Herb,
I was thinking of your comments regarding the gerundive over the weekend, and it struck me that there appears to be a similar problem, but not as complicated pedagogically, with the infinitive. Consider:
They have to go to the store.
The need to go to the store.
They started to go to the store.
Most grammar texts that I have seen list "have" as a helping verb, and thus in the first sentence the finite verb phrase is "have to go." Similarly, many books include "need" among the auxiliaries, and thus "need to go" is a finite verb phrase. But, from a student's perspective, how does that differ from "started to go"? This does not turn out to be a major pedagogical problem; KISS simply allows alternative explanations, especially in the early grades, for "started to go" — either as a finite verb phrase, or as a finite verb with an infinitive that functions as a direct object. My sense is that the KISS alternatives help prepare students for the later, more complicated questions of sliding constructions.
Ed,
I read over the material at your link, and you make a strong argument for the sequencing of this construction in a curriculum. Your justification of your choice of “gerundive” as the name for this form in this function is also reasonable, and I suspect that for your purposes it works. As a grammarian, I don’t like this use of the term, but then, at least these days, my concerns are more descriptive than pedagogical, and your pedagogical case is strong.
Thanks for some thoughtful discussion both here and at the various links from your web site.
Herb
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/