Three participles appearing in the same form.

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by M56

Ordinary intransitve:

I fainted.

Ordinary intransitive:

They destroyed all the evidence.

I think you might have added a prefix too many there.

Originally Posted by tdol

I think you might have added a prefix too many there.

Well spotted. Thanks.

Ordinary transitive:

He added a prefix too many.

[Tdol]

Overprefixed?

Originally Posted by tdol

Overprefixed?

Overoverprefixed.

[notmyname216]

After reading this thread I and now trying to determine what "stolen" is in these sentences:

1) These burgers are stolen.
2) Those cars were stolen.
3) The boys have stolen those cars

Is "stolen" a verb or an adjective?

4) Those are stolen cars.

I am sure in this example that "stolen" is an adjective since is describes "cars"

[Roro]

Hello all. Hello M56,
I was just browsing The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European, written by Jerzy Kurylowicz (1964; Heidelberg) now. In chapter II: Perfect and Voice I read the following passages, ...and got surprised, to tell the truth. Let me quote several sentences (I omitted some details without notice):
.................................................. ..........................

Chaper II
Perfect and Voice

[1] One of the crucial points in the investigation of the I.E. verbal voice is the relation between the perfect and the passive. As has been pointed out a long time ago, the ending of the I.E. perfect and the I.E. mediopassive go back to the same original series represented by Sanskrit.

The common origin of the perfect and the passive is a fact well attested in the modern languages, e.g. in Romance or in Germanic. (...)

In the Germanic languages we find analogous phenomena attesting the genetic relation between the perfect and the passive and going back to the double semantic function of the past participle.

I didn't know that. It seems to me quite interesting. I haven't read this chapter yet. I will.

[Casiopea]

"stolen" is a tough one.

First, "stolen" comes from a transitive verb, so naturally two arguments are expected, which is one of the reasons speakers might interpret 1) as passive:

1) These burgers are stolen.
Active: Someone steal these burgers.
Passive: These burgers are stolen (by someone).

Second, 1) is somewhat limited in the amount of information we have to work with. It's ambiguous as is. Add a few adjectives, though, and "stolen" functions as an adjective:

Active: These burgers are huge, spicy, and stolen. (adjective)

Add an adverbial and "stolen" functions as a part of a verb:

Passive: These burgers are stolen on a regular basis (by someone).

"stolen" is privy to both verbal and nominal classes. It can function as part of a verb (e.g., passive BE + ed/en; perfect HAVE + ed/en) or as an adjective, both predicative (after BE) and attributive (before a noun). For example,

1) These burgers are stolen. (Predicative)
But add a bit more info and, These burgers are stolen every day. (Passive)
2) Those cars were stolen. (Passive)
3) The boys have stolen those cars (Perfect)
4) Those are stolen cars. (Attributive)

Third, the past participle is usually a passive participle; "passive" in the sense of inactive, not in the sense that the noun it modifies is acted upon by an agent (i.e., passive voice). The passive and the perfect share similar semantics. The culprit, the past participle. It tells us that the noun it modifies underwent a process.

Fourth, the past participles of intransitive verbs are never "passive" (i.e., inactive), and the reason they are used with active senses, such as in the expression fallen comrades.

Lastly, is the verb BE intransitive? If it is, "stolen" is active here:

EX: "These burgers are stolen."
EX: "These are stolen burgers."

But not here:

EX: "These burgers are stolen every day." (routine implies an Agent)
EX: "These burgers were stolen." ("were" and "stolen" are compatible time-wise)

[notmyname216]

Casiopea, your answers has caused more questions for me.

1) Does it matter if a sentence is active or passive for a word to be a verb or an adjective? The reason I ask this is you are highlighting that the sentence is in active or passive form I assume this is important.

2) In the sentence below "stolen" is either a verb or an adjective:

These burgers are stolen.

If the sentence is expanded, as shown below, then what is "stolen"?

These burgers are huge, spicy, and are stolen on a regular basis.

(I think "stolen" is an adjective in that example).



Thanks for your help.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by notmyname216

1) Does it matter if a sentence is active or passive for a [past participle] to be a verb or an adjective?

By "active" do you mean present tense, like,

Full context
EX: Those books are stolen regularly. (passive)

Implied context
EX: Those books are stolen [regularly] (passive)

Sans context (Our original example)
EX: Those books are stolen ~ They are stolen books. (adjective)

Active sentences don't house passive verb forms, so if there's a past participle within its boundaries, its functions is that of an adjective, not as part of the active verb. Moreover, present tense BE is not an active verb; it's intensive, but its "present tense" form admits ambiguity:

EX:They are heated.

Interpretation #1
The buns are heated twice a week.
(inanimate subject + passive verb)

Interpretation #2
The buns are heated/in a heated state (hot).
(inanimate subject + BE + adjective)

Interpretation #3
Max and Pat are heated/angry.
(animate subject + BE + adjective)

Meaning plays a major role in determining the past participle's function. That's why context or additional information helps and, moreover, why "Those burgers are stolen" is ambiguous. More information is needed.

"stolen" is privy to both nominal and verbal classes, so given a sentence like "Those burgers are stolen", it's not clear whether "stolen" functions as a verbal: as part of a passive verb (i.e., Those burgers are stolen [by someone]), is synonymous with a perfect verb phrase (i.e., Those burgers have been stolen) or if it's independent and functioning as a nominal, an adjective; i.e., Those burgers are stolen ~ They are stolen burgers.

2) . . . what is "stolen"?

These burgers are huge, spicy, and are stolen on a regular basis.

Right. Expand the context and "stolen" can function as part of the passive verb form "BE -en". Again, factual present tense "are" coupled with adverbial "on a regular basis" expresses a routine, someone's routine, so an agent is implied: "The burgers are stolen on a regular basis by someone."

All the best.

[Roro]

Hello Casiopea, thank you for your clear explanation, as always.
Not to be rude with you, Casiopea, may I ask you? there's one thing still on my mind. You wrote, in #97:

Active: Someone steal these burgers.
Passive: These burgers are stolen (by someone).

These two sentences are equivalent. So when I read this I concluded: there's no pastness in this stolen.

How do you think?

I ask you, because you wrote also as follows, in #99:

.. as part of a passive verb (i.e., Those burgers are stolen [by someone]), [be stolen] is synonymous with a perfect verb phrase (i.e., Those burgers have been stolen)...

I'm afraid my question must sound quite hairspritting. In that case I'm really sorry. I hope also that it would make sense. You know, as an afterthought I'm beginning to think that M56's inquiry might be interesting, from a historical point of view (not from a learners' point of view in any case!).

With my best regards,