Eduard,
    I would express it somewhat differently. Frequency is often
self-reinforcing. Frequency makes something more accessible for use,
which in turn makes it more frequent. And so on.
    I just asked a friend how she likes her new job (from teacher to
counselor), and she said "I'm liking it." It occured to me that she
might not have said that without the influence of the McDonald's ad.
Progressive is not common with stative verbs, but an ad campaign can
change that.
    Rather than intersection of word classes, it might be more of an issue
of centrality. Some elements of the category are more central than
others, some more borderline or peripheral.
    You also have a tendency (from that cognitive frame of reference) to
see far more lower level constructions. It's much more a
lexico-grammar than a set of abstract rules. (Pattern is closer than
rule.) A great deal of language includes set constructions, many of
them with their own more local patterns. So it could be that "like"
brings with it a unique kind of grammar.

Craig>

Geoff,
>
> You probably did not have time to read "Frequency of Use and the
> Organization of Language" by Joan Bybee, in which the author, after
> decades of research, documents that language organizes itself, and that
> parts of speech or word classes are not an idiot's fantasy, but one way in
> which language acquires and shows structure. These word classes are real,
> and understanding them makes a great difference when one learns a
> language. That difference goes beyond boundaries, which are nothing more
> than points at which word classes intersect. To inflate the importance of
> these points of intersection to a generality (which is a fallacy) shows
> lack of understanding of the role of morphology and syntax in the
> production and conveyance of meaning - the main functions of language.
>
> Eduard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 16:13
> Subject: Re: like
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>>
>> Craig - I know we've had this discussion before, but my reaction
>> is "what difference does it make what we call it?"  I don't
>> see how you can have anything except flexible boundaries, which
>> then leads to the more interesting question of the rhetorical
>> effect of "shading" into a verb - what happens to the meaning of
>> the sentence? Labeling the choices as preopositions, adjectives
>> or verbs really doesn't go very far to answer this question.
>>
>> Geoff Layton
>>
>> > Craig,
>> >
>> > My first reaction was that this use of "like" was adjectival,
>> but since you want a traditional treatment I checked the OED
>> Online and Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. Both treat as an
>> adjective, although MW doesn't have an example with BE.
>> >
>> > Herb
>>
>> > I am curious about how traditional grammar handles "like" in a
>> sentence like "One of these things is not like the others." (I
>> know; Sesame Street).
>> > My instinct is to say "like the others" is prepositional
>> phrase, complement to "is", therefore referring back
>> (adjectivally?) to "One of these things." Would that be standard?
>> > If it can be easily replaced by "resembles" (or "doesn't
>> resemble"), does that mean "be like" is shading into a verb like
>> status with "the others" as object? Are we OK with flexible
>> boundaries around our categories?
>> >
>> >
>> Craig
>> 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/