>---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- >Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > <<[log in to unmask]> >Poster: Judy Diamondstone <<[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Adverb/adverbial and more >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judy, I'm not sure what Plato would have said about the expletive it. I don't know whether anything like that exists in Greek. In English, "it" simply fills the subject slot. Some linguiests would call it a sentence trapping. In lots of languages, perhaps Greek is one of them, it's possible to make existential statements with the predicate alone, as if we could say in Enlish, Thursday. Hot in here. Of course, we don't do that. Plato might have called "it" the thing named, which I guess is what onoma means. Here's what R.H. Robins, in A SHORT HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS, says about Plato, onoma, and rhema: right,left. . . in his dialogues we encounter a fundamental division of the Greek sentence into a nominal and a verbal component, onoma and rhema . . . which remained the primary grammaical distinction underlying syntactic analysis and word classification in all future linguistic descriptions. A bit later, Robins explains how onoma and rhema were reinterpreted by Aristotle and then by the Stoic philosophers: right,leftAristotle's onoma was divided into proper noun, to which the term onoma was applied, and common noun, prosegoria; and thirdly, from within this, the class of adverbs was split off and named mesotes, literally 'those in the middle', perhaps because they belonged syntactically with the verbs but were mostly associated morphologically with the noun stems. Very interesting. The very concept adverb was originally a designation of nouns by the Stoics. Max Max Morenberg, Professor Department of English Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 Ph: 513-529-2520 e-mail: [log in to unmask] right,left > >WOOPS I goofed. After thanking others for their >carefulness. > > >>But the subject is not a noun in adverbial guise: >> >> I leaned it against the wall > > Try this example instead: It is Thursday. > >heh... > > >Judy > > >>Does it sound sensible to you, making use of Plato's insight, that >>there are two 'parts of speech' - participants and processes; the >>participants may be "onema" OR complements, while the processes are rhema >> ? >> >>I hope the discussion continues. >> >>Judy >> >> >>At 06:54 AM 3/10/99 -0500, you wrote: >>>John is here. >>>John is in the kitchen. >>>John is in for it. >>> >>>When is the exam? >>>The exam is Thursday. >>>The exam is next week. >>> >>>Complement? Adverb? Adverbial? >>> >>>I'm afraid I can't see much of a problem here. >>> >>>A. >>> >>>First a definition: >>> >>>'Complement' is a general term denoting that there is more than just the >>>verb (or rather the verbal part) in a sentence. Everything that MUST be >>>added to create a sentence is a complement. With 'shine' only one >>>complement is necessary, namely the subject, with 'put' three complements >>>are necessary (subject, object, adverbial of direction). >>> >>>There are several types of complements - S,O,A, subject complement, object >>>complement. Which of these are necessary depends on the individual verb. >>>See discussion on valences some time ago. >>> >>>'Be' is a verb that needs two complements, a subject and a subject >>>complement or an adverbial. >>> >>>Subject complements: >>> SC >>>His clothes were / wet /. >>>You are /teachers/. >>>The point is /that nobody was aware of what was going on/. >>>This is /what happened. >>> >>>Adverbials (see the above sentences). >>> >>>There is a great number of adverbial types: apart from the obvious ones >>>like place, direction, time, etc. there are many others, most of which have >>>no traditional name. >>> >>>The adverbial slot in a sentence with 'be' is mostly an adverbial of place, >>>but adverbials of time are not rare (see sentences above). Whether the >>>meaning of 'be' is a little different with place or time adverbials is of >>>no avail, because this is regularly the case when the valence changes. A >>>good example is 'take' - as any dictionary will illustrate. >>> >>>Apart from place and time adverbials after 'be', there are also others, e.g. >>> A >>>They are/to be married in June/. >>>He's been /to see his uncle/. >>> >>>This is one of the (traditionally) nameless adverbial types. >>> >>>B. >>> >>>Some problems that have been discussed arise only because 'adverb' and >>>'adverbial' are often used as synonyms, which, of course, they aren't. >>> >>>'Adverb' denotes a word class, like 'noun', 'adjective'. 'Adverbial' refers >>>to a function in the sentence, like 'subject', 'object'. (In the same way >>>'verb' and 'verbal part' must be distinguished, or 'noun' and 'subject'...). >>> >>>The function of ADVERBIAL can be performed by all sorts of structures: >>>adverbs of course(here),but also adverb groups (quite nicely), noun >>>(Thursday), noun group (every morning), prepositional phrase (on the roof), >>>wh-sentence (where no man has ever been), subclause structure (because he >>>wasn't home), to-inf sentence (to make her happy), etc. >>> >>>On the other hand, ADVERBS can perform a great number of functions, not >>>just adverbial, e.g. they can be attributes in adjective groups (very >>>fast), they can be disjuncts (fortunately, the man turned up), conjuncts >>>(however, this was quite different), and many more. >>> >>>Neither the term 'adverb' nor the term 'adverbial' should be seen as a >>>wastepaper basket term, as some will have it, where you put what you can't >>>explain. If things can't be explained, it just means that we don't know >>>enough yet, either as individuals or as linguists. In the latter case more >>>research is needed, that's all. >>> >>>By the way, in the scope and sequence discussion it was said that teachers >>>cannot be expected to understand linguistic models when they are a little >>>more adequate than the usual school grammar. Teachers are not that dumb, >>>good heavens, we are all teachers, one way or another. The problem is that >>>most teachers have never learned anything else. They were taught school >>>grammar in school (instead of learning to look at language itself), then >>>the same at college, and then by the textbooks they use as teachers. By the >>>time they have taught for a few years, they have internalized the >>>traditional rules and have learned to negate their brains' protests against >>>illogical terminology and rules, and after that it is very difficult to >>>open their eyes and make them look 'naively' at language itself and at the >>>models they use. And so they teach school grammar again, and the cycle >>>starts anew. >>> >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>Burkhard Leuschner - Paedagogische Hochschule Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany >>>E-mail: [log in to unmask] [h] Fax: +49 7383 2212 >>>HTTP://WWW.PH-GMUEND.DE/PHG/PHONLINE/Englisch/index.htm >>> >> > > >Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352 >Graduate School of Education >Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey >10 Seminary Place >New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183 > >Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake