskyan notion of "performance error."

We have no idea what the surrounding context is, whether the character
is echoing something just said, etc.