Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Volition and shirts

    I'm not familiar with terminology of English grammar well enough, but I think, M56, your definition describes 'gerund.' ... no??
    (As to the definition of 'gerundive' I agree with Casiopea's correction, ...although according to that site, we should put the word 'future' in 'future passive participle' into parentheses, maybe? )
    Last edited by Roro; 17-Sep-2005 at 15:00.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Volition and shirts

    Hello X Mode,

    This shirt needs ironing. (=This shirt needs to be ironed.)

    Quote Originally Posted by X Mode
    I would think that, maybe, the speaker is really asking someone to iron his shirts with such a statement rather than attaching the modal property of necessity to the shirts.

    Or maybe the speaker is simply announcing that his shirts need to be ironed, and he'll probably do it. In this case, the modal property of "necessity" would be stronger.
    Yes, but such a pragmatic meaning is not expressed in this sentence proper, I think. (I'm interested in an abstracted meaning of sentences, so to speak. I'm the first to admit that my point of view may be sometimes too narrow.)
    Last edited by Roro; 17-Sep-2005 at 15:14.

  3. #23
    M56 Guest

    Default Re: Volition and shirts

    Quote Originally Posted by Roro
    Hello X Mode,

    This shirt needs ironing. (=This shirt needs to be ironed.)


    Yes, but such a pragmatic meaning is not expressed in this sentence proper, I think. (I'm interested in an abstracted meaning of sentences, so to speak. I'm the first to admit that my point of view may be sometimes too narrow.)
    <Yes, but such a pragmatic meaning is not expressed in this sentence proper, I think. (I'm interested in an abstracted meaning of sentences, so to speak. I'm the first to admit that my point of view may be sometimes too narrow.)>

    I think that may be the case, Roro. If you wish to consider sentences without referring to pragmatics, you might just be narrowing your options, and those of students who come here to learn how English really works in context. Students need to have the same advantages as native speakers when it comes to language choice. The possibility of using such utterances as "This shirt needs ironing." indirectly to mean "Iron this shirt" needs to be explained to students so they too can have that option in their use.

    Quote Originally Posted by M56
    <Yes, but such a pragmatic meaning is not expressed in this sentence proper, I think. (I'm interested in an abstracted meaning of sentences, so to speak. I'm the first to admit that my point of view may be sometimes too narrow.)>

    I think that may be the case, Roro. If you wish to consider sentences without referring to pragmatics, you might just be narrowing your options, and those of students who come here to learn how English really works in context. Students need to have the same advantages as native speakers when it comes to language choice. The possibility of using such utterances as "This shirt needs ironing." indirectly to mean "Iron this shirt" needs to be explained to students so they too can have that option in their use.
    EG

    A: This room needs a coat of paint, don't you think?

    B: And?

    A: Er, and nothing. I was just making an observation.

    B: Yeah, right... I'm sure you were
    Last edited by M56; 17-Sep-2005 at 15:57.

  4. #24
    M56 Guest

    Default Re: Volition and shirts

    fghdfhdfh
    Last edited by M56; 17-Sep-2005 at 15:55.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Volition and shirts

    Hello M56, in your previous post #14, all the ~ing forms function as gerund in my opinion (if I understand them properly. I have to take a closer look).

    I found this example of Gerund in my latin textbook:
    Homo ad agendum natus est.
    (roughly: Human is born to act.)

    An example of Gerundive:
    Agendum est.
    (roughly: It is to be done.)

    The form is basically the same --the present participle--, but their meaning and functions are, as far as I learned, different. And Romans did like convoluted gerundive constructions!!


    PS. You all are very quick in writing....

  6. #26
    M56 Guest

    Default Re: Volition and shirts

    Quote Originally Posted by Roro
    Hello M56, in your previous post #14, all the ~ing forms function as gerund in my opinion (if I understand them properly. I have to take a closer look).

    I found this example of Gerund in my latin textbook:
    Homo ad agendum natus est.
    (roughly: Human is born to act.)

    An example of Gerundive:
    Agendum est.
    (roughly: It is to be done.)

    The form is basically the same --the present participle--, but their meaning and functions are, as far as I learned, different. And Romans did like convoluted gerundive constructions!!


    PS. You all are very quick in writing....
    I'm not sure what the Romans have to do with my regionalisms.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Volition and shirts


    Where are you from, M56? From North England?
    And what does this ...fghdfhdfh... mean?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Volition and shirts

    Quote Originally Posted by M56
    can we all agree on this? Gerundives are analyzed as nominal phrases headed by present participles, and they exist in English.
    Yes, and 'phrase' is the operative word there, M56. Here's a gerundive nominal phrase:

    EX: We disapprove of Pat's signing the contract. (ING + OBJECT)

    In Latin, which is were the term comes from, gerundives replace gerunds when the gerund takes an object;e.g., reading (gerund) vs. reading books (gerundive). So, the only difference for English and Latin is subcategorization.

    Latin Gerundive: ING + OBJECT
    English Gerundive: ING + OBJECT
    M56's Gerundive: OBJECT + ING

    As for M56's approach, there's also word-order, or headedness to contend with. According to M56's approach, "my shirts ironing" is a gerundive nominal phrase, a noun + present participle construct, but according to the definition for "gerundive", it's the participle that heads the construct, not the object. English is a headfirst language; it's SVO, which means, given that approach, the phrase 'my shirts ironing' is headed by the noun 'my shirts', not 'ironing'. That's a problem if you want to call it a gerundive nominal phrase.

    Additionally, M56's approach 'ironing' is short for "my shirts are to be undergoing ironing", in the same way that 'ironed' is short for "my shirts are to be ironed".

    my shirts (are to be undergoing) ironing.
    my shirts (are to be) ironed.

    Sounds straightforward enough, but is it? Consider what happens when we omit the links, the verbs:

    [1] I need my shirts (are to be undergoing) ironing. (gerund)
    => I need my shirts ironing. (gerund)

    [2] I need my shirts (are to be) ironed. (participle)
    => I need my shirts ironed. (participle)

    Omit the links and the words 'ironing' and 'ironed' maintain their function as gerund and participle, respectively. Both modify the noun 'my shirts. The latter as a past participle in form and an adjective in function, and the former as a gerund in form and an object complement in function.

    In short, even though 'ironing' is housed within, or "packaged" as a gerundive nominal phrase, it still functions as a gerund, notably, as an object complement.

    Lastly, the gerundive expresses "X to be Y-ed" (similar to the future passive participle, but different in that (a) gerundives express necessity or obligation (note, "duty", not 'dueness') and (b) cannot express the completion of an event, which is why "I need my shirts ironing *by six" is ungrammatical. Moreover, gerundives, at least in Latin, have dative agents, which is why 'shirts' would never be interpreted by its speakers as the thing doing the ironing.

  9. #29
    Steven D's Avatar
    Steven D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    834
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Volition and shirts

    Quote Originally Posted by Roro
    Hello X Mode,

    This shirt needs ironing. (=This shirt needs to be ironed.)


    Yes, but such a pragmatic meaning is not expressed in this sentence proper, I think. (I'm interested in an abstracted meaning of sentences, so to speak. I'm the first to admit that my point of view may be sometimes too narrow.)

    Yes, I agree. This pragmatic meaning is not expressed in the sentence itself. [That's why it's a "pragmatic meaning", right?] However, I think it's possible to imagine that this is what a speaker might really mean. It would, of course, depend on the entire context. Who is the speaker? Who is the listener? Where is the conversation taking place? etc ...






    Originally Posted by X Mode
    I would think that, maybe, the speaker is really asking someone to iron his shirts with such a statement rather than attaching the modal property of necessity to the shirts.

    Or maybe the speaker is simply announcing that his shirts need to be ironed, and he'll probably do it. In this case, the modal property of "necessity" would be stronger.
    Last edited by Steven D; 17-Sep-2005 at 16:48.

  10. #30
    Steven D's Avatar
    Steven D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    834
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Volition and shirts

    Quote Originally Posted by M56
    How about here:

    This path needs repairing.

    NB The path does not belong to the person.

    This would depend on who's speaking and who's listening.

    Let's say it's a public works manager for a town or a city. In this case, we can imagine he's speaking to his employees. They would understand what he means. They would add that to their list of things to do.

    If it's just someone walking along the path and commenting to a friend or talking to someone else in the park, then this statement is just an observation.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Hotchalk