Three participles appearing in the same form.

[JJM Ballantyne]

"What does 'stolen' contribute to "have". Is it How?, Where?, When? or Why?"

Here's what "stolen" contributes to "have" - meaning. It cues us to the purpose of the verb "have" in this context. As such it modifies and qualifies the verb. Last time I checked, that was the job of an adverb, folks.

If I say:

They have

You will need additional information to determine what "have" is supposed to mean here.

If I add:

They have the stolen cars.

The addition of that direct object clearly provides the verb "have" with the meaning of owning or possessing.

If I add:

They have stolen those cars

The addition of "stolen" clearly provides the verb "have" with the meaning of an auxiliary used in English verb constructions, in this case, to project a sense of past time.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by M56

So for you, 3 (stolen) is not a past participle?

Why, no. "stolen" is a past participle. That's what it's called. Its function varies according to its distribution.

EX: The burgers are stolen. (adjective)

EX: The burgers have been stolen. (participates in a compound verb)

EX: The burgers were stolen. (participates in a compound verb)
=> Additional context may prove otherwise. Again, distribution is the key.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by M56

. . . why . . . use the term past participle. We could make it easier by finding clearer terms.

Or a better explanation. Why not explain to your students that "past" doesn't refer to the participle's function. It's that clear and simple. It refers to morphology, the -ed and -en endings.

There are only two kinds of participles in English, and their name is based on their form, not their function. Past participles end in -ed/-en, and present participles end in -ing.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by JJM Ballantyne

Here's what "stolen" contributes to "have" - meaning. It cues us to the purpose of the verb "have" in this context.

Originally Posted by JJM Ballantyne

If I add:

They have stolen those cars

The addition of "stolen" clearly provides the verb "have" with the meaning of an auxiliary used in English verb constructions, in this case, to project a sense of past time.

Interesting. Adverbs usually don't make it into verb paradigms, though: steal, stole, have stolen. Moreover, how do you account for inflected adverbs?

[JJM Ballantyne]

"Moreover, how do you account for inflected adverbs?"

The short answer to that is: why do I have to?

[QUOTE=JJM Ballantyne]"If we were to follow your Mr Simplistic route, the whole discipline of Linguistics would be condemned to the garbage bin of wasted discovery."

Perhaps much of it should be. I've watched as "linguistics science" has become increasingly baffling, obfuscated and arcane over the years. Somewhere in that process, what once I found to be truly interesting and exciting has dissolved into an introspective cult of psychobabble.

QUOTE]

<I've watched as "linguistics science" has become increasingly baffling, obfuscated and arcane over the years. >

Maybe you been watching in the wrong area. Applied Linguistics hasn't gone that way.

Originally Posted by JJM Ballantyne

"What does 'stolen' contribute to "have". Is it How?, Where?, When? or Why?"

Here's what "stolen" contributes to "have" - meaning. It cues us to the purpose of the verb "have" in this context. As such it modifies and qualifies the verb. Last time I checked, that was the job of an adverb, folks.

If I say:

They have

You will need additional information to determine what "have" is supposed to mean here.

If I add:

They have the stolen cars.

The addition of that direct object clearly provides the verb "have" with the meaning of owning or possessing.

If I add:

They have stolen those cars

The addition of "stolen" clearly provides the verb "have" with the meaning of an auxiliary used in English verb constructions, in this case, to project a sense of past time.

I missed the relevance of that post. What is it?

EX: The burgers are stolen. (verbal/adjectival. Ambiguous?)

[Roro]

Originally Posted by JJM Ballantyne

I've watched as "linguistics science" has become increasingly baffling, obfuscated and arcane over the years. Somewhere in that process, what once I found to be truly interesting and exciting has dissolved...

Hello Mr Ballantyne, is there any linguist who you are holding in high esteem? Just out of interest!

.................................................. ..................................
Hello M56, ambiguous as it stands, in my humble opinion, in English. Context disambiguates it quite easily, I guess.

What's the problem?

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Or a better explanation.

There are only two kinds of participles in English, and their name is based on their form, not their function. Past participles end in -ed/-en, and present participles end in -ing.

The man who is walking the dog. (adjectival present participle)

I saw Terry sitting by the window.(adjectival present participle)

Some have criticized the network for rejecting two gay-themed commercials. (adjectival past participle)

He is not much interested in her lack of understanding. (adjectival past participle)