Having been gone for a couple of days, I am coming to this discussion very late, so forgive me if this has already been said and I am not to it yet! I think that the non-passive participles that Johanna and Michael are talking about are what Azar calls the stative passive in her ESL book. > ---------- > From: Michael Kischner[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Reply To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:14 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Valences 2 (of 2) > > Yes, I'm still with you t the end of 2 of 2. Valences seem a very useful > way of discussing patterns. > > One small note on a difference between ing participles and gerunds: you > don't have to torment students to get them to see a difference between > "the drinking horse" and "the drinking water." > > As for calling past participles "passive" participles, I've actually taken > to doing that in class sometimes, but I have come upon instances of > participles that -- to use Johanna Rubba's information about "scanning" -- > are hard to "scan" as passives. I can't think of a good one right now, > but "flushed" as in "flushed with shame, he pointed to the empty cookie > jar" might serve. Or "Buried for twelve centuries, the documents were > discovered by construction workers." "BUried" here refers to a condition, > not a received action. >