Having been gone for a couple of days, I am coming to this discussion very
late, so forgive me if this has already been said and I am not to it yet!  I
think that the non-passive participles that Johanna and Michael are talking
about are what Azar calls the stative passive in her ESL book.

> ----------
> From:         Michael Kischner[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:     Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> Sent:         Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:14 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Valences 2 (of 2)
>
> Yes, I'm still with you t the end of 2 of 2.  Valences seem a very useful
> way of discussing patterns.
>
> One small note on a difference between ing participles and gerunds: you
> don't have to torment students to get them to see a difference between
> "the drinking horse" and "the drinking water."
>
> As for calling past participles "passive" participles, I've actually taken
> to doing that in class sometimes, but I have come upon instances of
> participles that -- to use Johanna Rubba's information about "scanning" --
> are hard to "scan" as passives.  I can't think of a good one right now,
> but "flushed" as in "flushed with shame, he pointed to the empty cookie
> jar" might serve.  Or "Buried for twelve centuries, the documents were
> discovered by construction workers."  "BUried" here refers to a condition,
> not a received action.
>