Edith,
We may just have been exposed to different versions of the old
classic kids poem. To me, it was 'ahunting' we will go, not
'onhunting'. To me, to go on hunting means to continue and to go
hunting means to start. Are you sure a hunting contracts on hunting?
(I'll go no more aroaming?) If so, then you are of course right and I
was making an awkward comment.
But I do think go camping has to do with beginning a complex
process. To keep on camping or go on camping, at least today, means to
continue a complex process already started.
It's probably just a natural disopsition for me to think first of
function and then feel comfortable that we have evolved ways to
accomplish these. If that is the case, then unusual patterns are
welcome (as functional). We seem so hard pressed to explain these
phenomena as placeable within a category, when the language pushes us
into new ground all the time.
I like Herb's explanation on commands, largely because it helps me
understand the meaning and its use/place within my language world.
The ultimate goal, I guess, wouldn't be the tedious creation of
subcategories, but the rich exploration of nuances of meaning as
realized through these various forms.
I realize this is the writing teacher and writer at work, and it
puts me at odds with most of the group.
Craig
Wollin, Edith wrote:
> Craig,
> Are you teasing? Certainly today, to go on hunting is to keep on, but
> that is not what "on hunting we will go" means/meant.
> Edith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Hancock [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Go camping
>
> Edith,
> To me, the equivalent to "go on hunting" is "keep hunting".
> One is a statement about participation in a process (go hunting,
> which may require many steps to carry out), the other about
> continuation. Processes have beginnings and duration, and we can
> engage in these willfully. Both, it seems to me, express
> willfulness (although we can certainly say "there I go shooting my
> mouth off again".)
> I have nothing else to offer an interesting talk, which is
> really about how to understand a phenomena that doesn't neatly fit
> our previous categories.
>
> Craig
>
> Wollin, Edith wrote:
>
>> My understanding of this idiom is that it is a fossilized form of
>> the phrase that we all know from "A' hunting we will go." This
>> is a contracted form of "we will go on hunting." So it used to be
>> an adverbial prepositional phrase with "hunting" as a gerund
>> object of the preposition. So I have always understood it to be
>> today an adverbial noun/gerund. I admit that like Bruce I tend to
>> look at history to understand the present, and it is certainly
>> possible that that is irrelevant.
>>
>> Edith Wollin, North Seattle Community College
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martha Kolln [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 8:56 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Go camping
>>
>> Dick,
>>
>> I certainly agree that idioms are perhaps better left whole,
>> rather than picking them apart, because of course then they
>> lose their meaning.
>>
>> The "go camping" model is especially interesting, I think,
>> because it is confined to recreational activities: Not only
>> do we go camping, we also go fishing, hiking, swimming,
>> boating. Walking? Maybe. However, we don't go working or
>> even playing, nor do we go sleeping. Some folks do go
>> drinking, I've heard.
>>
>> Those activities still seem to me like "where" answers--in
>> contrast to the linking "go"--with the adjectival "bananas"
>> and "crazy" and "native."
>>
>> Martha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Martha,
>>
>>>
>>
>>> As always, your postings are thoughtful, helpful, and pellucid.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I do not see "go camping/bowling/skiing" as parallel to "sit
>>> reading/knitting/fidgeting." In the latter the verb and
>>> modifier are independent of each other: she sat, and she
>>> read while doing so. With "go camping" you can't say she
>>> went, and she camped while doing so. "Go camping" is phrasal
>>> and idiomatic. It can only be understood as a phrase.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> To illustrate the difference, one could read "She went
>>> walking" in both ways: (1) she went for a walk (parallel to
>>> "go camping") and (2) she went somewhere, and her means of
>>> transport was on foot (parallel to "sit reading").
>>
>>>
>>
>>> [GO + Adjective] is frequently used to express a change of
>>> state or activity. Sometimes "go" might be seen as a linking
>>> verb, equivalent to "become": "go crazy/bald/deaf." But most
>>> adjectives can't be used with "go": "become happy/sad/rich"
>>> but not *"go happy/sad/rich." Others that can be used with
>>> "go" can't be used with "become": "go native/AWOL/bananas"
>>> but not *"become native/AWOL/bananas." When Clairol urges
>>> you to "go blond," they aren't using "go" as a linking verb
>>> but as an intransitive verb implying a volitional act.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Examples with prepositional phrases: go off the deep end, go
>>> to pieces, go into debt. All of the [GO + modifier]
>>> expressions that express a change of state are idiomatic and
>>> phrasal in the sense that the meaning of "go" cannot be
>>> understood independent of the modifier that follows it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Dick Veit
>>
>>>
>>
>>> ________________________
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Richard Veit
>>
>>> Department of English, UNCW
>>
>>> Wilmington, NC 28403-5947
>>
>>> 910-962-3324
>>
>>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Martha Kolln
>>> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:37 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Go camping
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Michael,
>>
>>>
>>
>>> As you see, Ed and I agree on the function of "camping" as
>>> an adverbial. I'd like to expand a bit on the issue of form
>>> and function in relation to the verbals.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> In traditional grammar, as you know, "verbal" serves as an
>>> umbrella term for infinitives, gerunds, and
>>> participles--generally speaking, for verbs in their roles
>>> other than as the predicating, or main, verb of a clause.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The term "infinitive" is straightforward: It refers strictly
>>> to form, to the base form of the verb, with or without
>>> "to." In every verb except "be," the infinitive is
>>> identical to the present tense: to eat, to sleep, to seem.
>>> The infinitive--the base form--is the form of the verb used
>>> in commands (Eat your dinner; Be nice to your sister; Have a
>>> good day). It's also used adverbially (We took the week off
>>> to go camping); adjectivally (Our decision to go camping
>>> turned out to be a disaster); and nominally (We decided to
>>> go camping). In other words, the term "infinitive" itself
>>> tells us nothing at all about function. (And note that my
>>> description of the infinitive--including, as it does,
>>> commands--goes beyond the traditional definition of
>>> "verbal." I could also have mentioned the infinitive as a
>>> form used in the main verb string, when it follows a modal:
>>> "You should be nice to your sister.")
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The term "gerund," on the other hand, includes both form and
>>> function; it refers to the -ing or -en forms of the verb
>>> when it is used nominally--that is, when it fills the
>>> function of a noun. (Camping is fun; We enjoy camping.) In
>>> other words, to call a verb a gerund automatically brands it
>>> as a nominal.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The term "participle" is a fuzzy one, not at all clear-cut
>>> like "gerund." "Participle" has two meanings: It
>>> traditionally refers not only to the -ing and -en forms
>>> themselves, known as the present participle and past
>>> participle--in other words, a designation of form--but also
>>> to those forms when they are used adjectivally (The sleeping
>>> baby looks peaceful; The movie directed by Clint Eastwood
>>> won the Oscar)--a designation of function.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> However, despite that traditional limitation of function to
>>> adjectivals, there are occasions when the -ing form modifies
>>> verbs, as in Michael's example. So it makes sense to expand
>>> on the traditional "participle as verbal" definition to
>>> include adverbials as well as adjectivals. In "A
>>> Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language," Quirk et al.
>>> do precisely that when they discuss (on p. 506) what they
>>> call "obligatory adjuncts" [in other words, obligatory
>>> adverbials] with certain verbs (sit, stand, come, go) such
>>> as "He stood waiting," She sat reading," "She came
>>> running." In other words, these are intransitive verbs that
>>> in certain contexts are incomplete without adverbials.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I think it's fair to conclude, then, that to limit the
>>> verbal/participle to "modifier of nouns"--that is, to say
>>> that participles modify only nouns and not verbs--is not
>>> accurate when it comes to certain verbs, as described by
>>> Quirk et al.--and by Michael.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> In Ed's explanation of "We go camping every summer,"
>>> instead of expanding the definition of "participle" to
>>> include adverbials, he has expanded the definition of
>>> gerund. I prefer to leave the definition of gerund as an
>>> -ing or -en verb that fills a nominal function. (While it's
>>> true that nouns and noun phrases can indeed modify verbs,
>>> they are not functioning nominally when they do so; they are
>>> functioning adverbially.)
>>
>>>
>>
>>> (I should mention also that in his KISS grammar Ed has come
>>> up with a solution to that dual use of the term
>>> "participle": He calls the adjectival use of -ing and -en
>>> verbs "gerundives." )
>>
>>>
>>
>>> In my explanations of modern grammar, I try to use
>>> traditional terminology that has wide acceptance whenever
>>> possible, but sometimes, as in the case of "participle,"
>>> that terminology may have to be explained in new, more
>>> accurate ways; it may have to be redefined. Another
>>> example, just to make the point clear, is the definition of
>>> "pronoun": A pronoun generally substitutes for a nominal (a
>>> complete noun phrase, even a verb phrase or clause)--not
>>> just a noun, as the traditional definition tells us.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> My apologies for going so far afield from camping.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Martha Kolln
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 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/
>
> 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/