Bruce,

I share your caution about the deletion analysis.  The analysis itself
goes back, I think, to early transformation grammar, which employed
transformations like WH+is deletion, and it didn't take long for TG to
reject them.  The problem I see with such derivations is that they deny
the important functional differences between the clausal and phrasal
forms.  I could write or say

While John was taking a walk in the part, he saw Mary.

While he was taking a walk in the park, John saw Mary.   (where he =
John)

Taking a walk in the park, John saw Mary.

These can have very different discourse contexts.  The third, for
example, could be true if John was still on the way (walking) to the
park, but the first two couldn't be.  I could use the second if John's
been referred to before, but I wouldn't likely use the first then.  

You know this, but it's worth saying to the list:  We have different
ways of saying things because we need them to fit different discourse
contexts.

Herb

 

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Definitions of verb

 

I just want to comment on the point of view that is taken by those who
say that 
"Taking a walk in the park John saw Mary"

is an elipsis of 
"While he was taking a walk in the park John saw Mary."

 

I believe that this stance is taken to say that the first can come from
the second by simply omitting some of the words.  But the fact is that
the words change their function and the second sentence is not very well
crafted.  It should be more sensibly formed as:

"While John was taking a walk in the park he saw Mary"

But now it is not so easy to say, "Just omit a few words."  Note also
the fact that "taking" is a participle serving as an adjective modifier
to "John" in the first sentence (see our earlier discussion about this
sentence position also taking on an adverbial function).  In the second
the participle is part of a main verb, being aided by the auxiliary "be"
to form the progressive aspect of the present tense.  So it is
misleading to speak of "elipsis" as just a matter of omitting a few
words.

Bruce

>>> "Phil Bralich" <[log in to unmask]> 08/17/06 8:51 AM >>>

Taking a walk in the park John saw mary

is an elipsis of 

While he was taking a walk in the park John saw Mary

This is called a participial phrase in most books.  Some call it a
reduced adverb clause which is particularly helpful given its origin.
It also parallels reduced adjective clauses (also called participial
phrases)

the boy, being too fast to live young to die, resembled James Dean.
Being is derived from "who was" by regular processes.  

Calling either a tensed verb would be incorrect.  Pointing out their
origin in full clauses is very helpful.  

Phil Bralich

-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Aug 17, 2006 7:25 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Definitions of verb
>
>Peter,
>   The problem as I see it is that we DO need to recognize "taking" as
a
! >verb in the sentence you give. Even traditional grammar recognizes
>"taking a walk in the park" as predicate like, saying that it modifies
>its "implied subject" (in this case "The couple".) Most grammars these
>days would call it a non-finite clause. It's a verb (whole predicate)
>that has had its finiteness removed, but retains its transitivity and
>its verb like meaning. We can say that it has been "downranked" into a
>subordinate status, in this case as a restrictive adjectival modifier
>of "the couple."
>   I sometimes have good luck giving three or four short sentences with
>the same subject and then asking students what nuances are created by
>choosing one or the other as main verb.
>   He limped from an old war wound.
>   He held his head high.
>   He carried the flag in the parade.
>
>   We have several solutions, and students can co! me to see the
rhetorical
>nuances involved. "Limping from an old war wound, holding his head
>high, he carried the flag in the parade."
>   In the parade, he limped from an old war wound, holding his head
high
>and carrying the flag."
>   Limping from an old war wound, his head held high, he carried the
flag
>in the parade." ("His head held high" is subject-bearing, an absolute.)
>
>   We have the same sort of problem with other subordinate clauses.
"The
>couple that was walking in the park moved onto fifth Avenue." (relative
>clause; this time finite.)
>   "As the couple walked through the park, we watched from a distance."
An
>adverbial clause, followed by a main clause, both finite.
>   You can ask what kinds of decisions a writer makes to make one
clause
>the main one and the others subordinate. The verbs don't stop being
>verbs. They simply s! top becoming part of the "mood element", the
>subject/finite verb combination that turns a statement into a
>predicating proposition (or question.)
>   Verbs are not just words that take certain kinds of endings. They
also
>draw into their orbit certain kinds of complements (like direct objects
>and what traditional grammar calls subject complements, though they are
>really licensed by the verb, indirect objects, and the like. Like any
>main clause verb, they can draw in adverbial modifiers.) "Paul,
>becoming the brother I had always hoped he would be, was the first to
>express his sympathy."  "Becoming" is copular/linking. "had hoped" is
>past perfect and transitive, the main verb in the relative clause.
>"would be" is copular/ linking. "was" is the main clause verb, both
>copular and past tense. "Express" is infinitive (non-finite), but
>transitive, taking "his sympathy" as direct object.
>   If all this seems complicated, it's a complication (richness) IN THE
>LANGUAGE, not just layered into it by analysis. As a matter of fact,
>it's a complexity you may find more often in speech than in writing,
>which tends to put more meaning into fewer clauses.
>   What Martha was giving you is a way to decide what "word class" (or
>"part of speech") a word belongs to. As she says, this doesn't fully
>predict the way the word will act when it enters into discourse. Even
>when it's not the main verb, even when it modifies a noun, it will
>retain verb like qualities.
>   "He wounded the student with his remark." In a follow up sentence,
we
>might talk about "the wounding remark" or "the wounded student." One
>seems active, the other passive. Even in an adjectival role, the verb
>like meanings carry over.
>   "Selling drugs on the corner was hi! s biggest mistake." Even here,
where
>"selling drugs on the corner" is acting as main clause subject, in a
>clearly nominal role, "selling" is still transitive, taking "drugs" as
>its object and "on the corner" as an adverbial modifier. My main
>quarrel with "gerund" is that it tries to classify "selling" as noun
>like, when it's the whole word group that takes on the nominal role.
>"Selling" doesn't stop being a verb.
>   One problem with purely formal tests for word class status is that
they
>don't account for words that seem equally in two classes: murder,
>lecture, contact, surrender, flow, battle..." The class is quite large
>when you pay attention to it. If you take murder out of context, is it
>a verb or a noun? It passes the form tests for both. It takes tense and
>it can be made plural.
>
>Craig
>>
>
>In a message dated 8/17/06 8:21:11 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>>>
>>> When I called on "form" rather than meaning to define "verb,",I was
>>> defining
>>> a  "part of speech":  verb as a word class;  I was not defining
>>> predicate or
>>> "main verb of the clause."   To look at form in the case of all four
>>> form
>>> classes shows students how to use their inner grammar computer.
>>>
>>> The definition for words in context requires both form and function.

>>> Your
>>> participle example makes that case.  That two-sided definition
>>> represents an
>>> important change from traditional school grammar.
>>>
>>> And, yes, it does help the students in both writing and editing
stages
>>> to
>>> know about participles as modifiers of verbs. The idea that verb
phrases
>>> can
>>> function within noun phrases, adjectivally, is a powerful tool for
>>> writers.
>>>
>> Thanks, Martha, for your clarifying reply.   I wonder if you or
anyone on
>> this list has come up with a better way of explaining to students how
to
>> identify
>> the main verb of a clause.   The traditional definition--a word that
>> "expresses an action or state of being"--seems to be to be clear only
to
>> people who
>> already know what a main verb is.
>>
>> For now, I'll forego any discussion of that unfortunate term "state
of
>> being"
>> and only take a stab at an explanation that student may find more
helpful
>> for
>> identifying main verbs that are action verbs.
>>
>> 1.   look for a word that expresses something someone or something is
>> doing
>> or was doing.
>> 2.   if the word has a "to" in front of it, it is not a verb
>> 3.   if the word ends in "-ing" and doesn't have an auxilliary verb,
it is
>> not a verb
>>
>> Not a very elegant approach, but it does seem to be clearer than the
>> traditional "expresses an action," which my students interpret as not
>> applying to
>> verbs like "sleep," "sit," "think," or "decide."
>>
>> Anyone have a better solution?
>>
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>> 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/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
 
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the

 intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and

 privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,

 disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the

 intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email

 and destroy all copies of the original message.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
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/