Dear All:
I've been fiddling with these constructions, and have now become firmly
ambivalent about what to call parts of them. The test I usually use for
"full auxiliary status" is checking to see if the helping verb can show
up in front of the subject in a question. "Get" in the get-passive can't
do that, and neither can "got to" in its quasimodal use -- but the
quasipassive 'get' isn't the same as 'get to,' and I don't want to call
it a quasimodal.
Also, you can't get a do-form showing up for deontic "got to" (*Does he
gotta go?), although you can with the otherwise-similar-seeming "have
to" (Does he hafta go?). They *are* possible with the get-passive (Did
he get run over?), which implies that 'get' should be treated as the
main verb. Do-forms are also possible with the "get to" that implies
permission (Does he get to go?" but I'd think that's just evidence that
the second is more generally "Get X" with X as an infinitive.
Herb -- how serial verb-ish are these? I know English isn't officially
supposed to have those but from my very limited, and dated, knowledge of
Cambodian, the pattern certainly seems familiar. I seem to remember
you've mentioned SVCs, but apologies if I've switched the context on it.
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Myers, Marshall
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 4:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: he was run over/he got run over
Dave,
I was the one suggesting that the construction may be a "get" passive.
Like a garden variety passive, the actor in the sentence is either
hidden or could be in a "by-phrase." "He got run over (by a truck.)"
When the object of the "by-phrase" becomes the subject of the converted
sentence, like the "to be" form in the garden variety passive, the
converted sentence drops the auxiliary: Joe was run over by a truck"
becomes "The truck ran over Joe." And "He got run over by a truck"
becomes "The truck ran over him." Notice also that in both cases of the
conversion of both types of passives, the verb then is marked for tense
(obviously, it has to be).
I'm not suggesting any generalizations beyond these, but, as I
understand it, the "get passive" does bear some credence in some
grammarians' minds.
In other situations, I can understand why "get" can act like an
auxiliary.
Marshall
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Kehe
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: he was run over/he got run over
Scott,
I agree with Janet calling "got" a helping verb. I tell my students
that passive voice consists of an auxiliary verb and past participle.
I'd be interested to know why you and Patty would consider "got" a
model.
Dave
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Patricia
Lafayllve
Sent: Fri 2/20/2009 8:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: he was run over/he got run over
Scott-
I can see the "logic" of calling it a passive with "got" as the modal,
but I'd probably let the student know that the construction was
"informal" and make sure they know how to construct a passive using
"formal" methods (ie "was run over"). Does that make sense? I am
posting while jet-lagged, here...
-patty
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: he was run over/he got run over
List,
My previous message on this topic delivered itself before I had finished
it. Here is the complete message.
Recently, a student wrote "he got run over." This seems to be a common
way of expressing the passive.
Would you characterize this as a passive? Would you analyze "run" as
the verb of the sentence and "got" as a modal operating like "was" in a
normally constructed (was run over) passive?
Scott Woods
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/
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/
|
