That's the traditional explanation, although there's some argument about the best way to explain how the shift happens. A good, albeit somewhat technical account is given in chapter 9 of Olga Fischer et al., The Syntax of Early English. Regards, Karl Gregg Heacock wrote: > Herbert, > I raised a question about the possible evolution of usage for "have" > as in "I have to do this." Might this have developed from "I have this > to do"? Do you believe Beth Levin's book would cover this? I went to > Amazon to check out her work. This led me to other works you or others > may be able to comment upon: > Argument Realization (Research Surveys in Linguistics)by Beth Levin, > Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language by Adele > Goldberg, > Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure > (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture Series) by Adele E. Goldberg > All of these sound interesting. I am curious to know what you or > others have to say of these works. > Much obliged, > Gregg > > > On Dec 3, 2008, at 11:18 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > >> From a lexical semantic and syntactic point of view, let me once again >> recommend Beth Levin's English Verb Classes and Alternations (Chicago >> 1993) as the most detailed published analysis I know of of how meaning >> and form work together to classify verbs in useful ways. Of course, >> her overall classification, with about 330 classes, might be a bit >> much for an undergrad grammar class, but as a reference work and as an >> introduction to the subtlety and power of the concepts, it's a great >> piece of scholarship to have on your shelf. And she is pretty much >> neutral when it comes to theory, at least in this book. You don't >> have to be a linguist to read it. >> >> Herb >> >> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >> Emeritus Professor of English >> Ball State University >> Muncie, IN 47306 >> [log in to unmask] >> ________________________________________ >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock >> [[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: December 3, 2008 11:52 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Correct? >> >> Bruce, >> If I want a problem to go away or want my refrigerator to fill up, >> then I don't expect the problem or the refrigerator to do anything. >> But that only becomes a problem when we want to define the >> construction in a narrow way. If the construction builds from the >> ground up, then we need to expect these anomalies in the same way we >> expect word meanings to grow and change. >> Is wanting X to Y the same as expecting X to Y? How about >> encouraging? discouraging? Helping? Ordering? Making? The more >> abstract the classification pattern, the further it drifts from the >> real world of meaning. >> Each of these verbs uses these constructions in unique ways. The >> patterns build from use, not independently of it. >> >> Craig >> >> Bruce Despain wrote: >> Your pattern, “If I say that ‘X V-ed Y to Z’ am I saying that it’s Y >> who will be doing the Z-ing?” looks like what might be described in a >> constructional grammar (CG). These folks are averse to describing >> the relationships of constructions as built up of other >> constructions. They like to contrast the usage construction meaning >> vs. the grammatical construction meaning. >> >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C >> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:36 PM >> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: Correct? >> >> Dear All: >> >> I suspect that one of the reasons that many modern grammars use what >> seem to be simplistic structural pattern definitions (e.g. [S V DO >> INF] for both “We wanted him to be hired” and “We wanted him to go >> home”) is that the differences among those sentences are differences >> in what the various participants are doing – the relationships among >> them – and we don’t really have a theoretically agnostic way of >> talking about that. The minute a term like “underlying subject” is >> used, the description is locked into a particular model. >> >> This is true of all descriptions, of course (simply by using a label >> like “infinitive,” I’ve committed to a kind of model), but cases like >> these bring up major points of contention among current models. Almost >> everyone who works on English is happy with the term “infinitive,” but >> there is nowhere near the same level of consensus about the idea that >> infinitives are really, truly, made out of full sentences, etc. I have >> a knee-jerk reaction the minute I see a phrase like “underlying >> subject,” and I’m sure I use phrases that others on the list would >> have an immediate negative reaction to as well. One way authors of >> grammar books can try to dodge the entire issue is simply to omit any >> references to this type of material at all, and thus we end up with [S >> V DO INF]. >> >> Older grammars, like the ones Herb mentions, did something that I >> think we can still do: we can all agree that there are different >> patterns of relationships among the participants, even if we don’t >> agree on why those differences exist. To some extent, the differences >> among the patterns can be “anchored” by relating them to >> native-speaker reactions to questions about implications of the >> structure (e.g. “If I say that ‘X V-ed Y to Z’ am I saying that it’s Y >> who will be doing the Z-ing?”). In other words, we can adopt ways to >> probe for differences that there will be wide consensus on, even if >> there is no such consensus on what the differences mean for a theory >> of linguistic structure (this is what I’m trying to get at with the >> term “theoretically agnostic”). >> >> Bill Spruiell >> Dept. of English >> Central Michigan University >> >> >> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended >> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. >> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is >> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the >> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. >> >> 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/ > 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/