"Short sentences are easy and quick to process."

Interesting question, MlleSim.

@MlleSim posted:

"Short sentences are easy and quick to process."

Am I correct in thinking that the use of "quick" is actually ungrammatical in this context?

Compare:

(a) It is easy to process short sentences. / Readers can easily process short sentences. (both correct)

(b) It is quick to process short sentences. (incorrect) / Readers can quickly process short sentences. (correct)

I don't think that the fact that it is not possible to use the adjective to refer to the action as shown in (b) above makes the adjective ungrammatical. Actually, I think we can say:

- Processing short sentences is quick.

can't we?

I see the adjective in sentences like the one in your title as grammatically referring to the subject and as semantically referring to the action. Otherwise, what follows would not make sense:

- This book is easy to read but difficult to implement.

It's not that the book is easy and difficult at the same time, which would be contradictory. What is easy is to read it, and what is difficult is to implement it.

Another example:

- She's pleasant to speak to, but unpleasant to work with.

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

Actually, I think we can say:

- Processing short sentences is quick.

can't we?

I honestly do not know if this is correct... I personally find it somewhat odd, but maybe that is just my ear?

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

I see the adjective in sentences like the one in your title as grammatically referring to the subject and as semantically referring to the action.

I quite like this way of interpreting such sentences and had not thought of this take yet. That said, I still cannot put my finger on why the first part of (b) sounds so wrong! What is it about "quick" that seems to prevent it from being used in impersonal "it" clauses?

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

Otherwise, what follows would not make sense:

- This book is easy to read but difficult to implement.

It's not that the book is easy and difficult at the same time, which would be contradictory. What is easy is to read it, and what is difficult is to implement it.

Another example:

- She's pleasant to speak to, but unpleasant to work with.

I do not quite see eye to eye on this. Why is the contradictory nature of the complements important? I do not even see them as contradictory... I have come across many a book that was easy to read (that is, whose theory was easy to comprehend/grasp) and yet incredibly difficult to implement (meaning to put into actual practice). Additionally, both of your examples can (I think) be rewritten so as to refer to the action:

(a) It is easy to read the book. / It is difficult to implement the book.

(b) It is pleasant to speak to her. / It is unpleasant to work with her.

Something tells me that this awkwardness has to do with the following nuance: "easy"/"difficult"/"pleasant"/"unpleasant" all refer to the speaker's (subjective) perception of the action in question, whereas "quick" is more of an objective description of the action itself (meaning the action lasts a short time (irrespective of an outsider's perception)). So, in a sense, the focus has shifted from being "outside" the action to being "inside" the action, and that is why "quick" cannot be used in impersonal "it" clauses. What do you think..?

Hi, MlleSim and Gustavo—This is indeed a very interesting (and extremely tricky) question. I have to say that I do find "Short sentences are quick to process" ungrammatical. I don't think Tough Movement works with "quick."

Tough Movement is the transformational-grammar term for what happens when we go from "It is easy to process short sentences" (itself a transform of "To process short sentences is easy") to "Short sentences are easy to process."

I have mixed feelings about "Processing short sentences is quick." Using a true gerund (rather than a PRO-ing construction) makes a difference here, I think; "The processing of short sentences is quick" seems much better.

As to divining semantic rules for including or excluding adjectives from the Tough Movement construction, I'm afraid that's a topic better suited to a dissertation than to a grammar post. I will say, however, that this works nicely:

• Short sentences are easily and quickly processed.

@David, Moderator posted:

I have mixed feelings about "Processing short sentences is quick." Using a true gerund (rather than a PRO-ing construction) makes a difference here, I think; "The processing of short sentences is quick" seems much better.

Thank you, David, for clarifying that.

@David, Moderator posted:

As to divining semantic rules for including or excluding adjectives from the Tough Movement construction, I'm afraid that's a topic better suited to a dissertation than to a grammar post.

It seems to me that a good test could consist of inserting after the adjective a generic noun that the noun functioning as subject belongs to (please note that, except perhaps for the last one, the following are not sentences one would normally utter, but are just intended to prove my point):

- Short sentences are easy structures to process.
* Short sentences are quick structures to process. (wrong)

- This book is easy material to read but difficult material to implement.

- She's a pleasant person to speak to, but an unpleasant person to work with.

This shows that the adjective in these structures is both related to the subject noun and to the infinitive that follows.

@David, Moderator posted:

I have mixed feelings about "Processing short sentences is quick." Using a true gerund (rather than a PRO-ing construction) makes a difference here, I think; "The processing of short sentences is quick" seems much better.

I will say, however, that this works nicely:

• Short sentences are easily and quickly processed.

Thank you, David, for sharing your thoughts. I definitely agree with you on these two points (involving "the processing of...is quick" and "...easily and quickly processed"). Both of these highlight the association between "quick" and the action of "processing", which is what seems to be missing in my original sentence. What still puzzles me is why "the processing of...is quick" seems much better. "Seeming" is such an unsatisfactory justification when it comes to grammar!

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

This shows that the adjective in these structures is both related to the subject noun and to the infinitive that follows.

I quite like this test, though I would actually disagree with this last point about its showing the adjective is related to both the subject and the following infinitive. If anything, I think it serves to verify the link between the adjective and the subject and not between the adjective and the following verb (which is why "quick" fails the test). In other words, in all of your black examples, the test shows the suitable association between the adjective and the subject. However, with "quick", the association is shown to be invalid. What do you think?

Could we try using your test with the following example (based on a sentence I just found on a WHO webpage)?

– "Children are urgent to vaccinate." (Original sentence: "It is less urgent to vaccinate children [than vulnerable age groups].")

I think this too is ungrammatical, since it is the vaccination that is urgent and not the children as people/beings.

@MlleSim posted:

I definitely agree with you on these two points (involving "the processing of...is quick" and "...easily and quickly processed"). Both of these highlight the association between "quick" and the action of "processing", which is what seems to be missing in my original sentence. What still puzzles me is why "the processing of...is quick" seems much better. "Seeming" is such an unsatisfactory justification when it comes to grammar!

I think this is due to the fact that, being a verb, the V-ing form will not accept certain adjectives, but a noun will, and "the processing" is a noun. Compare: The assessment was quick vs. Assessing was quick, The movement was quick vs. Moving was quick, The response was quick vs. Responding was quick, The answer was quick vs. Answering was quick, The solution was quick vs. Solving was quick.

@MlleSim posted:

I quite like this test, though I would actually disagree with this last point about its showing the adjective is related to both the subject and the following infinitive. If anything, I think it serves to verify the link between the adjective and the subject and not between the adjective and the following verb (which is why "quick" fails the test). In other words, in all of your black examples, the test shows the suitable association between the adjective and the subject. However, with "quick", the association is shown to be invalid. What do you think?

Could we try using your test with the following example (based on a sentence I just found on a WHO webpage)?

– "Children are urgent to vaccinate." (Original sentence: "It is less urgent to vaccinate children [than vulnerable age groups].")

I think this too is ungrammatical, since it is the vaccination that is urgent and not the children as people/beings.

As I said at the beginning, my understanding is that the adjectives in question are related to both the subject and the infinitive—it's not that the sentences are just easy, but easy to process, or that somebody is pleasant, but pleasant to speak to or to work with.

In:

- Children are urgent to vaccinate

"urgent" does not combine with the infinitive. Suppose we say:

*Children are urgent patients to vaccinate

where "patients" is the generic word of the test I proposed. Clearly, this does not work. But this does:

- We have / There are some urgent patients to vaccinate

because there is no relationship between the urgent nature of the patients and the fact that they are to be vaccinated.

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

I think this is due to the fact that, being a verb, the V-ing form will not accept certain adjectives, but a noun will, and "the processing" is a noun. Compare: The assessment was quick vs. Assessing was quick, The movement was quick vs. Moving was quick, The response was quick vs. Responding was quick, The answer was quick vs. Answering was quick, The solution was quick vs. Solving was quick.

These are all very good examples which demonstrate your point quite clearly. Thank you! I still become, shall we say, "frustrated" though when I have to swallow the idea that certain constructions simply will or will not "accept" a particular "something" (such as specific adjectives in our case). The fact that we can only observe such phenomena without really having an explanation is irking to say the least!

As for the rest of your reply, I do see your point. Would you say the original structure used by WHO (copied below) is sound? I ask because I cannot find it in any dictionary...

- It is [more/less] urgent [for X] [to do sth].

@MlleSim posted:

Would you say the original structure used by WHO (copied below) is sound? I ask because I cannot find it in any dictionary...

- It is [more/less] urgent [for X] [to do sth].

Yes, it definitely is. It works with many adjectives, including adjectives expressing necessity like "urgent": necessary, essential, important, vital, fundamental

The infinitive, depending on the verb, will be in active or passive form:

- It is urgent for children to get the vaccine.
- It is urgent for children to be/get vaccinated.

Splendid! I wonder when the construction will be added to dictionaries. I imagine it needs to earn a bit more currency... (pun intended )