Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:31:24 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Why is the imperative a finite form of a verb?
I find it a little counterintuitive to say that 'be' is finite in: 'Be quiet!'
Marie-Pierre Jouannaud
Grenoble
A 11:43 07/03/2005 -0700, vous avez écrit :
>Martha,
>
>I guess my question is about the non-standard terminology for the "parts
>of speech." The infinitive is indeed a form of a verb. The imperative is
>a finite form of a verb. The third person singular is a finite form of
>the verb. The plural is a form of the noun. Because the bare form of the
>verb is identical to the infinitive and also to the imperative does not
>make the infinitive equal to the imperative form. They are still two
>forms -- one of them finite (imperative). Maybe my point was a little
>abrupt.
>
>Note that the third person singular as a finite form of the verb is
>identical to the plural form of the noun. Whether we use a word as a noun
>or as a verb is a question of function. We use these terms to refer to
>forms! You seem to be abrogating the term "infinitive" to refer to the
>identical form when it is finite (imperative). So what happens when we
>abrogate the term third person singular to refer to the identical form of
>a noun in the plural? Confusion. Perhaps we could call it a "normal
>inflected form" or something. I think we ought to use a term like "bare
>form" if that's what we mean.
>
>I'm a little unclear about the reason that the term "gerund" should be
>used for the participle. I assumed that was what you meant by "(an -ing
>or -en verb)." That there are two forms is clear, one in -ing and another
>in -en (or -ed). That the "-en form" is often an "-ed" makes it the same
>as a regular simple past form. Now there are two functions for the "-ed"
>form: one as a simple past and the other for a participle. It cannot be
>so hard that there are two -ing forms: one for the participle and one for
>the gerund. The participle is used with the finite forms of the auxiliary
>verbs to alter their meaning in a regular way. This is formally (and
>historically) the same as an adjective derived from the verb. The gerund
>form has got to be taken as derivational. The noun results as a
>derivation from the verb. But I don't believe this noun is ever used with
>the auxiliary verbs in such a regular way as is the participle.
>
>Functions are clearly at different levels. Functional grammar sometimes
>lumps the "word order" kinds of functions into one level. This theory
>speaks of different levels of entities; it needs to speak of different
>levels of functions as well.
>
>I think that when our internalized grammar can't handle the function of a
>word at the appropriate level, we have a tendency to call it an idiom. We
>chalk it up to a former stage of the language, when things were analyzed
>differently. So we can leave it unanalyzed or point out its historical
>antecedents. Edith's analysis of the gerund object of "go" is
>illuminating. It being the object of (elided) preposition makes a lot of
>sense to me.
>
>I hope this explanation clarifies the point I was trying to make.
>
>Bruce
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/
|
|
|