GOING TO, ETC

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by jwschang

I am here (predicate adverb). Except that adverb phrases are supposed to be headed only by a preposition or infinitive (I wonder why? and who laid this down!!) and not a participle!! Otherwise, I'd say its an adverb phrase modifying "am".

Huh? That's news to me too. Where did you find that? Let me know. I'm interested in checking it out further. :D

With regard to "I am (situated) here (by X's doing)", reflexive, here modifies situated, a participle: I am situated (participle) in this location (prepositional phrase). predicate adjective

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Predicate Adjective
I am typing.
==> Typing I am. (Not OK)

Originally Posted by jwschang

No, that's not a predicate adjective. My post said this one is the present continuous, to contrast with the usage of "going".

Yes. I agree with you there. I was only testing it out to show you that I agreed with you. :D

Originally Posted by jwschang

Thanks for the input, Cas.

Oh, I'm not letting you off that easy. :D I took the time to think over your analysis. I'm waiting for you to further prove to me that 'going to' is a predicate adjective. Please. :D

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Huh? That's news to me too. Where did you find that? Let me know. I'm interested in checking it out further. :D

In twenty years of teaching, I've never come across that rule.

[Casiopea]

1a He was hoping to eat.

==> He was hoping [that she would eat]. (SV[O])
==> He was hoping [PRO to eat]. (SV[O])

1b. He was eating.
==> He was eating. (SV)

1c. He was going to eat. (Main verb?)

There are two possibilities: 1d and 1e.

1d. He was going [up the stairs]. (SV[O]) progressive/continuous

1e. He was going to go [up the stiars]. (SV[O]) not prog/contin.

1d is the same as 1a and 1b; They are all progressive/continuous.
1e is different from 1d, 1a, and 1b.

6. He was about to eat.
==> was about to (inceptive, i.e. start(ed) to do something)

Originally Posted by jwschang

"Going" acts like the modal auxiliaries, and conveys the same genre of meaning: intention, obligation, compulsion, possibility, etc.

I agree. Mind you, modals cannot function as predicate adjectives (e.g. *I am ought.) So where then does that leave 'going to'?

Originally Posted by jwschang

(B) The meaning of "going" here is definitely not as in "I am going home".

Right. I am going home = I am traveling home, whereas I am going to go home = I am planning on traveling home.

Originally Posted by jwschang

(C) We can't stop at "He is going......", just as we can't stop at "He ought/should/must/will......."

Right. The reason being, going to is transitive, whereas going (e.g. I am going. See you.) is intransitive. Note, go of I am going to go is also instransitive.

Originally Posted by jwschang

(D) The usage of "going" as meaning "intending" is so ubiquitous that I believe it is a case of its serving or acting as an auxiliary.

First, we know that going and going to are different. The former expresses a present continuity, whereas the latter expresses a future intention:

1) be going = progressive continuous
2) be going to = future intention, modality

Second, what does being ubiquitous have to do with modality? I'm lost.

Third, within the verb phrase am going the word am is the auxiliary. Similarly, within the verb phrase am going to eat the word am is the auxiliary.

A: I am going. main verb (aux+V-ing) intrans.
B: I am going to eat. main verb (aux+V-ing+object) trans.

In short,

A: be going = progressive continuous
B: be going to = future intention, modality (This is not a new idea)

:D

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by tdol

In twenty years of teaching, I've never come across that rule.

Mygawd. I'm not even 20 yet
______________
Joking :D

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Oh, I'm not letting you off that easy. :D I took the time to think over your analysis. I'm waiting for you to further prove to me that 'going to' is a predicate adjective. Please. :D

No, I'm not trying to prove that "going to" is a predicate adjective. I'm saying that if, as in the examples I gave, "going" is not in fact expressing the continuous tense (I'm talking only about the present and past continuous, not the future or perfect continuous tenses) but is behaving more like an auxiliary, then in those sentences the phrase headed by going is a predicate adjective phrase (or an adverb predicate phrase, etc).
That's because "going", in its currently deemed usage as a continuous tense, is used with "be" (am/is/are/was/were) as the auxiliary. So, if it's not expressing the continuous, it's got to be part of the predicate that "Be" links to its subject.

I raised this to invite some thinking from "you kind people". I'm not arguing strongly for my case, just IMO the usage of "going" doesn't seem quite as forming the continuous tense (except of course when it actually means going somewhere, and not futurity or intention). So, it's got you thinking and analysing, and disputing this "contention", which is exactly why I'm thanking you!!!!! :) :wink:

But I'm not declining the debate either. Only thing is, now and again, I'm off the Net for days on end because of my book! So, I do look forward to more from you (and TDOL, Ron, and whoever else thinks this subject is worthy of thought and debate). If you and everybody else had just ignored this posting, uh.......poor me. :wink:

Originally Posted by tdol

In twenty years of teaching, I've never come across that rule.

It's not a rule like such as Concord. It's concluded from certain grammar books where the writers classify and deal with the usage of phrases. One is "Basic English Review" by Schacter/Clark/Schneiter, which is used by communication and English teachers in one of the universities here. This particular book classifies phrases into prepositional, infinitive and participial phrases, with the first two (but not the last) as being applicable as adverbs. I was referring to such classifications (I guessed the writers are pretty authoritative grammarians), so I wondered "why so" and "who laid this down". So, it's me putting it wrongly by saying it's some sort of "rule", because students do tend to go by the books they use. Statement is withdrawn with deep regrets and apologies for causing nasty surprises. :(

Originally Posted by Casiopea

1a He was hoping to eat.
==> He was hoping [that she would eat]. (SV[O])
==> He was hoping [PRO to eat]. (SV[O])
1b. He was eating.
==> He was eating. (SV)
1c. He was going to eat. (Main verb?)
There are two possibilities: 1d and 1e.

1d. He was going [up the stairs]. (SV[O]) progressive/continuous
1e. He was going to go [up the stiars]. (SV[O]) not prog/contin.

1d is the same as 1a and 1b; They are all progressive/continuous.
1e is different from 1d, 1a, and 1b.

6. He was about to eat.
==> was about to (inceptive, i.e. start(ed) to do something)
:D

Yea, I'm talking about "going" as used in (1e), when it's not expressing movement but intention or futurity.

Originally Posted by Casiopea

I agree. Mind you, modals cannot function as predicate adjectives (e.g. *I am ought.) So where then does that leave 'going to'?
:D

Agreed, it's not entirely like the modals. Its looks a special case. The modals are not all the same in every way either: MUST has only one form, OUGHT is always followed by TO. Construction-wise (active voice), the modals are: Modal + Infinitive, etc.
If "going" acts as a modal, its constructions are more varied than the true modals: such as, Aux (will) + Be + Going + Infinitive (say, to eat), and so on. The true modals can't be, for example, "Will be can doing".

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Second, what does being ubiquitous have to do with modality? I'm lost.
:D

The modals are very frequently used, to express the very varieties of meaning that they have. In the same way, the use of (going + infinitive) to express intention or futurity is ubiquitous, probably even more frequent than its meaning of actual movement (going somewhere). :wink:

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by jwschang

It's not a rule like such as Concord. It's concluded from certain grammar books where the writers classify and deal with the usage of phrases. One is "Basic English Review" by Schacter/Clark/Schneiter, which is used by communication and English teachers in one of the universities here. This particular book classifies phrases into prepositional, infinitive and participial phrases, with the first two (but not the last) as being applicable as adverbs. I was referring to such classifications (I guessed the writers are pretty authoritative grammarians), so I wondered "why so" and "who laid this down". So, it's me putting it wrongly by saying it's some sort of "rule", because students do tend to go by the books they use. Statement is withdrawn with deep regrets and apologies for causing nasty surprises. :(