Misconstruing Comparative Reference

Martin (1992: 118):

Where the proposal presumed is not structurally embedded as a Qualifier, it has to be recovered from the context.  This is illustrated in [3:44] to [3:45].  Enough functions as a Numerative as far as assessing quantity is concerned, whereas too submodifies:

[3:44]	He promised that he would pay
	if he had enough money.
[3:45]	He asked them to water the garden
	if there was too little time.

Both too and enough function as submodifiers when assessing quality:

[3:46]	The boy felt the need to take the frog home;
	but it was too young.
[3:47]	His brief was to find his frog;
	but was he clever enough?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, by 'context' Martin means co-text — as opposed to his other meanings, such as: material setting, context of situation, register or genre — and the co-text includes any Qualifiers.  That is to say, the opposition co-text vs Qualifier is nonsensical.

[2] To be clear, [3:45] features a projected proposition (question), not a projected proposal, as the projecting verbal Process asked makes plain.

[3] To be clear, in [3:44], enough does not function as a Numerative since it is neither quantitative or ordinative in function.  Instead, it functions as a post-Deictic of modulation (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 374), as demonstrated by its agnates (the) required, (the) necessary.

[4] This confuses functional elements of nominal group structure with comparative reference items.

[5] One the one hand, this mistakes a nominal group (enough money) for a comparative reference item, while on the other hand, enough does not function as a comparative reference item because it makes no comparison of money with the projected proposal (offer) that he would pay.

[6] One the one hand, this mistakes a nominal group (too little time) for a comparative reference item, while on the other hand, too little does not function as a comparative reference item because it makes no comparison of time with the projected non-finite proposition (question) to water the garden.  Note also that them is not part of the projected proposition, but the Receiver of the projecting clause; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 526) for the reasoning involved.

[7] One the one hand, this mistakes a nominal group (too young) for a comparative reference item, while on the other hand, too does not function as a comparative reference item because it makes no comparison of young with the Qualifier to take the frog home.

[8] One the one hand, this mistakes a nominal group (clever enough) for a comparative reference item, while on the other hand, enough does not function as a comparative reference item because it makes no comparison of clever with the Token to find his frog.