My feeling is that we like to put idioms of this short type in terms that help us understand them better no matter their true origin. When the d. team has at the building all day, I think of them "having their will with it," doing whatever they want to accomplish their goal. The preposition "at" is usually the prepostion of choice when its a target or goal in mind. Being at each other's throats conjures up an image of animals locked in deadly struggle. Here again it is a goal, that vital jugular vein. Since this is the common meaning in "aim at," "throw at," "come at," etc., perhaps the real question is how "have" can have such a general meaning. The best examples would be with other prepositions or adverbial particles. To "have through" or "have over" are to be over and done with something. To "have out with" can mean to be completely over, and exhaustively done with someone about something. To "have in to" can mean to be fully involved with something. My impression is that the expression finds a niche of meaning where it is useful and reasonable (by analogy with other expressions) and catches on in the vernacular.
Kathleen,
This shortened form might explain why "at" has such a verbal nature as I have
written it. But what about this?
The demolition team had at the building all day.
Is there an expanded form here? Is this another complement? Why does this
convey such activity on the part of the demolition team? Syntax? Semantics?
Mental connections? I appreciate your explanation. But there seems more to this
than an expanded form conventionalized into a shortened idiom.
I'd like to hear more on this.
Gregg
"Kathleen M. Ward" wrote:
> I will probably regret responding to this, since I know less about
> cognitive grammar than I do about Urdu.
>
> Isn't this just another case of the verb "to be" taking a prepositional
> phrase as a complement? It seems to me that there is no direct object,
> just a subject complement, here in the form of a prepositional phrase,
> and not substantially different than well-established sentences like
>
> They were under the hatches.
>
> The only thing I can think that's different about Greg's sentences is
> that "at each other" and "at it" have rather idiomatic meanings (or,
> rather, two idiomatic meanings that occur to me instantly). One
> meaning, I have always assumed, is a shortened form of "at each other's
> throats."
>
> Kathleen Ward
> UC Davis
> On Mar 7, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gregg Heacock wrote:
>
> > I have been most entertained by Johanna Rubba's remarks on form vs.
> > function and by the "go camping" discussion,
> > especially considering idiom. Let me pose another question. Consider
> > the following sentences:
> >
> > The husband and wife were at each other all night.
> > The young couple were at it all night.
> >
> > It seems to me that the sentence exists as a whole. Is the verb an
> > extended verb: were at? Is that now functioning as
> > an action verb? Isn't its form and function determined by the direct
> > object? Can syntax truly be separated from
> > semantics? Lately, I have been reading up on cognitive grammar. I
> > suspect it has something to offer in this instance.
> >
> > In any case, I thought you might like to have at it for a while. I
> > look forward to seeing how you approach this.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Gregg Heacock
> >
> > 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.htmland select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/