Three participles appearing in the same form.

[Casiopea]

Mornin'. . . . which languages, though, and are the same terms (M56's terms) applied? Please fill me in.

[Roro]

Cheery morning to you, Casiopea

To tell the truth I'm still not sure what's the point exactly of M56's first argument, just as you've commented about it.

I have in mind, in particular, participial systems of Russian, Latin and Greek. They are immoderately rich (They are intrinsic to each language, so they should be treated in Morphology of individual languages, right?)

I mean, they have a clear distinction between active and passive participle, along with the distinction between present and past. Latin, e.g., makes the Passive participle from their perfect stems, right? Although it has nothing to do with the English participial system, I guess.

[JJM Ballantyne]

I'm a great believer that we needlessly overcomplicate English and this discussion on participles seems to prove my point.

We still carry a lot of Latin "baggage" in our approach to grammar; terms like "perfect participle" are manifestations of this. Latin uses specific word forms and inflections to convey mood, aspect and tense but English tends to rely on constructions instead.

Both the present and past participles are simply words formed from the verb which may act as nouns or modifiers as the situation demands.

[Roro]

No, no, dear JJM Ballantyne, you've totally misinterpreted us.
I don't know at all how to resolve your misunderstanding. Please re-read our posts if you don't mind.
?
.................................................. ......................
I wrote (or wanted to say) before that I don't think the following Casiopea's statement is problematic; it's pure and simple.

Note, there are only "two" kinds of participles in English: present -ing and past -ed/-en.
The terms 'present' and 'past' are misnomers [, though {!}]

You're blaming us for doing a vacuous discussion (Cf. #27). We know better :)

[AlainK]

Originally Posted by JJM Ballantyne

(...) English tends to rely on constructions instead.

Both the present and past participles are simply words formed from the verb which may act as nouns or modifiers as the situation demands.

Suits me fine!
As an ESL teacher, I prefer the linguist's approach to the grammarian's. Of course, it's important for the teacher to be able to categorize words, but from the point of view of the learner I think that what really matters is "how it works", not what things are called.
For instance, it helps to know that when used with an auxiliary, a verb can only have three forms: the infinitive without to, V-ing, and -V-en.
And to try to explain things like "She's gone : has or is?", I advise my pupils to use another verb: "She's dead / She has died", so they can see by themselves how it works...

[JJM Ballantyne]

I'm a great believer in the principle of approaching language from the point of view of what is actually going on. This often means a lot of the grammatical jargon we are hobbled by isn't too helpful.

Take "stolen." What is "stolen"? Simply put, it is a word based on the verb "steal" implying a completed action (a "perfected" action if you will - even if that action has yet to take place).

Those are stolen cars. "stolen" is a modifier (adjective)

Those cars were stolen. "stolen" is a modifier (adjective)

The boys have stolen those cars. "stolen" is a modifier (adverb)

That last one will no doubt get me in trouble with those fond of terms like "compound verbs"! But why should "stolen" not simply be viewed as modifying "have"?

[Roro]

I'm a great believer in the principle of approaching language from the point of view of....

Glad to meet you, JJM Ballantyne. Just a word... I personnally don't like the label 'perfected' much (It's merely my humble opinion.)
So do you think the modifier 'stolen' always implies some action? Sorry if I've misunderstood you.
.................................................. .....
I mean, the following sentences, it seems to me, have quite different temporal structures (among other differences):

# Those are stolen cars. Those cars are stolen.
# Those cars were stolen (yesterday/frequently).
# Those cars have been stolen (since yesterday).

# The boys stole those cars.
# The boys have stolen those cars.

... and I'm interested in it, kind of... And I want some framework rich enough to explain those differences.
:::blush::: I'm writing, even arguing merely a matter of course, seems like...

[MrPedantic]

Interesting line of thought, JB.

How would you parse the p-words in:

1. He is a much-loved grammarian.
2. She is much praised for her swift right hook.

Also, can you give some more detail about the way in which "stolen" modifies "have" in:

3. The boys have stolen the BMW.

MrP

[Casiopea]

Good evening, all. And a hearty welcome to JJM and AlainK.

Roro, indeed participial systems are "immoderately rich" morphologically in other languages, agreed, but I was after M56's terminology. Are the following terms (M56's?) new or used? They're new to me.

1. perfect participle
3. adjectival participle

JJM, I like your style. "a lot of . . . grammatical jargon" is right. I also agree with AlainK. A word's distribution determines its function, and not the other way around, which M56's new (?) terms seems to imply; i.e., past participle "stolen" (M56's 2.) is defined according to its function, which makes the underlined portion of "were stolen" a past participle functioning as a past participle. Terminology . . . Call it what it is.

About function, how do you get a copular reading here; i.e., ?they used to be stolen?

EX: Those cars were stolen. "stolen" is a modifier (adjective)

I get a passive reading. That is, 'were stolen', at least to me, functions as a verb phrase. I can't get "stolen" to function as a subject complement. How'd you do that?

"stolen" an adverb? It's a nice, clean analysis, but - and I need to ask this - where's the evidence? What does "stolen" contribute to "have". Is it How?, Where?, When? or Why?

EX: The boys have stolen those cars. "stolen" is a modifier (adverb)

We could call "stolen" the verb's object, but where would that leave the verb's other object, "those cars"? Moreover, Obviously, "adverb" doesn't pan out.

Back to the topic of this thread. Are there "three" participles in English as M56's post implies?

[MrPedantic]

Hello Cas

Older (1900-ish) grammarians would distinguish between the "past indefinite participle" (loved) and the "past perfect participle" (having loved).

I believe that participial adjectives in -ed are sometimes called "adjectival passives".

MrP