PDA

View Full Version : GOING TO, ETC



jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 11:09
IMO, the following sentences 1 to 10 are in the Simple Present or Simple Past, and not the Continuous tenses or the Passive Voice. (The underlined part is a predicate adjective phrase modifying the subject of the verb BE.) What do you kind people think?

1. I am going to eat. (simple present)
2. He is going to sleep. (simple present)
3. We are going to sing. (simple present)
4. She was going to laugh. (simple past)
5. They were going to cry. (simple past)
6. I am determined to argue. (simple present)
7. He is determined to respond. (simple present)
8. We are determined to observe. (simple present)
9. She was determined to score. (simple past)
10. They were determined to yawn. (simple past)

11. I am hoping to meet you. (Present continuous? Not grammatical. Should be: I hope to meet you.)
12. I am intending to write. (Present continuous? Not grammatical. Should be: I intend to write.)

Going to = hoping to = intending to (approximate same meaning). :wink:

As a contrast:
I am typing. (present continuous)
I am told not to stop. (simple present, passive)

Tdol
04-Dec-2003, 11:52
It is one way of looking at them, but if you transform the a bit, then it suggests that the structure underlying is not identical, unless you susbtitue a completely different word for 'going'. You can say 'my determination was to argue', but no similar sentence can be generated with the first examples. Also, the time of the future is important as for the very near future, then would they be adjectives or verbs? (Putting on my coat- I'm going to meet my father at the station. Is this an intention pure and simple?)

BTW- 'hoping' and 'intending' can be grammatically correct if circumstances demand the use of the progressive. Most verbs that don't usually take this form can under certain circumstances. IMO, there's nothing wrong with saying 'I am hoping to get the cheque in this morning's post', where the progressive adds to the expectation and urgency. ;-)

Casiopea
04-Dec-2003, 12:18
It looks good on the surface but it has its problems.

Consider:

Predicate Adjective
I am happy
==> Happy is what I am. (OK)

I am going to eat
==> Going to eat is what I am. (Not Ok)

Verb Phrase
I am going to eat.
==> Going to eat is what I am going to do (OK).

Predicate Adjective
Determined to argue is what I am. (OK)

Going to = future plan
Hoping to = future aspiration
intending to = future intention

Predicate Adjective
I am typing.
==> Typing I am. (Not OK)

Verb Phase
I am told not to stop.
==> Not to stop is what I am told. (OK)

:D

Tdol
04-Dec-2003, 12:37
Nice transformations, Cas. ;-)

jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 12:52
It is one way of looking at them, but if you transform the a bit, then it suggests that the structure underlying is not identical, unless you susbtitue a completely different word for 'going'. You can say 'my determination was to argue', but no similar sentence can be generated with the first examples. Also, the time of the future is important as for the very near future, then would they be adjectives or verbs? (Putting on my coat- I'm going to meet my father at the station. Is this an intention pure and simple?)

BTW- 'hoping' and 'intending' can be grammatically correct if circumstances demand the use of the progressive. Most verbs that don't usually take this form can under certain circumstances. IMO, there's nothing wrong with saying 'I am hoping to get the cheque in this morning's post', where the progressive adds to the expectation and urgency. ;-)

Thanks TDOL. Your points are noted, but I still think that there is something uncommon or unusual here. If we ask which is the MAIN verb in the following sentences:

1a He was hoping to eat. (Main verb hope)
1b. He was eating. (Main verb eat)
1c. He was going to eat. (Main verb?)
2. He ought to eat. (Main verb eat)
3. He should eat. (Main verb eat)
4. He must eat. (Main verb eat)
5. He will eat. (Main verb eat)
6. He was about to eat. (No auxiliary used, simple past of "be")

I think that (1c) is not in the nature of (1a) and (1b), but is similar to (2) thru (5). "Going" acts like the modal auxiliaries, and conveys the same genre of meaning: intention, obligation, compulsion, possibility, etc.

(A) If we take the main verb in (1c) as "go", it means the substantive action is the movement "go", which is not the case. In (1a) the substantive action is "hope"; in (1b) the substantve action is "eat", and so is the case with (1c) and (2) thru (5).

(B) The meaning of "going" here is definitely not as in "I am going home".

(C) We can't stop at "He is going......", just as we can't stop at "He ought/should/must/will......."

(D) The usage of "going" as meaning "intending" is so ubiquitous that I believe it is a case of its serving or acting as an auxiliary.

Is this worthy of serious thought and argument? :?:

jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 13:02
Also, the time of the future is important as for the very near future, then would they be adjectives or verbs? (Putting on my coat- I'm going to meet my father at the station. Is this an intention pure and simple?)

What about the differences in the following:

1. Putting on my coat, I'm going to meet my father.
2. Putting on my coat, I shall meet my father.
3. Putting on my coat, I shall go to meet my father.
4. Putting on my coat, I am proceeding to meet my father.

I think (1) and (2) are closer in meaning. The futurity conveyed in (3) is not really the message in (1). As you pointed out, the imminence of the action should be a key factor as to the tense. The "meeting" is more imminent in both (1) and (2) compared to (3). :?:

jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 13:17
It looks good on the surface but it has its problems.

Consider:

Predicate Adjective
I am happy
==> Happy is what I am. (OK)

I am going to eat
==> Going to eat is what I am. (Not Ok)
Agreed, that is not what "I am". I am here (predicate adverb). Except that adverb phrases are supposed to be headed only by a preposition or infinitive (I wonder why? and who laid this down!!) and not a participle!! Otherwise, I'd say its an adverb phrase modifying "am".

Verb Phrase
I am going to eat.
==> Going to eat is what I am going to do (OK).

Predicate Adjective
Determined to argue is what I am. (OK)

Going to = future plan
Hoping to = future aspiration
intending to = future intention

Predicate Adjective
I am typing.
==> Typing I am. (Not OK)
No, that's not a predicate adjective. My post said this one is the present continuous, to contrast with the usage of "going".

Verb Phase
I am told not to stop.
==> Not to stop is what I am told. (OK)
:D

Thanks for the input, Cas. Please see response in red. :)

Tdol
04-Dec-2003, 14:46
Except that adverb phrases are supposed to be headed only by a preposition or infinitive (I wonder why? and who laid this down!!) and not a participle!!

Unless I'm being stupid here, I don't get the point about adverb phrases:
I'm leaving tomorrow morning.

Isn't that an adverb phrase? ;-)

jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 14:51
BTW- 'hoping' and 'intending' can be grammatically correct if circumstances demand the use of the progressive. Most verbs that don't usually take this form can under certain circumstances. IMO, there's nothing wrong with saying 'I am hoping to get the cheque in this morning's post', where the progressive adds to the expectation and urgency. ;-)

Yes, they can definitely be used in the right context.
BTW, I raised this issue just for academic discussion. It will be quite a horror to put this point to students. They will be confused no end. On the practical side, it is definitely better to leave it be, as a continuous tense. :wink:

Tdol
04-Dec-2003, 14:53
At elemtary level, I would teach the simple form as the one to use. Later on, we can deal with the niceties. The progressive here carries a subtle shade of meaning that is more appropriate to a more advanced learner. ;-)

RonBee
04-Dec-2003, 15:01
Also, the time of the future is important as for the very near future, then would they be adjectives or verbs? (Putting on my coat- I'm going to meet my father at the station. Is this an intention pure and simple?)

What about the differences in the following:

1. Putting on my coat, I'm going to meet my father.
2. Putting on my coat, I shall meet my father.
3. Putting on my coat, I shall go to meet my father.
4. Putting on my coat, I am proceeding to meet my father.

I think (1) and (2) are closer in meaning. The futurity conveyed in (3) is not really the message in (1). As you pointed out, the imminence of the action should be a key factor as to the tense. The "meeting" is more imminent in both (1) and (2) compared to (3). :?:

In my humble opinion, only the first sentence makes sense. In the first sentence, Putting on my coat is an adverbial phrase modifying the rest of the sentence. In the other sentences, it doesn't modify anything, having no genuine connection to the rest of the sentence. The first sentence could be restated as I am putting on my coat, and then I am heading out the door to meet my father. In the other sentences you are talking about two separate actions that are totally unconnected in every way.

:)

Tdol
04-Dec-2003, 15:33
2&3 could be fine in a certain context:

Husband- I want you to stay here and cook and wait on me hand and foot.

Wife (putting on coat)- I shall go and meet my divorce lawyer.
;-)

jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 15:59
Except that adverb phrases are supposed to be headed only by a preposition or infinitive (I wonder why? and who laid this down!!) and not a participle!!

Unless I'm being stupid here, I don't get the point about adverb phrases:
I'm leaving tomorrow morning.
Isn't that an adverb phrase? ;-)

There are books (such as Basic English Review published by South Western in the U.S.) which classify adverb phrases as headed by a preposition or an infinitive. In fact, I don't agree with that as there are other constructions of adverb phrases.

In your example, "tomorrow morning" is an adverb phrase without doubt.
It is made up of the noun "morning" and its modifier "tomorrow", which is a very common construction of a phrase. (Noun + modifiers) serve as noun phrases, adjective phrases and adverb phrases.

(Noun + modifiers) as phrase:
1. Long rainy days are good for sleeping. (Noun phrase)
2.A careful person, she spends wisely. (adjective phrase, not appositive)
3. I am leaving tomorrow morning. (adverb phrase)

I am leaving in the morning. (adverb phrase headed by preposition)

Cas said that in "I am going to eat", "going to eat" is not a predicate adjective (which my first post stated) She's right, so I corrected that by saying it's a predicate adverb phrase.

jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 16:02
Except that adverb phrases are supposed to be headed only by a preposition or infinitive (I wonder why? and who laid this down!!) and not a participle!!

Unless I'm being stupid here, I don't get the point about adverb phrases:
I'm leaving tomorrow morning.
Isn't that an adverb phrase? ;-)

There are books (such as Basic English Review published by South Western in the U.S.) which classify adverb phrases as headed by a preposition or an infinitive. In fact, I don't agree with that as there are other constructions of adverb phrases.

In your example, "tomorrow morning" is an adverb phrase without doubt.
It is made up of the noun "morning" and its modifier "tomorrow", which is a very common construction of a phrase. (Noun + modifiers) serve as noun phrases, adjective phrases and adverb phrases.

(Noun + modifiers) as phrase:
1. Long rainy days are good for sleeping. (Noun phrase)
2.A careful person, she spends wisely. (adjective phrase, not appositive)
3. I am leaving tomorrow morning. (adverb phrase)

I am leaving in the morning. (adverb phrase headed by preposition)

Cas said that in "I am going to eat", "going to eat" is not a predicate adjective (which my first post stated) She's right, so I corrected that by saying it's a predicate adverb phrase.

jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 16:37
Also, the time of the future is important as for the very near future, then would they be adjectives or verbs? (Putting on my coat- I'm going to meet my father at the station. Is this an intention pure and simple?)

What about the differences in the following:

1. Putting on my coat, I'm going to meet my father.
2. Putting on my coat, I shall meet my father.
3. Putting on my coat, I shall go to meet my father.
4. Putting on my coat, I am proceeding to meet my father.

I think (1) and (2) are closer in meaning. The futurity conveyed in (3) is not really the message in (1). As you pointed out, the imminence of the action should be a key factor as to the tense. The "meeting" is more imminent in both (1) and (2) compared to (3). :?:

In my humble opinion, only the first sentence makes sense. In the first sentence, Putting on my coat is an adverbial phrase modifying the rest of the sentence. In the other sentences, it doesn't modify anything, having no genuine connection to the rest of the sentence. The first sentence could be restated as I am putting on my coat, and then I am heading out the door to meet my father. In the other sentences you are talking about two separate actions that are totally unconnected in every way.
:)

Hi Ron, thanks for the message about verses. Didn't reply as I was off this site most of the time. Trying to complete my book by yearend. In the midst of that, the usage of "going to" struck me as something not quite belonging as a continuous tense.

I would say that in all the above examples, the phrase is an adjective phrase modifying the pronoun "I". As in: Walking up the street, he saw a pretty girl. The phrase modifies "he". You are right that except for the first sentence, the phrase in the other examples doesn't quite fit.

On my original subject of "going to", what about this:
1. I am meeting him. (present continuous)
2. I am going to meet him. (simple present or present continuous?)
3. I shall be meeting him. (future continuous)
4. I shall be going to meet him. (future continuous)

It looks to me that "going" is not the same between (2) and (4). In (2), it is not the main verb, just expressing futurity or intention. In (4), it is the main verb, or otherwise we should use (3) to say the same thing. In (4), it actually means "going" as an action, like he's not coming so Im going (to meet him).

"Going" acting as an auxiliary seems applicable only in the simple present and simple past: I am going to eat; I was going to eat. "I shall be going to eat" is totally redundant because of "I shall be eating", UNLESS "going" means the action of movement, and as such (4) is the future continuous. :wink:

jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 16:52
At elemtary level, I would teach the simple form as the one to use. Later on, we can deal with the niceties. The progressive here carries a subtle shade of meaning that is more appropriate to a more advanced learner. ;-)

By "simple form", do you mean "going" as expressing the continuous tense? I would stick to this myself, for teaching anyone. My thoughts that it could be treated as an auxiliary are just thoughts, for discussion. It is an impossibility to try to even introduce this idea, in practical terms. :wink:

Tdol
04-Dec-2003, 17:33
I was referring to forms like 'hoping'. ;-)

RonBee
04-Dec-2003, 20:05
Also, the time of the future is important as for the very near future, then would they be adjectives or verbs? (Putting on my coat- I'm going to meet my father at the station. Is this an intention pure and simple?)

What about the differences in the following:

1. Putting on my coat, I'm going to meet my father.
2. Putting on my coat, I shall meet my father.
3. Putting on my coat, I shall go to meet my father.
4. Putting on my coat, I am proceeding to meet my father.

I think (1) and (2) are closer in meaning. The futurity conveyed in (3) is not really the message in (1). As you pointed out, the imminence of the action should be a key factor as to the tense. The "meeting" is more imminent in both (1) and (2) compared to (3). :?:

In my humble opinion, only the first sentence makes sense. In the first sentence, Putting on my coat is an adverbial phrase modifying the rest of the sentence. In the other sentences, it doesn't modify anything, having no genuine connection to the rest of the sentence. The first sentence could be restated as I am putting on my coat, and then I am heading out the door to meet my father. In the other sentences you are talking about two separate actions that are totally unconnected in every way.
:)

Hi Ron, thanks for the message about verses. Didn't reply as I was off this site most of the time. Trying to complete my book by yearend. In the midst of that, the usage of "going to" struck me as something not quite belonging as a continuous tense.

I would say that in all the above examples, the phrase is an adjective phrase modifying the pronoun "I". As in: Walking up the street, he saw a pretty girl. The phrase modifies "he". You are right that except for the first sentence, the phrase in the other examples doesn't quite fit.

On my original subject of "going to", what about this:
1. I am meeting him. (present continuous)
2. I am going to meet him. (simple present or present continuous?)
3. I shall be meeting him. (future continuous)
4. I shall be going to meet him. (future continuous)

It looks to me that "going" is not the same between (2) and (4). In (2), it is not the main verb, just expressing futurity or intention. In (4), it is the main verb, or otherwise we should use (3) to say the same thing. In (4), it actually means "going" as an action, like he's not coming so Im going (to meet him).

"Going" acting as an auxiliary seems applicable only in the simple present and simple past: I am going to eat; I was going to eat. "I shall be going to eat" is totally redundant because of "I shall be eating", UNLESS "going" means the action of movement, and as such (4) is the future continuous. :wink:

I agree with your analysis. I do think that the first sentence ("I am meeting him") has a sense of incompleteness. More likely is something like, "I am meeting him today." (You can say I am running now or I am walking now, but you can't say I am meeting now.)

:)

jwschang
04-Dec-2003, 20:25
I agree with your analysis. I do think that the first sentence ("I am meeting him") has a sense of incompleteness. More likely is something like, "I am meeting him today." (You can say I am running now or I am walking now, but you can't say I am meeting now.)
:)

Thanks everybody for your input. In case anyone missed a point, I am talking specifically only about whether "going" (when its means intention or futurity) should not be deemed as constituting the continuous tense. I'm not suggesting that other participles, such as "typing", "meeting", etc should also be deemed as such. "Going to" is the unique case that I wanted to raise. :wink:

Tdol
04-Dec-2003, 21:58
It is an interesting question and you sparked up quite a debate. I tend towards the progressive form view, though. ;-)

Casiopea
05-Dec-2003, 08:28
I am here (predicate adverb). Except that adverb phrases are supposed to be headed only by a preposition or infinitive (I wonder why? and who laid this down!!) and not a participle!! Otherwise, I'd say its an adverb phrase modifying "am".

Huh? That's news to me too. Where did you find that? Let me know. I'm interested in checking it out further. :D

With regard to "I am (situated) here (by X's doing)", reflexive, here modifies situated, a participle: I am situated (participle) in this location (prepositional phrase). predicate adjective



Predicate Adjective
I am typing.
==> Typing I am. (Not OK)


No, that's not a predicate adjective. My post said this one is the present continuous, to contrast with the usage of "going".

Yes. I agree with you there. I was only testing it out to show you that I agreed with you. :D


Thanks for the input, Cas.

Oh, I'm not letting you off that easy. :D I took the time to think over your analysis. I'm waiting for you to further prove to me that 'going to' is a predicate adjective. Please. :D

Tdol
05-Dec-2003, 08:52
I am here (predicate adverb). Except that adverb phrases are supposed to be headed only by a preposition or infinitive (I wonder why? and who laid this down!!) and not a participle!! Otherwise, I'd say its an adverb phrase modifying "am".

Huh? That's news to me too. Where did you find that? Let me know. I'm interested in checking it out further. :D

In twenty years of teaching, I've never come across that rule. ;-)

Casiopea
05-Dec-2003, 09:23
1a He was hoping to eat.

==> He was hoping [that she would eat]. (SV[O])
==> He was hoping [PRO to eat]. (SV[O])

1b. He was eating.
==> He was eating. (SV)

1c. He was going to eat. (Main verb?)

There are two possibilities: 1d and 1e.

1d. He was going . (SV[O]) progressive/continuous

1e. He was going to go . (SV[O]) not prog/contin.

1d is the same as 1a and 1b; They are all progressive/continuous.
1e is different from 1d, 1a, and 1b.

6. He was about to eat.
==> was about to (inceptive, i.e. start(ed) to do something)


"Going" [u]acts like the modal auxiliaries, and conveys the same genre of meaning: intention, obligation, compulsion, possibility, etc.

I agree. Mind you, modals cannot function as predicate adjectives (e.g. *I am ought.) So where then does that leave 'going to'?


(B) The meaning of "going" here is definitely not as in "I am going home".

Right. I am going home = I am traveling home, whereas I am going to go home = I am planning on traveling home.


(C) We can't stop at "He is going......", just as we can't stop at "He ought/should/must/will......."

Right. The reason being, going to is transitive, whereas going (e.g. I am going. See you.) is intransitive. Note, go of I am going to go is also instransitive.


(D) The usage of "going" as meaning "intending" is so [u]ubiquitous that I believe it is a case of its serving or acting as an auxiliary.

First, we know that going and going to are different. The former expresses a present continuity, whereas the latter expresses a future intention:

1) be going = progressive continuous
2) be going to = future intention, modality

Second, what does being ubiquitous have to do with modality? I'm lost.

Third, within the verb phrase am going the word am is the auxiliary. Similarly, within the verb phrase am going to eat the word am is the auxiliary.

A: I am going. main verb (aux+V-ing) intrans.
B: I am going to eat. main verb (aux+V-ing+object) trans.

In short,

A: be going = progressive continuous
B: be going to = future intention, modality (This is not a new idea)

:D

Casiopea
05-Dec-2003, 09:25
I am here (predicate adverb). Except that adverb phrases are supposed to be headed only by a preposition or infinitive (I wonder why? and who laid this down!!) and not a participle!! Otherwise, I'd say its an adverb phrase modifying "am".

Huh? That's news to me too. Where did you find that? Let me know. I'm interested in checking it out further. :D

In twenty years of teaching, I've never come across that rule. ;-)

Mygawd. I'm not even 20 yet :shock:
______________
Joking :D

jwschang
05-Dec-2003, 12:05
Thanks for the input, Cas.
Oh, I'm not letting you off that easy. :D I took the time to think over your analysis. I'm waiting for you to further prove to me that 'going to' is a predicate adjective. Please. :D

No, I'm not trying to prove that "going to" is a predicate adjective. I'm saying that if, as in the examples I gave, "going" is not in fact expressing the continuous tense (I'm talking only about the present and past continuous, not the future or perfect continuous tenses) but is behaving more like an auxiliary, then in those sentences the phrase headed by going is a predicate adjective phrase (or an adverb predicate phrase, etc).
That's because "going", in its currently deemed usage as a continuous tense, is used with "be" (am/is/are/was/were) as the auxiliary. So, if it's not expressing the continuous, it's got to be part of the predicate that "Be" links to its subject.

I raised this to invite some thinking from "you kind people". I'm not arguing strongly for my case, just IMO the usage of "going" doesn't seem quite as forming the continuous tense (except of course when it actually means going somewhere, and not futurity or intention). So, it's got you thinking and analysing, and disputing this "contention", which is exactly why I'm thanking you!!!!! :) :wink: :lol: :roll: :?: :!:

But I'm not declining the debate either. Only thing is, now and again, I'm off the Net for days on end because of my book! So, I do look forward to more from you (and TDOL, Ron, and whoever else thinks this subject is worthy of thought and debate). If you and everybody else had just ignored this posting, uh.......poor me. :wink:

jwschang
05-Dec-2003, 12:23
I am here (predicate adverb). Except that adverb phrases are supposed to be headed only by a preposition or infinitive (I wonder why? and who laid this down!!) and not a participle!! Otherwise, I'd say its an adverb phrase modifying "am".
Huh? That's news to me too. Where did you find that? Let me know. I'm interested in checking it out further. :D
In twenty years of teaching, I've never come across that rule. ;-)

It's not a rule like such as Concord. It's concluded from certain grammar books where the writers classify and deal with the usage of phrases. One is "Basic English Review" by Schacter/Clark/Schneiter, which is used by communication and English teachers in one of the universities here. This particular book classifies phrases into prepositional, infinitive and participial phrases, with the first two (but not the last) as being applicable as adverbs. I was referring to such classifications (I guessed the writers are pretty authoritative grammarians), so I wondered "why so" and "who laid this down". So, it's me putting it wrongly by saying it's some sort of "rule", because students do tend to go by the books they use. Statement is withdrawn with deep regrets and apologies for causing nasty surprises. :oops: :cry: :( :oops: :cry:

jwschang
05-Dec-2003, 12:31
1a He was hoping to eat.
==> He was hoping [that she would eat]. (SV[O])
==> He was hoping [PRO to eat]. (SV[O])
1b. He was eating.
==> He was eating. (SV)
1c. He was going to eat. (Main verb?)
There are two possibilities: 1d and 1e.

1d. He was going [up the stairs]. (SV[O]) progressive/continuous
1e. He was going to go [up the stiars]. (SV[O]) not prog/contin.

1d is the same as 1a and 1b; They are all progressive/continuous.
1e is different from 1d, 1a, and 1b.

6. He was about to eat.
==> was about to (inceptive, i.e. start(ed) to do something)
:D
Yea, I'm talking about "going" as used in (1e), when it's not expressing movement but intention or futurity.

jwschang
05-Dec-2003, 12:42
"Going" acts like the modal auxiliaries, and conveys the same genre of meaning: intention, obligation, compulsion, possibility, etc.
I agree. Mind you, modals cannot function as predicate adjectives (e.g. *I am ought.) So where then does that leave 'going to'?
:D

Agreed, it's not entirely like the modals. Its looks a special case. The modals are not all the same in every way either: MUST has only one form, OUGHT is always followed by TO. Construction-wise (active voice), the modals are: Modal + Infinitive, etc.
If "going" acts as a modal, its constructions are more varied than the true modals: such as, Aux (will) + Be + Going + Infinitive (say, to eat), and so on. The true modals can't be, for example, "Will be can doing".

jwschang
05-Dec-2003, 12:50
(D) The usage of "going" as meaning "intending" is so ubiquitous that I believe it is a case of its serving or acting as an auxiliary.

Second, what does being ubiquitous have to do with modality? I'm lost.
:D

The modals are very frequently used, to express the very varieties of meaning that they have. In the same way, the use of (going + infinitive) to express intention or futurity is ubiquitous, probably even more frequent than its meaning of actual movement (going somewhere). :wink:

Tdol
05-Dec-2003, 13:24
It's not a rule like such as Concord. It's concluded from certain grammar books where the writers classify and deal with the usage of phrases. One is "Basic English Review" by Schacter/Clark/Schneiter, which is used by communication and English teachers in one of the universities here. This particular book classifies phrases into prepositional, infinitive and participial phrases, with the first two (but not the last) as being applicable as adverbs. I was referring to such classifications (I guessed the writers are pretty authoritative grammarians), so I wondered "why so" and "who laid this down". So, it's me putting it wrongly by saying it's some sort of "rule", because students do tend to go by the books they use. Statement is withdrawn with deep regrets and apologies for causing nasty surprises. :oops: :cry: :( :oops: :cry:

;-) ;-) ;-)

jwschang
05-Dec-2003, 13:44
Thanks for the input, Cas.
Oh, I'm not letting you off that easy. :D I took the time to think over your analysis. I'm waiting for you to further prove to me that 'going to' is a predicate adjective. Please. :D

All right, Cas. A bit more food for thought or fuel to fire. Consider this:

Here is my computer right next to me. I'M GOING TO TYPE A LETTER. (OK, clearly not going anywhere, but means intention or futurity)

(A) STUDENT: Teacher, what tense is that sentence?
TEACHER: That's in the Present Continuous.
STUDENT: The Present Continuous shows an action in progress, but I haven't begun typing?
TEACHER: That's OK. Remember, the Present Continuous also expresses a future action about to happen or an action that we have decided or intended to do.

(B) STUDENT: We learned that in (a) "The rain is coming", "coming" is the main verb; (b) "I was typing", "typing" is the main verb". We learned that the Main verb is the action that actually happens or is actually done. In that sentence, is the MAIN verb "GOING" or is it "TYPE"?

What's the answer? I guess we can only say this:

TEACHER: TYPE is the main verb. Using "going" here is different from your other two sentences. It is not the main verb because it is not used to mean that we are "going" somewhere.
TEACHER: Remember that we have many exceptions to general rules of usage in English? Such as the singular "You" takes a plural verb? The usage of "going" in this sentence is also an exception. The sentence IS in the Present Continuous, BUT the main verb is TYPE and not GOING.

Any other explanation for the student? Or, should the student be told that GOING is the main verb, not TYPE? :wink:

Casiopea
05-Dec-2003, 16:16
So, if it's not expressing the continuous, it's got to be part of the predicate that "Be" links to its subject.

I am in agreement with you. I'd like to see how you argue it, that's all. That 'be going to' is a verb + predicate adjective is not a new idea in the field of linguistics. There's a linguist, whose name fails me at the moment (it starts with M-), who argues that 'be supposed to', like 'be going to' is a a verb + predicate adjective. I agree with his analysis--I just wanted to see if you were going to argue it the same way as he did. Knowledge is power. If I can dig it up (1987) I'll send it your way. :D

While I've got you here, I wonder if you've the time to review absolute phrases?

A noun phrase can also exist as an absolute phrase:

Your best friends, where are they now, when you need them?

==> My work finished,... [Absolute phrase] :D

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/phrases.htm#absolute

:D

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 03:22
So, if it's not expressing the continuous, it's got to be part of the predicate that "Be" links to its subject.

I am in agreement with you. I'd like to see how you argue it, that's all. That 'be going to' is a verb + predicate adjective is not a new idea in the field of linguistics. There's a linguist, whose name fails me at the moment (it starts with M-), who argues that 'be supposed to', like 'be going to' is a a verb + predicate adjective. I agree with his analysis--I just wanted to see if you were going to argue it the same way as he did. Knowledge is power. If I can dig it up (1987) I'll send it your way. :D

While I've got you here, I wonder if you've the time to review absolute phrases?
A noun phrase can also exist as an absolute phrase:
Your best friends, where are they now, when you need them?
==> My work finished,... [Absolute phrase] :D
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/phrases.htm#absolute
:D

I thought what I think about "going" was something quite heretical! So there's a serious linguist in this Mr M who has in fact argued this heresy. I was really just curious about the whole thing, especially since "going" is used so often as intention.

From what I understand, an Absolute phrase is a phrase construction, as distinguished from a Noun phrase which is referring to usage. Absolute phrases, Infinitive phrases, Continuous Participle phrases all can be used as a Noun phrase, as in:
(A true friend) is hard to come by. (Absolute phrase as Noun)
(To do it now) is most advantageous. (Infinitive phrase as Noun)
(Waiting for people) can be quite vexing. (Participle phrase as Noun).

Again, from what I understand, construction classification is based on the word that heads the phrase (except for Absolute phrases). To eat quickly.... is an Infinitive phrase; Taken by surprise..... is a Participle phrase....; In a loud shirt.....is a Preposition phrase; .....With a beautiful singing voice... is a Preposition phrase. I think of an Absolute phrase as consisting of a noun or nouns and its modifiers, such as: A shrewd businessman..., My work finished (noun "work", modifiers "my" and "finished")

Some books don't (or fail to) distinguish between classification by construction on the one hand, and classification by usage on the other.

The usage classification is not a problem, since it is no more than saying what part of speech the phrase is being used as: noun, adjective, adverb. The construction classification can be a problem of proliferation of types of phrases. For example,
1. (Running at full stretch), he caught up with the bus.
2. (Suddenly turning the corner), he ran into me.
(1) is a Participle phrase, but (2)?
If we say (2) is an Adverb phrase (headed by adverb "suddenly") then there is no end to the types of construction. Personally, I would regard (2) as a Participle phrase (but preceded by an adverb). Another example,
3. (Taken by surprise), they......
4. (Secretly produced in backyards), the.....
I would regard both (3) and (4) as a Participle phrase.

The problem with construction classification is that, to be meaningful it must have a consistent basis, and to be practical you should not have a whole proliferation of it. This latter can easily happen because a longer phrase can be broken down into shorter "sub-phrases" and so where do you end up? For example, if we regard "A shrewd and careful businessman" as an Adjective phrase (by construction, not usage) just because it's headed by the article "A", then there's no end to it. So, I regard it as an Absolute phrase.

For very good reasons, the two classifications don't overlap:
(A) Construction:
1. Absolute phrase
2. Preposition phrase
3. Infinitive phrase
4. Participle phrase (Continuous or Perfect Participle)
(B) Usage:
1. Noun phrase
2. Adjective phrase
3. Adverb phrase

Where and how does a "verb phrase" fit? "I want (to learn to fly)". I'd say this is an Infinitive phrase (by construction) used as a Noun phrase (as object of "want").

These comments are IMHO. :wink:

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 03:25
So, if it's not expressing the continuous, it's got to be part of the predicate that "Be" links to its subject.

I am in agreement with you. I'd like to see how you argue it, that's all. That 'be going to' is a verb + predicate adjective is not a new idea in the field of linguistics. There's a linguist, whose name fails me at the moment (it starts with M-), who argues that 'be supposed to', like 'be going to' is a a verb + predicate adjective. I agree with his analysis--I just wanted to see if you were going to argue it the same way as he did. Knowledge is power. If I can dig it up (1987) I'll send it your way. :D

While I've got you here, I wonder if you've the time to review absolute phrases?
A noun phrase can also exist as an absolute phrase:
Your best friends, where are they now, when you need them?
==> My work finished,... [Absolute phrase] :D
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/phrases.htm#absolute
:D

I thought what I think about "going" was something quite heretical! So there's a serious linguist in this Mr M who has in fact argued this heresy. I was really just curious about the whole thing, especially since "going" is used so often as intention. :roll:

From what I understand, an Absolute phrase is a phrase construction, as distinguished from a Noun phrase which is referring to usage. Absolute phrases, Infinitive phrases, Continuous Participle phrases all can be used as a Noun phrase, as in:
(A true friend) is hard to come by. (Absolute phrase as Noun)
(To do it now) is most advantageous. (Infinitive phrase as Noun)
(Waiting for people) can be quite vexing. (Participle phrase as Noun).

Again, from what I understand, construction classification is based on the word that heads the phrase (except for Absolute phrases). To eat quickly.... is an Infinitive phrase; Taken by surprise..... is a Participle phrase....; In a loud shirt.....is a Preposition phrase; .....With a beautiful singing voice... is a Preposition phrase. I think of an Absolute phrase as consisting of a noun or nouns and its modifiers, such as: A shrewd businessman..., My work finished (noun "work", modifiers "my" and "finished")

Some books don't (or fail to) distinguish between classification by construction on the one hand, and classification by usage on the other.

The usage classification is not a problem, since it is no more than saying what part of speech the phrase is being used as: noun, adjective, adverb. The construction classification can be a problem of proliferation of types of phrases. For example,
1. (Running at full stretch), he caught up with the bus.
2. (Suddenly turning the corner), he ran into me.
(1) is a Participle phrase, but (2)?
If we say (2) is an Adverb phrase (headed by adverb "suddenly") then there is no end to the types of construction. Personally, I would regard (2) as a Participle phrase (but preceded by an adverb). Another example,
3. (Taken by surprise), they......
4. (Secretly produced in backyards), the.....
I would regard both (3) and (4) as a Participle phrase.

The problem with construction classification is that, to be meaningful it must have a consistent basis, and to be practical you should not have a whole proliferation of it. This latter can easily happen because a longer phrase can be broken down into shorter "sub-phrases" and so where do you end up? For example, if we regard "A shrewd and careful businessman" as an Adjective phrase (by construction, not usage) just because it's headed by the article "A", then there's no end to it. So, I regard it as an Absolute phrase.

For very good reasons, the two classifications don't overlap:
(A) Construction:
1. Absolute phrase
2. Preposition phrase
3. Infinitive phrase
4. Participle phrase (Continuous or Perfect Participle)
(B) Usage:
1. Noun phrase
2. Adjective phrase
3. Adverb phrase

Where and how does a "verb phrase" fit? "I want (to learn to fly)". I'd say this is an Infinitive phrase (by construction) used as a Noun phrase (as object of "want").

These comments are IMHO. :wink:

Casiopea
06-Dec-2003, 08:35
I thought what I think about "going" was something quite heretical! So there's a serious linguist in this Mr M who has in fact argued this heresy. I was really just curious about the whole thing, especially since "going" is used so often as intention. :roll:

I still can't find the book by M-; but here's something worth noting. 'be going to' has been viewed as a semi-modal since 1962.

Semi modals, for Strang (1962: 147) this group includes: use(d) to, be going to, be (about) to, have to, want to, ought to. For Joos (1968: 22-30) it consists of be to, be going to, be about to, have to, be able to, be supposed to, and used to; for him ought to is a modal proper. Palmer's list, as a final example, comprises be bound to, be able to, have (got) to, be going to, be willing to (1988: 94).

http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/sgramley/Folder-Notes1.html

Also, '..futures are indicated by using a modal auxliary, will or shall, or by using a semi-modal construction like be going to.'

http://www.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S2002/326/Verbs.htm#tense

More food: A pair of papers from CLS (Publications from the Nth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society <http://humanities.uchicago.edu/humanities/cls/>, explicate the semantic and syntactic distinctions between the (American) English usage of 'will' and 'be going to', written by Robert Binnick. They are called, surprisingly, "Will and Be Going To" and "Will and Be Going To II", and they were published in the 70's.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/modals.html

Other Papers worth the read

Tense and Modals Tim Stowell, UCLA
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/stowell/Stowell-Tense&Modals.pdf

On the Structural Properties of Modals
http://www.bogglesworld.com/glossary/modals.htm

Properties of English Modals (cross-cultural study)
http://www.uqu.edu.sa/majalat/humanities/vol14/f9.htm

Semi-auxiliaries
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~xtag/tech-report/node182.html
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~xtag/tech-report/node184.html


From what I understand, an Absolute phrase is a phrase construction, as distinguished from a Noun phrase which is referring to usage. Absolute phrases, Infinitive phrases, Continuous Participle phrases all can be used as a Noun phrase, as in:
(A true friend) is hard to come by. (Absolute phrase as Noun)
(To do it now) is most advantageous. (Infinitive phrase as Noun)
(Waiting for people) can be quite vexing. (Participle phrase as Noun).

Could we then call 'Waiting for people' a gerund phrase instead of the long 'a participle phrase (functioning) as a noun'?


Again, from what I understand, construction classification is based on the word that heads the phrase (except for Absolute phrases).

Actually, there is a term for absolute phrases: nominal absolutes. :wink:


I think of an Absolute phrase as consisting of a noun or nouns and its modifiers, such as: A shrewd businessman..., My work finished (noun "work", modifiers "my" and "finished")

So, is My work finished, I went home an absolute phrase functioning as a adjective or is it a an adjective phrase functioning as an adjective? That is,

My work having been finished = ? phrase


Some books don't (or fail to) distinguish between classification by construction on the one hand, and classification by usage on the other.

Isn't that the honest truth. 8)


The usage classification is not a problem, since it is no more than saying what part of speech the phrase is being used as: noun, adjective, adverb. The construction classification can be a problem of proliferation of types of phrases. For example,

1. (Running at full stretch), he caught up with the bus.
2. (Suddenly turning the corner), he ran into me.

(1) is a Participle phrase, but (2)?

(2) takes the form of a participle phrase. As for its function, I feel that in knowing that adverbs like 'suddenly' are sentencial (can occur at the beginning or end of a sentence), I'd switch it around so as to find the true structure: "turning the corner suddenly" = participle phrase functioning as a (help?).


If we say (2) is an Adverb phrase (headed by adverb "suddenly") then there is no end to the types of construction. Personally, I would regard (2) as a Participle phrase (but preceded by an adverb).

Ok. Its form is that of a participle, but what's its function? It modifies 'ran', so its an adverb in function?


Another example,
3. (Taken by surprise), they......
4. (Secretly produced in backyards), the.....
I would regard both (3) and (4) as a Participle phrase.

So would I. But, again, though, what is its function? Consider,

Searching diligently, he soon found the lost coin.

"Searching diligently" modifies the verb 'found', so we know it functions as an adverb (not an adverb phrase), an adverb. "Searching diligently" is made up of a participle (Searching) and an adverb (diligently). The head of that phrase is "Searching", we know this because we can move "diligently" around. Since the head of the phrase is a participle, we have two choices of form: Adjective phrase and Noun phrase (gerund). Adjectives are modified by adverbs, whereas noun are never modified by adverbs, yet Searching diligently is something I did last weekend" functions as a Noun phrase, a gerund. The reason being is that it refers to a thing. In contrast, "Searching diligently, he soon found the lost coin" functions as a(n) (help?)


The problem with construction classification is that, to be meaningful it must have a consistent basis, and to be practical you should not have a whole proliferation of it.

I'm not sure if I read that the way you intended, so bare with my stupidity here. Words and phrases are categorized according to form and then analysed based on their function. A prep phrase can have only one form, yet more than one function. That system is not only 'practical' it's economical.


For example, if we regard "A shrewd and careful businessman" as an Adjective phrase (by construction, not usage) just because it's headed by the article "A", then there's no end to it. So, I regard it as an Absolute phrase.

I see what you mean. Linear parsing. If, so, then, wouldn't it be Article phrase? :D Seriously, though, since Article phrases do not exist, and "a" pairs with nouns, Noun phrase would be the next best choice, I agree.



For very good reasons, the two classifications don't overlap:

(A) Construction:
1. Absolute phrase
2. Preposition phrase
3. Infinitive phrase
4. Participle phrase (Continuous or Perfect Participle)

(B) Usage:
1. Noun phrase
2. Adjective phrase
3. Adverb phrase

What's the good reason? :D Moreover, could you offer some examples illustrating the difference between a participle phrase functioning as an adjective, a noun, and an adverb? :D


Where and how does a "verb phrase" fit? "I want (to learn to fly)". I'd say this is an Infinitive phrase (by construction) used as a Noun phrase (as object of "want").

Interesting. Infinitives are tradionationally classified as verbals, the same category as gerunds. Interesting.

:D

This was very interesting. Thank you :D

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 09:44
Again, from what I understand, construction classification is based on the word that heads the phrase (except for Absolute phrases).


The usage classification is not a problem, since it is no more than saying what part of speech the phrase is being used as: noun, adjective, adverb. The construction classification can be a problem of proliferation of types of phrases. For example,

1. (Running at full stretch), he caught up with the bus.
2. (Suddenly turning the corner), he ran into me.

(1) is a Participle phrase, but (2)?
If we say (2) is an Adverb phrase (headed by adverb "suddenly") then there is no end to the types of construction. Personally, I would regard (2) as a Participle phrase (but preceded by an adverb).

Ok. Its form is that of a participle, but what's its function? It modifies 'ran', so its an adverb in function? In this particular sentence (2), I would say its a Participle Phrase used as an Adjective phrase to describe the pronoun "he".
:D

The function or usage of a phrase is not tied to its construction although the former may be limited by the latter.
(A) For example, I would be hard put to find an Absolute phrase or a Participle phrase being used as an Adverb (i.e. as an Adverb phrase). Adverb phrases are usually a Preposition phrase or an Infinitive phrase.
(B) Bearing (A) in mind, a certain type of phrase by construction may be used as a Noun phrase, Adjective phrase or Adverb phrase, depending entirely on how it is used in a particular sentence. This is like the noun English being used as an adjective in "English lessons".

In other words, classification by construction is a fixed thing: A phrase is either an (a) Absolute phrase (b) Preposition phrase (c) Infinitive phrase (d) Participle phrase. "Classification" by usage is not fixed: a certain type by construction may be used as a (a) Noun phrase (b) Adjective phrase (c) Adverb phrase. The very word "usage" means it all depends on "as what or how" it is used in the sentence.

For example, the Infinitive phrase is the most versatile:
1. He wants (to start a new business). (Serving as Noun phrase, object of "wants")
2. Did he tell her what (to cook for dinner)? (Serving as Adjective phrase to describe pronoun/object "what")
3. The law (to reduce pollution) has wide support. (Serving as Adjective phrase to describe noun "law")
4. I'm glad (to hear of your success). (Serving as Adverb phrase modifying verb "glad").

The Preposition phrase is also versatile:
5. His commitment (to our cause) is admirable. (Serving as Adjective phrase describing noun "commitment")
6. Birds (of a feather) flock together. (Serving as Adjective phrase describing noun "birds")
7. Casiopea went (to the grocers nearby). (Serving as Adverb phrase modifying verb "went") (Note: Preposition phrases are used as Adverb phrases to modify intransitive verbs.) :wink:

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 10:03
From what I understand, an Absolute phrase is a phrase construction, as distinguished from a Noun phrase which is referring to usage. Absolute phrases, Infinitive phrases, Continuous Participle phrases all can be used as a Noun phrase, as in:
(A true friend) is hard to come by. (Absolute phrase as Noun)
(To do it now) is most advantageous. (Infinitive phrase as Noun)
(Waiting for people) can be quite vexing. (Participle phrase as Noun).

Could we then call 'Waiting for people' a gerund phrase instead of the long 'a participle phrase (functioning) as a noun'?
:D

I would think it's a Participle phrase serving as a Noun phrase. It's not a gerund because a gerund is the Continuous Participle used as a noun. In that sentence, while the phrase itself serves as a noun, the word "waiting" is used as a participle and not a noun WITHIN the phrase.

Moreover, by just calling it a gerund phrase only tells its construction, not its usage. I think construction and usage should be clearly distinguished.
We need to know construction so we know the types of how phrases are FORMED, or how to form them. We obviously need to know their usage IN A PARTICULAR sentence, so we know how they can be USED. :wink:

Casiopea
06-Dec-2003, 10:04
2. (Suddenly turning the corner), he ran into me.

I would say its...used as an Adjective phrase to describe the pronoun "he".

Can you show me how to determine that it's an adjective modifying "he". The reason being is that it's a new one for me and I'd like to understand it better. :D

Thank you for the list of infinitive and preposition phrases functioning as adjectives. I'm more interested in participles, though. That was my original request. :oops:

:D

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 10:23
I think of an Absolute phrase as consisting of a noun or nouns and its modifiers, such as: A shrewd businessman..., My work finished (noun "work", modifiers "my" and "finished")

So, is My work finished, I went home an absolute phrase functioning as a adjective or is it a an adjective phrase functioning as an adjective? That is,
My work having been finished = ? phrase
:D

I would think it's an Absolute phrase serving as an Adjective phrase. From how I look at the difference between a Construction classification and a Usage classification, the two do not overlap. That is, by construction there is no such thing as an Adjective phrase; by usage, obviously there are many Adjective phrases using Absolute/Preposition/Infinitive/Participle constructions.

I see "My work having been finished" as an Absolute phrase, made up of (centred on) the noun "work" with its modifiers "my" and "having been finished". If you break the phrase into two parts: [My work] + [Having been finished], then the first is an Absolute phrase ("work" and it modifier "my"), and the second is a Participle phrase (headed by "having") which serves as an Adjective phrase describing the first phrase [my work].
This is consistent because in the entire phrase "My work having been finished", [having been finished] is one of the two modifiers (adjectives) of the noun "work".

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 10:39
2. (Suddenly turning the corner), he ran into me.
I would say its...used as an Adjective phrase to describe the pronoun "he".

Can you show me how to determine that it's an adjective modifying "he". The reason being is that it's a new one for me and I'd like to understand it better. :D
Thank you for the list of infinitive and preposition phrases functioning as adjectives. I'm more interested in participles, though. That was my original request. :oops:
:D

We can see examples of a Participle phrase describing a pronoun (or noun) where the pronoun is either the subject or object of a verb.

1. I saw him (coming up the street). The phrase describes the object pronoun "him". (Note: "him" is the direct object of "saw", and the phrase describes "him")
2. (Coming up the street), he suddenly stopped. The phrase describes the subject pronoun "he".
3. (Putting on his coat), Ron went out. The phrase describes subject "Ron".
4. (Pressed into a corner), they resisted. The phrase describes the subject pronoun "they". This is clearer, in that the phrase is not modifying the verb "resisted".

But:
5. I asked him (what to do). Absolute phrase (headed by/consisting of pronoun "what") serving as Noun phrase/object of "asked".

Casiopea
06-Dec-2003, 10:53
(Waiting for people) can be quite vexing. (Participle phrase as Noun).

I would think it's a Participle phrase serving as a Noun phrase. It's not a gerund because a gerund is the Continuous Participle used as a noun. In that sentence, while the phrase itself serves as a noun, the word "waiting" is used as a participle and not a noun WITHIN the phrase.

I'm way lost. :oops:

Waitingcan be quite vexing = It can be vexing.

Form: participle
Function: Subject

Participles functioning as subject and objects are called gerunds.

It's still not clear to me, though, how it can function as an adjective. I'm interested in learning this new function. Could you offer some insight. :D

:D

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 11:00
For very good reasons, the two classifications don't overlap:

(A) Construction:
1. Absolute phrase
2. Preposition phrase
3. Infinitive phrase
4. Participle phrase (Continuous or Perfect Participle)

(B) Usage:
1. Noun phrase
2. Adjective phrase
3. Adverb phrase

What's the good reason? :D Moreover, could you offer some examples illustrating the difference between a participle phrase functioning as an adjective, a noun, and an adverb? :D
:D

If we have (say) an Adjective phrase classified as a CONSTRUCTION and also as a USAGE, then when we mention an Adjective phrase, we won't know if we are talking about a construction type or a usage type. That's the reason (I believe and agree) that we don't call a phrase such as "A shrewd businessman" as an Adjective phrase (by construction) although its headed by the article/adjective "A". We call it an Absolute phrase, which consists of a noun or nouns and its modifiers (and the only modifiers of a noun are adjectives, because adverbs don't modify nouns).

We don't find the same phrase-type classified under both Construction-type and Usage-type. So, construction types are Absolute/Preposition/Infinitive/Participle. Usage types are Noun/Adjective/Adverb.

Of course, many writers don't follow this distinction; in fact, they don't even talk about two different classifications, construction vs usage. It is a distinction that I practise and I find it useful, logical and practical. The distinction also covers all possibilities, and I believe will withstand any test.

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 11:10
(Waiting for people) can be quite vexing. (Participle phrase as Noun).

I would think it's a Participle phrase serving as a Noun phrase. It's not a gerund because a gerund is the Continuous Participle used as a noun. In that sentence, while the phrase itself serves as a noun, the word "waiting" is used as a participle and not a noun WITHIN the phrase.

I'm way lost. :oops:

Waitingcan be quite vexing = It can be vexing. Yes, waiting IS a gerund in "Waiting can be vexing", used as noun/subject. WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

Form: participle
Function: Subject

Participles functioning as subject and objects are called gerunds.

It's still not clear to me, though, how it can function as an adjective. I'm interested in learning this new function. Could you offer some insight. :D

:D

Casiopea
06-Dec-2003, 11:18
:D I think I get it. :D Thank you :D

He, searching diligently, soon found the lost coin.

Or copular,

He was searching diligently. He soon found the lost coin.

Getting back to the original topic, 'searching' functions as a predicate adjective in that sentence, right?

:D

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 11:51
Participles functioning as subject and objects are called gerunds. When the Continuous Participle functions as an adjective, it is NOT a gerund. (jws' response)
It's still not clear to me, though, how it can function as an adjective. I'm interested in learning this new function. Could you offer some insight. :D
:D

Since nouns can be adjectives (English lessons), """theoretically""", a gerund can be an adjective, BUT in fact no, a gerund is not a participle functioing as a noun functioning as an adjective. A gerund is the Continuous Participle functioning as a NOUN and a NOUN ONLY.

(A) So, when the Continuous Participle acts as an adjective, it is not a gerund. The Continuous Participle acts EITHER as an adjective OR as a gerund.

(B) And a Gerund acts as a Noun, and no more. It does not act as an adjective: it's the Continuous Participle itself acting as an adjective.

(C) It's NOT: Continuous Participle first becomes (=) a gerund, then the Gerund becomes (=) a noun, then the Noun becomes (=) an Adjective.
It is Continuous Participle becomes (=) Adjective. For example,

Running water (not gerund, simply Participle acting as Adjective)
Falling snow (not gerund)
Burning desire (not gerund)
Cooked meat
Broken window
Pressed shirt

See my previous response re"[Waiting] can be vexing" and "[Waiting for people] can be vexing".

1. Waiting can be vexing. (Participle as Gerund and subject)
2. Waiting for people can be vexing. (Participle as Participle/Verb)
3. A waiting lover. (Participle as Adjective, NOT gerund as adjective)

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 12:27
For very good reasons, the two classifications don't overlap:

(A) Construction:
1. Absolute phrase
2. Preposition phrase
3. Infinitive phrase
4. Participle phrase (Continuous or Perfect Participle)

(B) Usage:
1. Noun phrase
2. Adjective phrase
3. Adverb phrase

Moreover, could you offer some examples illustrating the difference between a participle phrase functioning as an adjective, a noun, and an adverb? :D
:D

(A) CONTINUOUS Participle phrases function as Noun phrases or Adjective phrases.
(B) PERFECT Participle phrases function as Adjective phrases. I don't think it can function as a Noun phrase.
(C) Neither CONTINUOUS nor PERFECT Participle phrases can function as an Adverb phrase. (Can't think of any such usage).

1. [Taking advantage of people] isn't too ethical. (Noun phrase)
2. [Picking his teeth], he stared at me. (Adjective phrase)
3. [Asked for a reply], he dragged his feet. (Adjective phrase)
4. Shoes [made in China] are good and cheap. (Adjective phrase)

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 14:03
:D I think I get it. :D Thank you :D
He, searching diligently, soon found the lost coin.
Or copular,
He was searching diligently. He soon found the lost coin.
Getting back to the original topic, 'searching' functions as a predicate adjective in that sentence, right?
:D

In this case, it's not the same as "I'm going to type a letter". I'd say it's the participle as the main verb, and with "was" forms the past continuous.

Casiopea
06-Dec-2003, 14:13
WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

So if 'waiting' isn't a noun, what is its function in "Waiting for people"?

Moreover, why is it that Waiting's function changes when modified?

1. Waiting can be vexing. (Form: gerund, Function: subject)
2. Waiting for people can be vexing. (Form:_____, Function:____)

I believe 1. and 2. are the same based on the fact that there are only two kinds of participles: adjective and noun (aka gerund). Waiting is either one or the other, and it's not an adjective. Or, is it? :D Help

jwschang
06-Dec-2003, 16:22
WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

So if 'waiting' isn't a noun, what is its function in "Waiting for people"?

Moreover, why is it that Waiting's function changes when modified?

1. Waiting can be vexing. (Form: gerund, Function: subject)
2. Waiting for people can be vexing. (Form:_____, Function:____)

I believe 1. and 2. are the same based on the fact that there are only two kinds of participles: adjective and noun (aka gerund). Waiting is either one or the other, and it's not an adjective. Or, is it? :D Help
In sentence 2, "waiting" remains a verb (not supported by auxiliary, therefore no tense). It doesn't HAVE to be either a gerund or adjective. It remains functioning as a verb. The phrase "Waiting for people" is a Noun phrase (in that particular sentence), with "waiting" functioning as a verb/participle in the phrase.

It acts as an adjective when placed before (not necessarily immediately before) a noun: Running cold water. But, in "waiting FOR people", the preposition relates the verb "waiting" to the noun "people".

Casiopea
07-Dec-2003, 00:31
2. Waiting for people can be vexing.

It remains functioning as a verb. The phrase "Waiting for people" is a Noun phrase (in that particular sentence), with "waiting" functioning as a verb/participle in the phrase.

Could you show me the phrase structure? For example, NP = VP + NP.

:D

jwschang
07-Dec-2003, 06:18
2. Waiting for people can be vexing.

It remains functioning as a verb. The phrase "Waiting for people" is a Noun phrase (in that particular sentence), with "waiting" functioning as a verb/participle in the phrase.

Could you show me the phrase structure? For example, NP = VP + NP.
:D
(Waiting for people) + (can be vexing) = Noun phrase + Verb construction in the present continuous (with modal).

A word (be it a participle, noun, or whatever) does not become another part of speech per se. It becomes such other when it is used as such other. So, a participle is a form of the verb; when it is USED as a noun, then it's called a gerund; when it is used as an adjective (running water) only then is it acting as an adjective.

In "waiting for people" (unlike "running water), "waiting" functions as a verb, so in that phrase it is neither acting as a noun nor as an adjective. :wink:

jwschang
07-Dec-2003, 07:14
WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

So if 'waiting' isn't a noun, what is its function in "Waiting for people"?

Moreover, why is it that Waiting's function changes when modified? To function as a particular part of speech, a word occupies a certain place in a phrase or clause, or is used with certain other parts of speech (prepositions, etc). It is its usage or function that determines in what way it is "modified" (placement, combination with other words,etc), not the other way around. Verbs are verbs in the first place; then some forms of a verb (Infinitive and the Participles) can function (that is, be used) as another part of speech besides its usage as a verb. Similarly, a noun is a noun in the first place; then some nouns may be used NOT AS A NOUN but as an adjective. So, a word belongs "originally" as a verb or a noun; then it may be utilised to act as some other part of speech. For some prepositions which are also adverbs, and adverbs which are also conjunctions, it's hard to say which part of speech is its "original" identity; for example, the word "all" is used as a pronoun (all are present), an adjective (all grammarians are funny people), an adverb (this is all correct), but it's arguable whether "all" is in the first place a pronoun or adjective or adverb (I personally, and I think most people too, would say that "all" is a pronoun in the first place but can act as an adjective or an adverb); looking into a dictionary, you'll find a lot of such words being explained in all their usages as various parts of speech . In the case of verbs and nouns (and most pronouns), it is clear that they are such in the first place, and they only function differently as some other part of speech when so used; most dictionaries do not explain or illustrate their usage as other parts of speech, such as most don't show or explain a particular Continuous Participle in its usage as a gerund.
1. Waiting can be vexing. (Form: gerund, Function: subject)Form: Cont Participle, Function: Noun/subject (therefore called gerund)
2. Waiting for people can be vexing. (Form:_____, Function:____) Form: Cont Participle, Function: Verb (without complete tense)

I believe 1. and 2. are the same based on the fact that there are only two kinds of participles: adjective and noun (aka gerund). Waiting is either one or the other, and it's not an adjective. Or, is it? :D Help

jwschang
07-Dec-2003, 07:25
WITHIN "Waiting for people", it's not a noun nor subject, its an action (participle, without a complete tense). Like, "I do cooking", "cooking" is a gerund/object of "do", or "Cooking relaxes me", where "cooking" is gerund/subject.

So if 'waiting' isn't a noun, what is its function in "Waiting for people"?

Moreover, why is it that Waiting's function changes when modified?

1. Waiting can be vexing. (Form: gerund, Function: subject)
2. Waiting for people can be vexing. (Form:_____, Function:____)

I believe 1. and 2. are the same based on the fact that there are only two kinds of participles: adjective and noun (aka gerund). Waiting is either one or the other, and it's not an adjective. Or, is it? :D Help There is only one "kind" of Continuous Participle, which is as a VERB and VERB FORM. But the verb/Cont Participle may be used to act as a Noun (I do cooking), in which such usage it is called a Gerund, and it can also be used as an Adjective (Running water) but no special name given to it in such usage.

Casiopea
07-Dec-2003, 10:38
Thank you. That was kind of you :wink:

But it's the structure of the phrase 'waiting for people' that interests me, actually. Is the structure [[VP]+NP] as in 1) or [[VP][NP]IP] as in 2)?

1) [waiting for VP] people NP]

2) [[waiting for VP][people NP] IP]

:D

Tdol
07-Dec-2003, 13:21
and it can also be used as an Adjective (Running water) but no special name given to it in such usage.

I'd call it an adjective there, too. ;-) ;-)

jwschang
08-Dec-2003, 08:50
Thank you. That was kind of you :wink:
But it's the structure of the phrase 'waiting for people' that interests me, actually. Is the structure [[VP]+NP] as in 1) or [[VP][NP]IP] as in 2)?

1) [waiting for VP] people NP]
2) [[waiting for VP][people NP] IP]
:D

You are most welcome. It's interesting exploring such things with you. :wink:
A sentence cannot consist entirely of phrases, because it must have a finite verb. A phrase by definition does not have a finite verb. It is two or more words that as a syntactic unit expresses a meaning more than the individual meaning of the words making it up. If we break down further the phrase "waiting for people", there is not much meaning left in the sub-parts as a syntactic unit.
[waiting] + [for people] = participle (not phrase, only one word) + preposition phrase (but not a lot more meaning as a phrase).
[waiting for] + [people] doesn't make much sense to break it this way.

jwschang
08-Dec-2003, 08:53
and it can also be used as an Adjective (Running water) but no special name given to it in such usage.
I'd call it an adjective there, too. ;-) ;-)
I meant "adjective" is not a "special" term like "gerund". :wink:

Casiopea
08-Dec-2003, 10:40
There is only one "kind" of Continuous Participle, which is as a VERB and VERB FORM. But the verb/Cont Participle may be used to act as a Noun (I do cooking), in which such usage it is called a Gerund, and it can also be used as an Adjective (Running water) but no special name given to it in such usage.

Well, you see, that's new to me. To my knowledge, there are two kinds of participles: present participles, so named because they end in -ing, and past participles, so called because they end in -ed/-en. I've not, until know that is, heard the term 'verb' to refer to the present participle. I've heard 'verbal', but not 'verb'. This is what I know:

If a present participle (-ing word) functions as a verb (i.e. when coupled with forms of the verb To Be) it's the string Be + ing , to my knowledge, that functions as a continuous verb; the -ing word itself remains a present participle in form.

If a present participle functions as a noun, it's called a gerund, and if a present participle modifies a noun, it functions as an adjective:

I am eating sushi. (Verb)
Eating sushi is on my list of things to do when I go to Japan. (Noun)
He's an eating sushi kind of guy. (adjective)

To my knowledge, -ing nouns are called "gerunds", whereas -ing verbs and adjectives are called present participles.

In short, I've heard of the term present participle but have never heard of a present participle being called a verb--until now that is. It's a new one on me. :D




If we break down further the phrase "waiting for people", there is not much meaning left in the sub-parts as a syntactic unit.

I'll have to politely disagree. :D



[waiting] + [for people] = participle (not phrase, only one word) + preposition phrase (but not a lot more meaning as a phrase).
[waiting for] + [people] doesn't make much sense to break it this way.

I see the phrase as follows. (By the way, and not to be challenging, a word is in fact considered a phrase in linguistics (see Chomsky, et al, et al.)

Participle = waiting for (Phrasal unit)
Object = people

I believe the head of the phrase is not 'people' but 'waiting for', a present participle, which happens to subcategorized for an object. That the phrase 'waiting for people' can be replaced by "it" makes it a nominal (a gerund) and that it sits in the subject position gives it its function as subject.

In short,

PRO + waiting for + people (S+V+O)

I see a lot of stuff happening in 'the sub-parts of the synactic unit', so much so in fact that it provides some very nice examples for form vs function:

waiting for = present participle (Verbal)
people = noun (Object)
waiting for people = (Noun)

That is, even though the head of the phrase is a verbal, the phrase functions as a nominal, a gerund. Cool!


:D

jwschang
29-Dec-2003, 17:15
There is only one "kind" of Continuous Participle, which is as a VERB and VERB FORM. But the verb/Cont Participle may be used to act as a Noun (I do cooking), in which such usage it is called a Gerund, and it can also be used as an Adjective (Running water) but no special name given to it in such usage.

Well, you see, that's new to me. To my knowledge, there are two kinds of participles: present participles, so named because they end in -ing, and past participles, so called because they end in -ed/-en. I've not, until know that is, heard the term 'verb' to refer to the present participle. I've heard 'verbal', but not 'verb'. This is what I know:

If a present participle (-ing word) functions as a verb (i.e. when coupled with forms of the verb To Be) it's the string Be + ing , to my knowledge, that functions as a continuous verb; the -ing word itself remains a present participle in form.

If a present participle functions as a noun, it's called a gerund, and if a present participle modifies a noun, it functions as an adjective:

I am eating sushi. (Verb)
Eating sushi is on my list of things to do when I go to Japan. (Noun)
He's an eating sushi kind of guy. (adjective)

To my knowledge, -ing nouns are called "gerunds", whereas -ing verbs and adjectives are called present participles.

In short, I've heard of the term present participle but have never heard of a present participle being called a verb--until now that is. It's a new one on me. :D




If we break down further the phrase "waiting for people", there is not much meaning left in the sub-parts as a syntactic unit.

I'll have to politely disagree. :D



[waiting] + [for people] = participle (not phrase, only one word) + preposition phrase (but not a lot more meaning as a phrase).
[waiting for] + [people] doesn't make much sense to break it this way.

I see the phrase as follows. (By the way, and not to be challenging, a word is in fact considered a phrase in linguistics (see Chomsky, et al, et al.)

Participle = waiting for (Phrasal unit)
Object = people

I believe the head of the phrase is not 'people' but 'waiting for', a present participle, which happens to subcategorized for an object. That the phrase 'waiting for people' can be replaced by "it" makes it a nominal (a gerund) and that it sits in the subject position gives it its function as subject.

In short,

PRO + waiting for + people (S+V+O)

I see a lot of stuff happening in 'the sub-parts of the synactic unit', so much so in fact that it provides some very nice examples for form vs function:

waiting for = present participle (Verbal)
people = noun (Object)
waiting for people = (Noun)

That is, even though the head of the phrase is a verbal, the phrase functions as a nominal, a gerund. Cool!
:D

Hi Cas. Sorry for dropping off this conversation half way. Most of December had been a terrible month for me in terms of work. And then I got back just to have a look at this forum! And then all because of some discussion about something which I felt something about, I made a few posts. Mostly, I'm not a good user of the Net, and using it to talk about social issues seems so strange to me because its kind of very personal views, and you might say something that the other person may misunderstand or don't feel good about. I don't really like talking about social issues because they are overwhelming most times. It's only good over a beer or two on a peaceful night with good friends.
I hope you had a good Christmas and wish you an especially fulfilling 2004. May all the good and happy things be yours in the coming year. I guess I'll get back here more often again after I've completed my project. With warmest regards. :)