Christine,

 

It goes back ultimately to an early 1^st c. BCE Greek grammarian named Dionysus of Thrax.  He synthesized the major ideas of his time on Greek grammar and was the first to classify Greek words into eight categories, not exactly our eight, but close.  His work was highly influential among Latin grammarians, and in the 4^th c. CE the Latin grammarian Donatus wrote what became the standard Latin grammar for much of the Middle Ages.  He adapted Dionysus’ eight categories to Latin, giving the set the Latin label, partes orationis “parts of speech”.  The word “partes” is actually a nominative plural.  The singular is “pars”, so “pars orationis” is “part of speech”, and it’s from this that we get the English verb “to parse”, that is, to analyze a sentence into its components.  When English grammarians began seriously writing English grammars, in the 15^th c. but coming to a high point in the 18^th, they adopted the Latin model.  In some cases, they took the Latin model a bit too far, resulting in rules like not ending sentences with prepositions or, the 1860s, not splitting infinitives.  However, one can’t be too hard on them for their decision.  Latin was perhaps the best analyzed language they had to work from, so they quite naturally transferred that knowledge to the description of English, a scientifically and intellectually sound decision.  It has taken a couple of centuries of thought for us to move significantly beyond that model, partly because the Latin model is so entrenched in schools and in our intellectual traditions, but also because it was a pretty good model to start with.

 

You’ll find an excellent and thorough discussion of this history in David Mulroy’s The War against Grammar, must reading for anyone teaching English.

 

Herb

 

 

Herb,

 

I agree—adverbs do seem to be a grab bag. 

 

And where did we get this eight-parts-of-speech notion? 

 

Christine

 

 

 

Adverb is, and has always been, a grab bag.  If it doesn’t work as a noun, adjective, verb, etc. call it an adverb and be done with it, and then don’t be too careful in defining what an adverb is.  Part of the problem here is the, usually unconsidered, decision to limit ourselves to eight parts of speech or to accept traditional definitions.  But the deeper problem lies in the notion category itself, the idea that a word is one part of speech or another and that those categories are discrete.  The fact is that the categories have fuzzy edges, or, better, the categories represent prototypical sets of morphological, syntactic, semantic, and functional characteristics that define a small class of words, and words that share some of these characteristics are then assigned to the class as well.  Since a lot of students, and a lot of teachers, won’t ask the difficult questions about received wisdom, the names and the misconceptions persist.  Klammer is right in distinguishing “always” etc. from adverbs.  I’m not sure calling them qualifiers is a step forward though, since it simply establishes another category and labels it with a term that already has a meaning, if a questionable one, in traditional grammar (“adjectives qualify, adverbs modify”).

 

Herb

 

 

 

Peter,

 

Thomas Klammer would disagree with you.  and after using his book for years, I now too disagree with you about these words as adverbs.

 

In his book Analyzing English Grammar, Klammer labels “always,” “sometimes,” “never,” etc. qualifiers, I think. 

 

I believe he points out that one of the tests of an adverb is whether “one” can put very or another intensifier in front of it.  He uses frame sentences as a way to identify a word as/check whether a word actually is a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb. 

 

I really really like his book.  Get a copy from your Longman rep.    

 

Christine  

 

 

In a message dated 9/10/06 5:55:25 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

Peter, I know what you mean about conjunctive adverbs.  They are “mobile,” as are adverbs.
 
However, conjunctive adverbs cannot be intensified, which is, I think, a property adverbs have: very suddenly, for example.  Nor are conjunctive adverbs able to modify verbs.

Good points, Christine, but consider the following.  Some adverbs also cannot be intensified:  always, sometimes, now, today, never.  I don't think anyone would argue these are not adverbs.

Also, take a look at these:

     Christine likes adverbs, but Herb, nevertheless, prefers conjunctions.
     Ed believes in innate knowledge, and Phil, therefore, agrees with him.

In these two, it seems clear that the so-called conjunctive adverb is not joining the two clauses; the coordinating conjunctions are serving that purpose.  So would we still call them conjunctions in sentences like these?

Or how about in a simple declarative sentence.

Roger Federer won the US Open, for example, in four sets.

Why would we want to consider for example to be a conjunction in a sentence like this.  Or would we?



Peter Adams

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/