Karl,
I think we are dealing with a preponderance of evidence argument, and
so it won't likely feel conclusive.
If "be supposed to" has grammaticalized into modal, then it did so
along a path that had to include passive and/or participial adjective,
probably both in that order, so it shouldn't surprise us that it still
carries remnants of that. The same could be said of "am going to,"
which can still be used in its initial ways. Herb's tests work pretty
well there. *"I'm gonna the store." "I'm gonna vote in the next
election." "It's gonna rain."
With fond, we can say "I am fond of it," but not (except in special
circumstances, with stranded preposition) "I am fond of." So it makes
sense to say that "fond" requires a complement, as does "supposed to"
(though it may be recoverable from discourse context." "Did you fill
out those forms? You were supposed to." We wouldn't say "You were
supposed." "Do you still like chocolate? *You were fond of."
The grammars I have been reading (currently Talmy Givon's two volume
Syntax) deal with grammaticalization as a central focus, so I may be
influenced by that lens. Givon is unabashedly a functionalist, but
seems highly respectful of formal arguments--indeed, highly respectful
of all empirical evidence. It's a nice balance.
If you think of functional pressure and formal change in response to
that (over time), then it is easier to see why some forms are very
hard to classify.
Craig
>
Craig,
>
> But cf, "fond," which is unambiguously an adjective:
>
> I am fond of chocolate.
> *I am fond.
>
> In other words, that's only evidence that "supposed" has a mandatory
> complement. That test is not dispositive for deciding whether the word
> is verbal or adjectival. I don't dispute, though, that "to" is closely
> related. Witness the reduction that Herb notes.
>
> BTW, looking up "supposed" in Huddleston and Pullum, I find they call it
> a participial adjective too, although without any argument.
>
> Karl
>
> On 2/20/2011 2:49 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>> Karl,
>> I wonder about the participial adjective judgment, just because
>> "to"
>> seems somewhat attached to it.
>> "I was pleased to meet you."
>> "I was pleased."
>> "I was supposed to meet you."
>> "I was supposed to."
>> *? "I was supposed."
>> I think one reason the phonology reduces is that "to" is not quite
>> so
>> separate as an element.
>> I suspect that is partly what you mean by quasi modal? It's not
>> just
>> supposed, but "be supposed to" that acts in that way?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul,
>>>
>>> I think you're right. Ultimately, this is a confusion based on normal
>>> phonological processes. Unless one is being extremely careful and
>>> over-articulating one's pronunciation, it's normal not to release the
>>> final /d/ of a past-tense verb when the following word is followed by
>>> another consonant with the same place of articulation (as is the case
>>> with /t/). So students simply don't hear the -ed at the end of the word
>>> and therefore reinterpret.
>>>
>>> BTW, although "supposed" may have originated as a passive, I wouldn't
>>> analyze it as a passive voice in present-day English. I think
>>> "supposed"
>>> is now a participial adjective, one that has developed a quasi-modal
>>> meaning quite distinct from a passive version of "suppose."
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On 2/19/2011 4:53 PM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:
>>>> Is this the same error that I often see among my high school students
>>>> with "used to" being written, "use to?" E.g>, *"I was suppose to do my
>>>> homework on time." and *"I use to always do my homework on time." I
>>>> don't hear the second one as passive.
>>>> Paul
>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From:* Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>
>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>> *Sent:* Sat, February 19, 2011 6:51:42 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Supposed versus Suppose
>>>>
>>>> Brian,
>>>> I think that is undoubtedly its source. Like any passive, the first
>>>> auxiliary (am, are,was, were) would carry the tense and "supposed"
>>>> would be past participle. But think about how awkward it sounds to
>>>> say "the government supposes me to pay my taxes." It's not so awkward
>>>> to say "the government requires me to pay me taxes" or "obligates me
>>>> to pay my taxes." The alternative possibility is that it has become a
>>>> three word construction that acts like a modal auxiliary. "I am
>>>> supposed to pay my taxes." "I should pay my taxes." "I must pay my
>>>> taxes."
>>>> A close parallel would be "am going to," which started out as meaning
>>>> movement toward a goal (I am going to the park), broadened out as an
>>>> expression of intention (I am going to vote in the next election), and
>>>> now can be used as modal predictor, as parallel to "will" ("It is
>>>> going
>>>> to rain").
>>>> Other similar constructs would be "ought to" and "have to" and "be
>>>> able to."
>>>> This seems to me another good example of grammaticalization at work.
>>>> Words or phrases can change their function over time, and sometimes
>>>> they will seem to be part way there.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Isn't it passive voice? If "we are supposed to x," someone (or
>>>> everyone)
>>>> > supposes that we should and will x, but the identity of the
>>>> supposer
>>>> isn't
>>>> > really relevant, so we leave it out by using passive voice (in
>>>> which
>>>> case
>>>> > we use "-ed" even in the present tense).
>>>> >
>>>> > ________________________________
>>>> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> > [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on
>>>> behalf of Linda Comerford
>>>> > [[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>>> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 6:07 PM
>>>> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> > Subject: Supposed versus Suppose
>>>> >
>>>> > Help!
>>>> >
>>>> > During an oral grammar workshop, somehow the class got into a
>>>> discussion
>>>> > about the difference between "supposed" and "suppose." The
>>>> participants
>>>> > didn't pronounce "supposed" with the "d" and had assumed the word
>>>> was
>>>> > "suppose." We discussed how past tense verbs have the "ed" at the
>>>> end,
>>>> > whether we enunciate it or not, and thought that would suffice.
>>>> It
>>>> didn't
>>>> > because someone pointed out that "we are supposed to" is an an
>>>> example of
>>>> > a present tense verb that still needed the "d" at the end. Okay,
>>>> I
>>>> must
>>>> > admit that stumped me.
>>>> >
>>>> > Further confusion arose when someone contrasted "supposed" with
>>>> "suppose"
>>>> > like, "Do you suppose we will ever resolve these questions?" At
>>>> that
>>>> > point, I wasn't sure we ever would and called a break hoping I
>>>> could
>>>> find
>>>> > a dictionary to differentiate those words and how they worked.
>>>> The
>>>> > dictionary was no help at all; the explanations were
>>>> contradictory
>>>> instead
>>>> > of enlightening.
>>>> >
>>>> > Can any of you help me with this? I'd appreciate whatever you can
>>>> send
>>>> > either through the listserv or directly to me. Since I'm
>>>> "supposed"
>>>> to
>>>> > follow up with the class, I "suppose" I should have a clear
>>>> explanation
>>>> > for the class. Thanks so much.
>>>> >
>>>> > Linda
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Linda Comerford
>>>> > 317.786.6404
>>>> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> >
>>>> www.comerfordconsulting.com<https://webmail.smcm.edu/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ________________________________
>>>> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>>> On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:55 PM
>>>> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> > Subject: "thats" for "whose"
>>>> >
>>>> > We’ve had considerable discussion of relative “that” from
>>>> time
>>>> to time,
>>>> > and I thought the following exchange from ADS-L might be of
>>>> interest.
>>>> >
>>>> > Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>>>> > Emeritus Professor of English
>>>> > Ball State University
>>>> > Muncie, IN 47306
>>>> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> >
>>>> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>>> > -----------------------
>>>> > Sender: American Dialect Society
>>>> > <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>>>> > Poster: Jonathan Lighter
>>>> > <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>>>> > Subject: Re: "I've a 24" 2.4Ghz iMac _that's_ hard drive recently
>>>> > packed
>>>> > in."
>>>> >
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> > I mentioned this some years ago. I had a freshman in the early
>>>> '80s
>>>> who
>>>> > insisted that "that's" was correct because "whose" referred to
>>>> people.
>>>> >
>>>> > When I surveyed English Department graduate students with a
>>>> > fill-in-the-blank quiz, a fair number filled in the blanks with
>>>> "that's"
>>>> > instead of "whose."
>>>> >
>>>> > God knows what they wrote in their own papers. They were mainly
>>>> working on
>>>> > masters' rather than doctoral degrees, if that makes anyone feel
>>>> better.
>>>> > And
>>>> > did I mention that the degrees would be in English? Yeah, I guess
>>>> I
>>>> did.
>>>> >
>>>> > JL
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Laurence Horn
>>>> >> <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > it's an instance of "that" (reanalyzed from complementizer to
>>>> >> > relative pronoun) in the genitive, as noted.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >
>>>> > 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/
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> 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/
|
