Although I initially went for the "fully adjectival" reading, I've been
convinced that it's firmly ambiguous, as Craig and Johanna point out.
It's got me wondering further, though, about how much verb
tense/aspect/modality goes into "tilting" our perceptions one way or
another. Compare:

1a. His heart was swollen with sorrow.
2a. His heart is swollen with sorrow.
3a. His heart will be swollen with sorrow.
4a. His heart has been swollen with sorrow.
5a. His heart should be swollen with sorrow.
6a. His heart will have been swollen with sorrow.

1b. The river was swollen with floodwaters by the spring snowmelt.
2b. The river is swollen with floodwaters by the spring snowmelt.
3b. The river will be swollen with floodwaters by the spring snowmelt.
4b. The river has been swollen with floodwaters by the spring snowmelt.
5b. The river should be swollen with floodwaters by the spring snowmelt.
6b. The river will have been swollen with floodwaters by the spring
snowmelt.

These don't seem equally susceptible to a passive reading. In
particular, I have a much easier time reading #1a-b that way than #2a-b,
to the extent that 2b just sounds wacky (unless I imagine it as part of
a voice-over narration in a television nature special, which raises the
whole issue of genre as well). 5b leads toward a reading in which "by"
is interpreted as temporal rather than causal, and to a certain extent
this is true of 6b as well. This probably ties in with the distinctions
Johanna was making between process and state readings (I'm not sure I
have a point with this; I just find it interesting!).

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

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/