When you’re reading and writing about syntax, then you see syntax everywhere. E.g., I just found this gem on Twitter:
Quoted in NYT is not something I was expecting to get when becoming a socialist.
Let’s do some syntax! First, what is this? It’s not quite like anything else in my bestiary of transformations. It’s an extraposition of a V’ from the VP, but I can’t make parallels with other auxiliaries:
?Quoted in the NYT is not something I was expecting to be.
?Printed by a major publishing firm is not something I was expecting to be.
*Brought down three prime ministers is not what Brenda thought she would ever have.
The first two are maybe marginal. But simpler statements definitely fail:
*Eaten tripe and onions is not something that I have.
*Eating tripe and onions is not something that I am.
*Compared to a troglodyte is not something that I’ve got(ten).
The sentences seems closest to Pseudo-Clefting, but it doesn’t quite work:
What ended the Martian threat was bacteria.
What he dreams of is being profiled by both Forbes and Dungeon.
What he never expected was getting quoted in the NYT.
*What he never expected getting was quoted in the NYT.
On the other hand, other uses of get seem to work:
A case of 200-year old wines is not something I was expecting to get from my grandfather.
A rock is what I got.
So I think the best I can come up with is that the Twitter sentence works by analogy from the physical to the auxiliary sense of get. This would help explain why the sentences with get sound better than those with be.
It’s fine, by the way, if you don’t quite accept the original sentence. I’m not 100% sure I do either, but I don’t find it clearly ungrammatical either.
If you’re a conlanger, this construction is worth thinking about— not that you should copy it, but are there any other areas where the syntax can be stretched like this? It’s all too easy to just come up with a straightforward example of (say) the passive, and never think about possible, impossible, and in-between variants.