passive participles

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by JJM Ballantyne

. . . you've missed my point here which was to show that neither the word "am" nor the word "loved" carries any intrinsic passive voice meaning.

Oh, I see. Thanks.

"Am" only expresses the first person singular present tense form of "be."

Originally Posted by JJM

"loved" on its own only barely expresses a sense of "completed or past love." To be understood by an English speaker.

Agreed. And I'd say it expresses, "undergone", which certainly shares sematics with the passive voice, but it isn't the "passive"; i.e., a structure.

<Let's all note the date on that ancient text. >

That was the point. I was showing how the use of the terms, though also in contemporary use, are not a recent development.

<Allow me to take this opportunity to remind everyone that we are here to discuss the issues, not the author. Professionalism, please. Students are reading.>

Does that include calling another member's posts "vacuous"?

<Our apologies, AlainK. M56's views do not reflect how we here at UsingEnglish feel about posters or their contributions. >

You should have written the same about your accusations of vacuousness. Or is it OK for you, and not the rest of us, to attack members?

<I agree, Alain. Define your terms, M56.>

I have already done so in numerous ways. And next time, please ask me to do something, don't order.

<Sorry, I simply don't agree that there is such a thing as a "passive participle" in English. >

That's fine. In linguistics, there's continual disagreement over terms. That's a healthy thing, IMO.

<Neither "am" nor "loved" of themselves provide any passive meaning:>

Yes, I know. Many words have no specfic single meaning when on their own (e.g. blue). The words "loved" (verbal) and "loved" (adjectival) are seen as homonyms by many linguists. I suppose you also don't see the need for the term "passive be". Passive be requires (=selects) a passive participle complement.

<* For that matter, because "loved" is a regular "-(e)d" word, there is no intrinsic quality to indicate that it is a participle either. It needs to be hitched up with another word to take on that function.>

So we cannot also say that "bathed" is the past simple form of the verb, right?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by M56

You should have written the same about your accusations of vacuousness. Or is it OK for you, and not the rest of us, to attack members?

No one is attacking you, M56. The leading "question" posed is vacuous. That "vacuous" indirectly refects you is your assumption and your assumption alone.

Originally Posted by M56

And next time, please ask me to do something, don't order.

There won't be a next time, M56.

[QUOTE=Casiopea]No one is attacking you, M56. The leading "question" posed is vacuous. That "vacuous" indirectly refects you is your assumption and your assumption alone.


LOL! This is a personal comment: "It's a vacuous topic -as per usual with M56.

<There won't be a next time, M56. >

Good, does that mean that next time you'll ask politely?

[Roro]

Wouldn't we be better off calling the ~ing participle and the ~ed/en participle as participle one and participle two, respectively??

I would stick to my term, the participle of {affectedness}, for the latter, if it would lead us, by any chance, somewhere more interesting.

To be frank with you, M56, it seems to me sometimes as if you are trying not to listen to our opinions

;

Originally Posted by Roro

I would stick to my term, the participle of {affectedness}, for the latter, if it would lead us, by any chance, somewhere more interesting.

To be frank with you, M56, it seems to me sometimes as if you are trying not to listen to our opinions

;

LOL! To be frank with you, Roro, I think that some of you want me to accept your opinions as God given - and so must be accepted by all. And all you've done regarding your "affectedness" suggestion is to offer it as a label. Could you try to elaborate on why you would use the term "affectedness"? Maybe then I'll have something to listen to..

[Roro]

Originally Posted by M56

all you've done regarding your "affectedness" suggestion is to offer it as a label. Could you try to elaborate on why you would use the term "affectedness"? Maybe then I'll have something to listen to..

Good morning, M56, yes, that's the point.

That is, I'm proposing the participle of {affectedness} or the Participle Two just as more appropriate labels, as you said.

The problem is: all of my arguments for it I've thought of are so ad hoc...!

...................................
By the way don't you know something about the grammaticalization process of 'have+p.p.' ? I've read somewhere (in Kurylowicz, if I remember correctly) that until some stage these sentences below mean roughly the same thing, that is , [2] doesn't have 'present perfect' meaning:

[1] He has the letter written.

[2] He has written the letter.

Have you ever come across upon some interesting papers or resources about this issue? If you have, please kindly let me know; I'll use it in order to reinforce my argument
...................................

[Roro]

!!
I've just found out where I read that:-

Jerzy Kurylowicz (1965). 'The Evolution of Grammatical Categories,' Diogenes, No.51. pp.55-71.

This is a more or less introductry paper for general purpose, but it seems interesting, although there's no mention of 'be+p.p.' construction. If you're interested, I'll quote some passages.

Originally Posted by Roro

!!
I've just found out where I read that:-

Jerzy Kurylowicz (1965). 'The Evolution of Grammatical Categories,' Diogenes, No.51. pp.55-71.

This is a more or less introductry paper for general purpose, but it seems interesting, although there's no mention of 'be+p.p.' construction. If you're interested, I'll quote some passages.

Is the paper available in English and online? Maybe there is a website for the Lvov-Warsaw group?