Brett,
I think (hope) anyone listening in will realize that your
positions (and H & P's) are internally consistent and
thoughtful. In many ways, we have different frames of reference. If
what you want to do is create a largely formal grammar, then these
are very reasonable ways to carry that out. From a functional or
cognitive approach, we might come up with different ways of seeing
it.
The verb system (transitivity) is very key to what SFL identifies
as one of three principal metafunctions, representing the world. We
do so through processes, participants, and circumstances, and the
processes very much determine the kinds of participants that are
involved. We can have, for example, material processes, relational
processes, verbal processes, mental processes (including sensing,
feeling, thinking), existential processes, and each of those
construe the world in certain ways. So the fact that these take
different complements is very important to the overall breadth of
the system. In that way it may be comparable to seeing a fork,
knife, and spoon as eating utensils. If we just tried to identify
them according to form, we may be baffled by their differences. but
we can also see that their differences are functionally driven. If
they were the same, we would be limited in what we can do. But to
see them as eating utensils, you have to step back and examine more
than just form.
What should strike us about adjectives is that they are
essentially gradable, scalar. There is a cognitive dimension to that
in that concepts like happiness and importance are not absolute, and
they are often highly contextualised. I can be a sad person who is
happy to see you. Something can be important in a very limited way.
We have developed ways to qualify (degree) and contextualise these
notions, which can vary subtly in cognitive nuance. We also have
common nouns which need at times to be identified as referents (not
just students, but smart students) or characterized once
they are identified. (Those students are smart.) If we come
at it from that direction, we can find ways in which the larger work
of language requires (or motivates) both the patterned similarities
and the differences.
"Just" can be used in relation to a larger range of elements
than you list here. The lunch menu can include "just hamburgers." I
can be "just sitting here minding my own business." Your
observations tell us more about "just" than about what these
elements have in common. I don't think you want to add NP or
predicate phrase to the preposition list.
I would read "because of" as a phrasal preposition, similar to
"in spite of," "out of," "according to." "Away from" is common
enough to be thought of in the same frame, though it might also be
close to "near to my heart" in some contexts. I don't see a problem
with "as funny". To me, the whole thing (not just funny) is modifier
or predicate complement, telling us how it struck her and/or what it
was like. It sort of hovers in between. Finding can give us those
borderline cases as well. "I found her funny." She may not be funny,
but I found her that way? She is funny and I have discovered that?
It sits on the border and maybe has a foot in both worlds.
I think of "because of" as phrasal preposition, so "because"
isn't taking a PP complement. Rather, "because of" is taking an NP
complement.
You can make a great case for adverbs derived from adjectives as
having special characteristics. They certainly differ from frequency
adverbs, which I assume you accept as adverbs. (always,
sometimes, often, never, and so on.) Because they give us
situations in which we have the choice of two forms (adjective or
adverb), they differ from words like "away" and "near" that can be
used adjectivally or adverbially without that change. (An away
game. the near corner.) I wouldn't think of them as
prototypical adverbs any more than I would think of happiness as a
typical noun.
In general, our differences are probably much larger than this
disagreement would imply. If we deal with it as a problem in formal
grammar, then we won't see the larger picture.
In passing, though, I'd like to say that it's a pleasure having
this sort of talk. Too often, disagreements on the list have turned
into a very different kind of conversation. I may not be won over,
but I am gaining from seeing it through your eyes.
Craig
On 10/11/2010 8:54 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
> On 2010-10-11, at 9:04 AM,
Craig wrote:
>
>> Verbs comprise a more unified category than you imply.
All verbs
>> inflect for tense and combine with be, have, do, and the
modals in
>> very uniform ways. Even transitivity categories are often
fluid.
>> And the verbs all dominate their predicates in the same
way,
>> constituting in that way a coherent way of representing
the world.
>> The fact that there are subcategories doesn’t at all mean
that some
>> verbs have nothing in common with other verbs.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that verbs were not a unified
category.
> Indeed, I fully agree that they are. In spite of the vagaries
of
> their complements. The point is that being a verb or not has
nothing
> to do with the type of complement they take. Adjectives too
allow
> various complements. Although most of the time they are
complement
> free (e.g. big), some take 'to' infinitives (e.g., happy to
be here),
> others take present participles (e.g. busy being teacher),
PPs (e.g.
> familiar with it?), 'that' subjunctives (e.g. important that
she be
> there). Nouns too take a range of complements. So if
complementation
> is almost completely useless for categorizing other words,
why should
> it be the defining property of prepositions?
>
> And if one does insist on object-taking preposition, what are
you to
> do with prepositions that take other prepositions as their
> complements (e.g., from under the blanket) or prepositions
that take
> predicate complements instead of objects (e.g. That struck
her as
> funny)?
>
>> I believe you can find similarities between “away” and
“before,”
>> and you can find similarities between “before” and
“because,” but I
>> don’t see the connections between “away” and “because.”
>
> These are the ones that come to mind: -Both can be modified
by 'just'
> (e.g., She watched him, arms held just away from her sides.
& Just
> because they worked there... cf. *Just certainly, he
jumped.). -Both
> can function as predicate complements (e.g., He's away. &
That's
> because we don't have time.) -Both can function as
non-predicate
> adjuncts (e.g., Away from the city, there were... &
Because of the
> storm, there were... cf. *Working hard, there was...)--not
that
> adverbs can't. -They can both be coordinated with PPs (e.g.
away from
> the town and down to the river; Because of public opinion and
in
> light of the government's obsession with maintaining an
acceptable
> international image,... cf *Certainly and in light of....).
-And if
> you want to argue for classification based on
complementation, both
> can be complemented by PPs (e.g., away from..., because
of...).
>
> Now what's the connection between 'away' and 'certainly' or
'because'
> and 'that' (e.g., I know that it's here)?
>
>> "Soon", by the way, didn't show up on the wiktionary
list.
>
> That's a good point, to which I have no good response. It
doesn't
> work as predicate complement to 'become', but it can do in a
pinch
> with 'seem' (e.g., that seemed too soon). Still, I'm think on
> balance, 'soon' is more like an adverb than a preposition.
>
> 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/
>
>