Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:51:52 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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.
>
|
|
|