Doesn't widely work here? Is it because wide is the result? I don't get it.
ex)Once this tree is older, it will grow (wide/widely) like the others in the forest.
Not for me- it's a resultative adjective describing the tree, not the distribution of trees. Grow widely would mean that it could be found in many areas. It seems a funny choice of adjective, though; broad might work better.
In the English language, "verb plus adjective" constructions are one of the heaviest minefields (to me).
The tree grows bigger and bigger. (bigger = adjective)
The tree grows.![]()
It is a non-copular usage of "grow".
In this sentence, the verb grow "retains" its full motion sense and the adverbial modifier is disguised in an adjective's garb.
------------------------
EDIT: The tree grows wide.
The tree becomes widepsread.
The tree grows.
I can't think of a pred. nom. complementation with "grow", which further distances "grow" from the true copula class.
This is again non-prototypical copula usage.
Last edited by Afit; 14-Aug-2011 at 08:43.
I meant wide, not wild.![]()
I have to say that this thread is becoming a little surreal for me. The original question was about "Once this tree is older, it will grow (wide/widely) like the others in the forest".
I did not respond to the original post, because I did not know what the correct answer was supposed to be. I still don't.
I have tried to compose sentences with wide, widely, wild, wildly, widespread, but cannot come up with one that sounds natural to me.
I know the feeling!
I don't think trees "grow wide". I think tree trunks grow to be wide. Perhaps the span of a tree can grow to be wide.
Describe that tree.
It's wide.
Did it grow that way?
I now can't answer that question! I would happily say that a tree grows tall but not that it grows wide. Hmmm, perhaps we have stumbled upon another great enigma of the English language.