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/