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

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/7/2005 10:20:07 AM >>>

Martha,

 

You have thought a lot about this distinction between form and function.  Sometimes it seems like nailing jello to the wall.  It seems rather ingrained in my psyche -- there's this (Germanic, historical perspective) idea that there are two -ing forms of a verb: one a noun and one an adjective.

 

I am nervous about the infinitive form being used as an imperative.  Basicallly it has got to be a noun, doesn't it? "'To be or not to be,' that is the question."  ("'Being or not being,' that is the question.")  It seems clear that is a form of a verb for us to use as a noun. The imperative is a verb form for us to use in commands.  What makes it simple to say that the noun form is used in commands?  Surely it would be going too far to say that the plural noun is used for a singular verb:  "Now that she has babies she babies her husband."  The forms are identical!  The functions are quite opposite.  Now I am confused about how a grammarian can know where the form vs. function line should be drawn.  Does it somehow relate to how close the relationship is?  And what rates as close enough?

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/4/2005 3:37:02 PM >>>

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

Michael,
    The KISS Approach to this construction is relatively simple:

"Camping" is a gerund.
Gerunds function as nouns do.
Nouns can function as adverbs.
Therefore "camping" is a gerund that functions as a (Noun Used as) an
Adverb.

Note that the KISS explanation simply uses two concepts that students
need to know ("Gerund" and "Noun Used as an Adverb).

Ed V.

>>> [log in to unmask] 03/04/05 11:34 AM >>>
 Could anyone offer help on parsing "go camping" in "We go camping
every
summer."Does camping modify go?  Could it be its direct object?  I
suppose it has to do with how one analyzes "go."

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/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/

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/