Adverb is, and has always been, a grab bag. If it doesn't work as a
noun, adjective, verb, etc. call it an adverb and be done with it, and
then don't be too careful in defining what an adverb is. Part of the
problem here is the, usually unconsidered, decision to limit ourselves
to eight parts of speech or to accept traditional definitions. But the
deeper problem lies in the notion category itself, the idea that a word
is one part of speech or another and that those categories are discrete.
The fact is that the categories have fuzzy edges, or, better, the
categories represent prototypical sets of morphological, syntactic,
semantic, and functional characteristics that define a small class of
words, and words that share some of these characteristics are then
assigned to the class as well. Since a lot of students, and a lot of
teachers, won't ask the difficult questions about received wisdom, the
names and the misconceptions persist. Klammer is right in
distinguishing "always" etc. from adverbs. I'm not sure calling them
qualifiers is a step forward though, since it simply establishes another
category and labels it with a term that already has a meaning, if a
questionable one, in traditional grammar ("adjectives qualify, adverbs
modify").
Herb
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christine Gray
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conjunctive Adverbs
Peter,
Thomas Klammer would disagree with you. and after using his book for
years, I now too disagree with you about these words as adverbs.
In his book Analyzing English Grammar, Klammer labels "always,"
"sometimes," "never," etc. qualifiers, I think.
I believe he points out that one of the tests of an adverb is whether
"one" can put very or another intensifier in front of it. He uses frame
sentences as a way to identify a word as/check whether a word actually
is a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb.
I really really like his book. Get a copy from your Longman rep.
Christine
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conjunctive Adverbs
In a message dated 9/10/06 5:55:25 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
Peter, I know what you mean about conjunctive adverbs. They are
"mobile," as are adverbs.
However, conjunctive adverbs cannot be intensified, which is, I think, a
property adverbs have: very suddenly, for example. Nor are conjunctive
adverbs able to modify verbs.
Good points, Christine, but consider the following. Some adverbs also
cannot be intensified: always, sometimes, now, today, never. I don't
think anyone would argue these are not adverbs.
Also, take a look at these:
Christine likes adverbs, but Herb, nevertheless, prefers
conjunctions.
Ed believes in innate knowledge, and Phil, therefore, agrees with
him.
In these two, it seems clear that the so-called conjunctive adverb is
not joining the two clauses; the coordinating conjunctions are serving
that purpose. So would we still call them conjunctions in sentences
like these?
Or how about in a simple declarative sentence.
Roger Federer won the US Open, for example, in four sets.
Why would we want to consider for example to be a conjunction in a
sentence like this. Or would we?
Peter Adams
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
