Brett,
After I emailed you, I looked back at the arguments and realized
my question was easily addressed. If a preposition doesn't need to
take an "object", then "down" could be thought of as a preposition
from the start. Easy to do. Like "away."
I like your point that these are categories, not definitions. It
is the understanding of how language works that matters, so one
payoff to this sort of discussion is that we get to notice things
that we might not otherwise pay attention to.
I would agree with most of the observations, though I have always
had trouble with the idea that adverbial structures can't act as
copular or predicate complements. "I put the ladder in the shed" I
would analyze as having an adverbial complement, as I would "the
ladder is in the shed." We can also say "The time is now" or "The
meeting right now is important," where "right now" acts as
complement to "be" and adjunct to the noun. Is "now" a preposition
as well? The argument begins to fall apart when we take the category
of adverb and pull out of it anything that doesn't fit the new test.
If it can complement "be" it is not an adverb. Adverbs can't
complement "be." It seems circular.
We also have what I would see as another problem. We have some
words that act like adverbs, but never act like propositions in the
old sense (as taking noun phrase head.) We have some (like before)
that act as adverbs, take NP heads, and act as heads of clauses. We
have others that can head a subordinate clause, but can't take NP
heads and can't act alone as adverbs. So we have, in the same
category (of preposition) some words that have nothing in common
with each other. To me, that's the biggest stretch. It's like saying
that some words are both nouns and verbs, some are adjectives and
nouns, some are all three, so we should treat this as one category.
The overlap is very real (and useful), but hardly seems to me a
compelling argument for redrawing the classification lines. It seems
easier to say that some words quite easily cross borders.
I agree that adverb sometimes acts like trash can for words
that don't fit other categories. Some words may be more central to
the territory than others. I would certainly want to hold on to
"away" and "now", though that may just be that I have seen them as
adverbs so long that it's hard to let that go.
The other quarrel I would have, which is my quarrel with formal
grammar for the most part, is that we often seem to think of
classification as the primary goal. The language is not neat and
clean, and often there are functional ways to explain fluidity that
I just find more productive.
But I may very well be falling short of understanding the full
position. In that respect, I am happy to be corrected.
Craig
On 10/8/2010 12:50 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
> On 2010-10-07, at 12:10 PM,
Craig wrote:
>
>> I don't have firsthand exposure to Jesperson's arguments,
so I'm
>> curious about ways in which they are both simpler and
more robust
>> than traditional accounts.
>
> He explains them in The Philosophy of Grammar beginning on p.
87.
>
<http://books.google.ca/books?id=1WcXVIgc2bUC&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20philosophy%20of%20grammar&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false>
>
>
> To summarize and add argument from the CGEL:
>
> -The principle of Occam's razor dictates that "entities must
not be
> multiplied beyond necessity," or in Newton's words, "to the
same
> natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same
causes."
> Under this principle, it is better to assign words like
'before' to a
> single part of speech than to three parts of speech unless we
cannot
> reasonably incorporate them in the same category.
>
> -The etymology of the word 'preposition' has mislead us into
thinking
> that prepositions come only 'pre' a noun. It's important to
remember
> that labels are not definitions.
>
> -Why should prepositions be limited to taking nouns as
complements?
> Nouns, verbs, and adjectives all take complements of
different kinds
> (including no complement, noun complement, adj complement,
and
> different kinds of clauses). The traditional analysis needs
to
> explain this discrepancy.
>
> -In fact, traditional grammar, tacitly acknowledges the
possibility
> that prepositions take adjective complements (e.g., It is
seen AS
> possible) or preposition complements (e.g., FROM behind the
counter),
> without allowing for this in its descriptive/explanatory
framework.
>
> -The meaning of words like 'before' typically don't change
when
> they're 'adverbs' or 'subordinating conjunctions'.
>
> -Adverbs can't function as predicate complements. (e.g., *He
is
> quickly.) But words like 'before' can, even when they have no
> complement. Traditional grammar needs an ad hoc rule to deal
with
> this. Jespersen's conception doesn't.
>
> -Prepositions can mostly modified by 'just' and 'right' where
adverbs
> can't, except words like 'before', even when they have no
> complement.
>
> In short, it's simpler because it requires less explanation
to deal
> with a variety of phenomena, because it reduces the
heterogeny of the
> adverb category and almost entirely does away with the
subordinating
> conjunction category (leaving only the subordinators: 'that'
as in
> "It's important that they are on time", 'for' as in "It's
important
> for them to be on time", 'to' as in "it's time to go", 'how'
as in "I
> know how it's done", 'if' as in "I wonder if it's true", and
> 'whether' as in "I wonder whether it's true"), and because it
> requires students to make fewer choices (i.e., 'before' is
always a
> preposition). It's more robust because it has fewer
exceptions.
>
>> I think about a word like "down." The dictionaries seem
to be
>> saying that its adverbial meanings came first, the
preposition
>> meanings later.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between an
adverbial
> meaning and prepositional meaning. The OED definitions for
the adverb
> entry and the preposition entry are almost identical. Do you
mean its
> use without an object came first followed later by its use
with a
> object? If so, that has little bearing on Jespersen's
argument. It
> doesn't need an object to be a preposition.
>
> In fact, some of the earliest uses of 'down' are as predicate
> complements: 1340 HAMPOLE Pr. Consc. 1602 Þus es þis world
turned up
> þat es doune. (My understanding of Old English is extremely
limited,
> but I believe this translates to "Thus is this world turned
up that
> is down.") As I pointed out above, adverbs do not function as
> predicate complements. This is evidence that 'down' was a
preposition
> from the beginning, even if it didn't originally license
objects.
>
> Best, Brett
>
> ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language
Centre Humber
> College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto,
> Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask]
>
> 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/