>Dear Bruce: I don't have to look it up in Quirk. I can look it up in Kolln & Funk (Understanding English Grammar)--although I suspect I looked it up in Quirk when I first wrote about this way back when. Here are three examples of participles as adverbials (p. 122, 6th edition): My uncle made a fortune selling real estate. (How?) The kids came running out of the house (How? Where?) Betsy went swimming. (Where?) On the question of adverbial vs. adjectival infinitives, a good test is the "in order to" test. Most adverbial infinitives can be expanded with "in order": they answer the Why question. Another test is movability: adverbials can often be moved; adjectivals usually can't. In Kathleen's leather example--money to purchase leather--clearly the infinitive could open the sentence: That makes it adverbial. Martha Gordon, > >Maybe we ought to have Martha look it up in Quirk, _et.al._ > >To me the phrase "go fishing" does indeed have the same force as "fish" in the >generic sense. Like "I go fishing on Fridays" for the same meaning as "I >fish on Fridays". "Fishing" is the gerund, as in "I like fishing" or "I am >busy fishing." I think of "go" as a verb that likes to take a gerund as a >complement, _i.e._ a gerund in the form of an adverbial noun, if you like. >(The Latins had a special noun form of the verb, a supine, that would express >purpose.) We may say, "I go swimming, jogging, sunning, and searching for >shells on the beach in that order on Fridays." or " I swim, jog, sun, and >search for shells on the beach in that order on Fridays." > >Bruce Despain > >>>> [log in to unmask] 08/03/01 09:57AM >>> >This brings up a question we have been pondering = what is the function of >'fishing' in "I go fishing"? It would seem the preferable solution would be >"I fish." Is the structure using 'go' as an apparent 'helping verb' >idiomatic; somewhat like "I have *got* a cold."? In "I go fishing," can >'fishing' somehow act like an adverb -- I go {where}; I cannot see it as a >Direct Object, but maybe my sight is not what it used to be. >Gordon Carmichael >Central Texas College and Tarleton State University, Killeen, Texas > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Bruce Despain" <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 10:07 AM >Subject: Re: <no subject> > > >This discrepancy between Marylou and Sophie is in the area where semantics >and syntax conflict. I wonder about the following observations. > >In the sentence "I must go" are we tempted to think that "go" is the object >of the verb "must"? (We can ask, "What must you (do)?") Historically, we >could probably make a good argument that at some time it was so perceived. >What about in the periphrastic version, "I have to go"? Does the infinitive >marked by "to" make it clear that maybe we have a complement (object) to the >verb "have"? Similarly with some other periphrastic versions of the modals >(can - be able to; will - is going to, is about to) , where we have >complements to adjectives. At one time this may have been the perception. >But as with other formations of the verb, we now have modals as well as >helping verbs for the semantic categories established as tense and aspect. > >Do the Australians now have a compound verb that works like modal >pariphrasis in "try to improve"? Do they want to make "try" a quasi-modal? >Perhaps the contrasting colloquial "try and improve", which seems to be an >attempt to maintain the original syntactic independence, motivates the new >syntactic analysis for "try". > >For me the object of "try" is an infinitive phrase serving as a noun phrase >and the object of "improve" is a noun phrase. With the phrase "try and >improve" the accomplishment is implied. Here the verb "try" is either >intransitive or has an undersood object of "something", and the verb >"improve" shares the same subject, but has its own object. The existence >and the contrast of these two collocations, seems to give "try to improve" >the implication that the improvement will in fact occur. > >Bruce Despain > >>>> [log in to unmask] 08/03/01 05:55AM >>> >`Mary is trying to improve the condition of her house': > >There is no question in the above sentence of the verb's being anything more >or less than `is trying to improve', nor of its object's being anything >other than `the condition of the house'. `Mary', the subject of this >active-voice verb, is not acting upon `to improve the condition of her >house'; she is acting upon `the condition of her house'. > >Analysis of this sentence must note that it contains an active-voice verb, >and that the characteristic of an active-voice verb is that its subject acts >upon its object: Its subject names its actor, and its object the acted-upon >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/