Dick,
I certainly agree that idioms are perhaps better left whole, rather
than picking them apart, because of course then they lose their
meaning.
The "go camping" model is especially interesting, I think, because it
is confined to recreational activities: Not only do we go camping,
we also go fishing, hiking, swimming, boating. Walking? Maybe.
However, we don't go working or even playing, nor do we go sleeping.
Some folks do go drinking, I've heard.
Those activities still seem to me like "where" answers--in contrast
to the linking "go"--with the adjectival "bananas" and "crazy" and
"native."
Martha
>Martha,
>
>As always, your postings are thoughtful, helpful, and pellucid.
>
>I do not see "go camping/bowling/skiing" as parallel to "sit
>reading/knitting/fidgeting." In the latter the verb and modifier are
>independent of each other: she sat, and she read while doing so.
>With "go camping" you can't say she went, and she camped while doing
>so. "Go camping" is phrasal and idiomatic. It can only be understood
>as a phrase.
>
>To illustrate the difference, one could read "She went walking" in
>both ways: (1) she went for a walk (parallel to "go camping") and
>(2) she went somewhere, and her means of transport was on foot
>(parallel to "sit reading").
>
>[GO + Adjective] is frequently used to express a change of state or
>activity. Sometimes "go" might be seen as a linking verb, equivalent
>to "become": "go crazy/bald/deaf." But most adjectives can't be used
>with "go": "become happy/sad/rich" but not *"go happy/sad/rich."
>Others that can be used with "go" can't be used with "become": "go
>native/AWOL/bananas" but not *"become native/AWOL/bananas." When
>Clairol urges you to "go blond," they aren't using "go" as a linking
>verb but as an intransitive verb implying a volitional act.
>
>Examples with prepositional phrases: go off the deep end, go to
>pieces, go into debt. All of the [GO + modifier] expressions that
>express a change of state are idiomatic and phrasal in the sense
>that the meaning of "go" cannot be understood independent of the
>modifier that follows it.
>
>Dick Veit
>
>________________________
>
>Richard Veit
>Department of English, UNCW
>Wilmington, NC 28403-5947
>910-962-3324
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Martha Kolln
>Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:37 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Go camping
>
>Michael,
>
>As you see, Ed and I agree on the function of "camping" as an
>adverbial. I'd like to expand a bit on the issue of form and
>function in relation to the verbals.
>
>In traditional grammar, as you know, "verbal" serves as an umbrella
>term for infinitives, gerunds, and participles--generally speaking,
>for verbs in their roles other than as the predicating, or main,
>verb of a clause.
>
>The term "infinitive" is straightforward: It refers strictly to
>form, to the base form of the verb, with or without "to." In every
>verb except "be," the infinitive is identical to the present tense:
>to eat, to sleep, to seem. The infinitive--the base form--is the
>form of the verb used in commands (Eat your dinner; Be nice to your
>sister; Have a good day). It's also used adverbially (We took the
>week off to go camping); adjectivally (Our decision to go camping
>turned out to be a disaster); and nominally (We decided to go
>camping). In other words, the term "infinitive" itself tells us
>nothing at all about function. (And note that my description of the
>infinitive--including, as it does, commands--goes beyond the
>traditional definition of "verbal." I could also have mentioned the
>infinitive as a form used in the main verb string, when it follows a
>modal: "You should be nice to your sister.")
>
>The term "gerund," on the other hand, includes both form and
>function; it refers to the -ing or -en forms of the verb when it
>is used nominally--that is, when it fills the function of a noun.
>(Camping is fun; We enjoy camping.) In other words, to call a verb
>a gerund automatically brands it as a nominal.
>
>The term "participle" is a fuzzy one, not at all clear-cut like
>"gerund." "Participle" has two meanings: It traditionally refers
>not only to the -ing and -en forms themselves, known as the present
>participle and past participle--in other words, a designation of
>form--but also to those forms when they are used adjectivally (The
>sleeping baby looks peaceful; The movie directed by Clint Eastwood
>won the Oscar)--a designation of function.
>
>However, despite that traditional limitation of function to
>adjectivals, there are occasions when the -ing form modifies verbs,
>as in Michael's example. So it makes sense to expand on the
>traditional "participle as verbal" definition to include adverbials
>as well as adjectivals. In "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
>Language," Quirk et al. do precisely that when they discuss (on p.
>506) what they call "obligatory adjuncts" [in other words,
>obligatory adverbials] with certain verbs (sit, stand, come, go)
>such as "He stood waiting," She sat reading," "She came running."
>In other words, these are intransitive verbs that in certain
>contexts are incomplete without adverbials.
>
>I think it's fair to conclude, then, that to limit the
>verbal/participle to "modifier of nouns"--that is, to say that
>participles modify only nouns and not verbs--is not accurate when it
>comes to certain verbs, as described by Quirk et al.--and by Michael.
>
>In Ed's explanation of "We go camping every summer," instead of
>expanding the definition of "participle" to include adverbials, he
>has expanded the definition of gerund. I prefer to leave the
>definition of gerund as an -ing or -en verb that fills a nominal
>function. (While it's true that nouns and noun phrases can indeed
>modify verbs, they are not functioning nominally when they do so;
>they are functioning adverbially.)
>
>(I should mention also that in his KISS grammar Ed has come up with
>a solution to that dual use of the term "participle": He calls the
>adjectival use of -ing and -en verbs "gerundives." )
>
>In my explanations of modern grammar, I try to use traditional
>terminology that has wide acceptance whenever possible, but
>sometimes, as in the case of "participle," that terminology may have
>to be explained in new, more accurate ways; it may have to be
>redefined. Another example, just to make the point clear, is the
>definition of "pronoun": A pronoun generally substitutes for a
>nominal (a complete noun phrase, even a verb phrase or clause)--not
>just a noun, as the traditional definition tells us.
>
>My apologies for going so far afield from camping.
>
>Martha Kolln
>
>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/
|
