Craig,
That's an exellent point about the actor/agent being out of the
equation, as well as the parallel btwn my 'worth' example and the
ergative.
I should clarify my disappointment. It is indeed true that
traditional, formal grammar doesn't cover all actual uses of English
(especially if we consider informal speech). My disappointment, though,
is that my 'worth' example indicates a shortcoming in grammar I haven't
noted before.
I think critics of textbook grammar (or any grammar) sometimes
exaggerate the number of structures that cannot be clearly accounted for
by traditional grammatical analyses. So I'm just a bit disappointed the
'worth' example seems to be one such instance. Actually, as you and
Bruce have pointed out, there are various ways to account for the
structure, though the problem with this structure does seem to come back
to the somewhat idiosyncratic nature of "worth."
Larry
-------------------------------
Larry Beason
Director of Composition
Dept. of English, Univ. of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688
251-460-7861
-------------------------------
>>> [log in to unmask] - 6/24/04 1:14 PM >>>
Larry,
One important reason "This book costs a dollar" cannot be made
passive is that the actor or agent is out of the equation. In other
words, the book isn't doing something to a dollar or acting in such a
way that the dollar is an affected participant. Interestingly enough,
if we do introduce that agent, "a dollar" does become the object
complement you suspected might be there all along. "The publisher
priced the book a dollar." The passive version of this would be "The
book was priced a dollar." A better parallel to "worth" might be
"valued", which, again, brings into possible play a person or entity
who
creates the worth or value. "He valued the book a dollar." "The book
was valued a dollar." "Value" has both a noun and verb form, as does
"cost," but "worth" is only noun or adjective. We can imagine a
potential verb use of "worth": "He worthed the book a dollar," but we
do
have other forms for accommodating that meaning; perhaps that's the
main
reason we haven't felt a need for it. In this imaginary sentence, "a
dollar" does look much like object complement, but the object is
"book",
not "worth."
I'll resist going into detail, but English does give us something
called "ergative" clauses, ones in which the receiver of the action is
in subject role without the sentence being passive. His shirt tore.
The
window shattered. The fields dried up. And so on. The book costs a
dollar, would fit that pattern, but I would call "The book is worth a
dollar" copular, with "is" as linking verb and "worth a dollar" as its
complement. We suspect that it is "worth" that to somebody, but the
statement presents it as though it is a universal given and not a
human
judgment.
Traditional grammar does give us the expectation that language is
neat and clean and easily characterized, but it usually does so by
controlling the kinds of examples. Real world language will always
give
us reasons for challenging this. If we look at these forms as
functional, then this kind of flexibility is more asset than
liability.
In other words, language flexes when it needs to, perhaps because a
life is at stake or an important new meaning seems to elude the old
ways
of saying things. (OK, all originality isn't good, but the possibility
of it is.) Language is under no more obligation to follow our rules
about it than is life obliged to follow the rules of biology, which
doesn't at all lessen the importance of biology as a human activity.
We
have the equivalent of egg laying mammals.We shouldn't be disappointed
when we find them.
Craig
Larry Beason wrote:
>Bruce,
>I think you're explanation makes sense, although it disturbs me that
>this sort of structure cannot be adequately handled by traditional
>grammar. True, traditional grammar has some holes and flaws, but I
>admit this is a new one to me.
>
>As support for your view that "dollar" in "the book costs a dollar"
is
>not really a direct object, I'd point out that you really cannot put
the
>sentence in passive voice (which is a good test of course for almost
all
>DO's). "A dollar was cost by the book" just doesn't sound right.
>
>I can see that, in my sentence and yours, one might say that these
>'adverbial nouns' are complements. I don't know if I mentioned it,
but
>one hypothesis I had was that "a dollar" in "The book is worth a
dollar"
>seems very much like an object complement. But I believe your
>explanation is clearer and more sensible, given the connection you
make
>to other 'adverbial nouns' dealing with degree.
>
>I don't like phrases that we use such as "adverbs acting like noun"
or
>vice versa, but I can see that the 'adverbial noun' hypothesis best
>explains this one.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Larry Beason
>
>
>-------------------------------
>Larry Beason
>Director of Composition
>Dept. of English, Univ. of South Alabama
>Mobile, AL 36688
>251-460-7861
>-------------------------------
>
>
>
>>>>[log in to unmask] - 6/23/04 5:10 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Larry,
>
>My sense is that the noun phrase that follows "worth" is an
"adverbial
>noun."
>Such nouns are quite frequent in telling "how much" or "how many."
>Sometimes
>the verb "cost" is analyzed as though the noun that follows is a
>direct
>object.
>This too would seem to me to be an adverbial noun telling the degree.
>
>How much does the book cost? The book costs a dollar.
>How much is the book worth? The book is worth a dollar.
>
>The conclusion would be that the noun is a complement to the
adjective
>"worth"
>and that the only appropriate noun to follow "worth" would be a unit
>of
>measure
>or something that would translate into some sort of measure of value.
>
>A picture is worth a thousand words.
>
>Similarly when we have "He weighs a ton" the noun phrase seems to
>function as
>an adverbial noun of degree, not a direct object. Consider also "He
>measures
>six feet" an "He is six feet tall." The measure of age usually
>includes the
>adjective "old," but doesn't seem always to need it, as "He is twenty
>years
>(old)." In consideration of this structure as possibly more normal,
>we could
>make the observation that "worth" is unusual in that its adverbial
>modifier
>follows as a complement (without a connective).
>
>I hope this doesn't raise more questions than it seeks to respond to.
>
>Bruce
>
>
>
>
>>>>[log in to unmask] 6/23/2004 11:35:12 AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>How would you analyze 'worth' in a sentence such as "This book is
>worth
>a dollar"?
>
>If 'is' is a linking verb and 'worth' is a predicate adjective, what
>is
>a noun doing afterward?
>
>Dictionaries I've consulted indicate 'worth' is a noun or adjective.
I
>myself can't use 'worth' as a descriptive adjective that comes before
>a
>noun (the normal position of course for most single-word, non-verbal
>adjectives).
>
>I think this example is similar to the above: "This book, worth a
mere
>dollar, is yours if you want it."
>
>I was thinking 'worth' might be preposition (which would explain a
>noun
>afterwards), but I doubt it. My other guess is it is an old term
(Old
>English) that ls now an idiosyncratic adjective that requires a noun
>to
>complete the description. Not a very satisfying answer, so I'm
>wondering what others think.
>
>Larry Beason
>
>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/
>
>
>
>"Postmaster" made the following annotations.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This message may contain confidential information, and is intended
only
>for
>the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.
>==============================================================================
>
>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/
>
>
>
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/
|
