Why is the imperative a finite form of a verb? I find it a little counterintuitive to say that 'be' is finite in: 'Be quiet!' Marie-Pierre Jouannaud Grenoble A 11:43 07/03/2005 -0700, vous avez écrit : >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 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/