Bruce --
Just a quick remark on subject-verb agreement as the basis for an argument of this type (I may be repeating someone else's remark, in which case I apologize -- I'm traveling, and not keeping up wth the list very well). With imperatives of the type:
Be quiet!
one cannot claim that the verb's form agrees nicely with an understood subject 'you.' The apparent agreement of other verbs can be seen as an accidental product of the fact that the infnitive form and the "plural" form for most verbs are identical.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Bruce Despain
Sent: Tue 3/8/2005 10:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Terminology
Gregg, et al.,
When I said the imperative was a finite form, I had in mind that there was agreement in the form with 1) the person of the subject ("you" second, understood), and 2) the tense (always immediate, understood). The infinitive doesn't have either person or tense understood. The actual outward form is identical, hence the confusion between form and function with the term. I guess Johanna's metaphor would say we can ride the horse or have it pull our wagon, it's still a horse. In one case we ride bareback and it is relatively unbridled, in the other, it has to be harnessed up and is more connected.
Bruce
>>> [log in to unmask] 3/8/2005 7:58:22 AM >>>
Martha and Marie-Pierre,
It seems to me that the command form is really a truncated version of "I want
you to" as in "I want you to be quiet." While the subject-direct object
relationship is one of respectful equality, the other has the force of God giving
commandments (as parents and teachers often do). Those of us who have ceased to
be gods to those we would command fortunately can relying on the inherent power
of the subject-direct object relationship to get our point across.
That's how it seems to me.
Gregg Heacock
"Marie-Pierre.Jouannaud" wrote:
> 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/
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
|
