Hello, Martha! How sweet of you to address me as `Dear Sophie'! After this I
should want to agree with you even if I do not.
But to business: I do not doubt the scholarship of Quirk et al. And I do not
think that my approach to analysis is at odds with theirs. But please
correct me if I'm wrong. I'll do a run-through of some of the sentences you
provided:
1. Sam (subject) failed to realize (copular verb) the importance of the
problem (noun phrase that specifies the content of the subject's act `failed
to realise'. In this noun phrase there is a genitive relationship between
`the importance' and `the problem'.)
2. Sam (subject) didn't appear to realize (copular verb) the importance of
the problem (noun phrase and genitive relationship as above).
3. `John appeared to attack the burglar.'
This has two possible meanings:
(i) John (subject) appeared (verb) in order to attack the burglar (adverb
phrase of reason: it explains why `John' appeared) . (Structural similar:
`She came to stay'.)
(ii) John (subject) looked (copular verb) as if he were attacking the
burglar (adverb phrase that specifies the manner - `the `how'- of the
copular-verb `looked').
4. `John (subject) attempted to attack (verb) the burglar (object).'
John (subject) attempted (copular verb) an attack (noun complement
specifying the content of the copular-verb `attempted')on the burglar
(adverb phrase or locative noun phrase specifying the location of the action
denoted by the copular-verb `attempted'.
5. `Mary(subject) forgot to clean (verb) the house (object).'
I take it that you mean these as semantic `guides' and not as well-formed
sentences that can be syntactically analysed:
6. `Improving the condition of her house was tried by Mary.'
`To clean the house was forgotten.'
7. `I vowed to try to stop smoking cigarettes.' (Tee hee: So I started
eating them instead.) But seriously: I think that a syntactic analysis will
run into trouble here because of the tautology `smoking cigarettes'. I
should want to re-write this sentence as:
(i) I (subject) vowed (copular verb) to stop smoking (noun phrase specifying
the content of the copular-verb `vowed').
(ii) I (subject) vowed to give up (verb) cigarettes (object). Incidentally:
`to give' is not the full infinitive in `to give up', obviously. So it would
not be sensible to leave `up' out of the verb phrase.
Mary (subject) tried improving (verb) the condition of her house (object;
there is a genitive relationship between `condition' and `house' - the
house's condition). If Mary's efforts were successful, we would say:
`Mary (subject) improved (verb) the condition of her house (object; genitive
relationship, as above).'
One thing that you and I seem to approach differently is the business of
distinguishing verbials. To my mind, it is only the verb (active or passive)
that is sensibly said to have an object. The copular and the copular verb
have complements. The relationships of sentence-parts in verb sentences is
quite different from the relationships of sentence-parts in copula-verb and
copular-verb sentences:.
Sophie Johnson
at ENGLISH GRAMMAR TUTOR
http://www.englishgrammartutor.com/
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: <no subject>
> Dear Sophie:
>
> Quirk et al., in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (my
> grammar bible), discusses at great length the gradations of verbs, from
> full verbs, which can act only as main verbs, to primary verbs (be, have,
> and do), which can act as either main verbs or auxiliary verbs, to modal
> auxiliary verbs, which cannot act as main verbs. There's also a gray area
> of verbs, including what they call semi-auxiliaries and catenatives, which
> have a status intermediate between that of main verbs and auxiliaries.
> (page 96)
>
> The semi-auxiliaries they list include have to, be going to, be supposed
> to, etc.
>
> They use the term catenative to denote verbs in such constructs as appear
> to, come to, fail to, get to, seem to, etc.
> Sam failed to realize the importance of the problem.
> "Such constructions have meanings related to aspect or modality, but are
> nearer to main verb constructions than are semi-auxiliaries, patterning
> entirely like main verbs in taking do-support:
> Sam didn't appear to realize the importance of the
problem.
> Unlike man verb constructions such as expect (to), want (to), and attempt
> (to), catenative constructions are in no way syntactically related to
> transitive verb constructions in which the verb is followed by a direct
> object or prepositional object. Compare:
>
> John appeared to attack the burglar
> John attempted to attack the burglar.
>
> But:
>
> *John appeared an attack on the burglar
> John attempted an attack on the burglar. (page 146)
>
> In a later discussion, on the topic of verb complementation (page 1186ff),
> the verbs and TRY and ATTEMPT are on a long list of verbs that take the
> infinitive as direct object. They are among those that take the -ing as
> well. Others on the list are NEED, PLAN, PROPOSE, WANT, WISH, FORGET,
> REMEMBER.
>
> Let's compare these two:
>
> Mary tried to improve the condition of her house.
> Mary tried improving the condition of her house.
>
> Mary forgot to clean the house.
>
>
> One test that is often definitive is the passive transformation:
>
> Improving the condition of her house was tried by Mary.
> To clean the house was forgotten.
>
>
> Here the direct object has become the subject of the passive voice.
>
> I should mention that I have always included all of these verbs in my
> definition of catenative verb; that is, any verb that takes another verb
as
> its object (whether infinitive or gerund--that is, -ing). So my
definition
> is different from that of Quirk, et al.--and I bow to their scholarship.
>
> The term CATENATIVE, of course, comes from concatenate: to link together
in
> a series of chain.
>
> I vowed to try to stop smoking cigarettes.
>
> Here the verb phrase SMOKING CIGARETTES is the direct object of TO STOP,
> and that verb phrase (to stop smoking cigarettes) is the direct object of
> TO TRY, and that verb phrase (to try to stop smoking cigarettes) is the
> direct object of VOWED.
>
>
> In an earlier posting, Geoff used the word treacherous in relation to
these
> tricky verbs, some of which take both the -ing and the infinitive, others
> that take only one, and some in which the meaning changes depending on the
> form of the object:
> I stopped to talk to Geoff.
> I stopped talking to Geoff.
>
> In fact, for native speakers they're not treacherous at all; we know them.
> I can't think of any that cause problems. And in a discussion of these
> tricky verbs, students are amazed to think of their own internal rules
that
> make these selections automatically. It's a great piece of evidence that
> justifies calling us all [unconscious] grammar experts.
>
> However, for nonnative speakers, it's a different story. And for them,
the
> nuances of meaning that Dick and others mentioned are important.
> Unfortunately, those nuances don't apply across the board; there is no
real
> system that applies to use of these verbs. It's important that teachers
> recognize the difficulties that these verbs cause for their ESL students.
>
> Happy grammaring!
>
> Martha Kolln
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >I disagree with the analyses offered so far of this sentence:
> >
> >Mary is trying to improve the condition of her house.
> >
> >It seems obvious to me that `is trying to improve' is the verb phrase of
> >which the subject is `Mary' and the object the noun phrase `the condition
of
> >her house'.
> >
> >Sophie Johnson
> >at ENGLISH GRAMMAR TUTOR
> >http://www.englishgrammartutor.com/
> >[log in to unmask]
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: carol kieninger <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 3:34 AM
> >Subject: <no subject>
> >
> >
> >> How about a response to this sentence:
> >>
> >> Mary is trying to improve the condition of her house.
> >>
> >> My question is about the infinitive. Is "to improve" acting as the a
noun
> >> and the object of the verb, or is it an adverb?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> carol
> >>
> >> 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/
|
