Job Discussion Forums

JN · Joined: 17 Jan 2008 Posts: 214

The title says it all. This is what a student asked me. She knows "started" to be past tense. I have searched and just couldn't find anything that satisfied me. Perhaps she will be satisfied to know that "get started" just means begin.

I was reading that "started" is the past participle of the intransitive verb "start," but my student wouldn't understand that anyway. Someone also wrote it was a phrasal verb. These things would be of interest to me, but is there a simple way I could explain it to my student if she is not satisfied with me telling her it means begin? She already understands what the sentence means.

Maybe I could just tell her "because I said so." Smile

fluffyhamster · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:07 pm Post subject:

Only the first verb in a verb phrase or row of verbs can be tensed (or rather, finite). It's just the knock-on effect of form dictating what follows.

So you could compare the original example with Let's start/begin (in which there is no 'get' taking the first spot), and point out the adjectival nature of the 'started' in the original (cf. Let's get silly, naked, drunk; Let's be serious for a second; etc).

Technically it looks similar to the "get-passive" (but that's a problematic term, as often there is little that passive about get-passives compared to the be-passive). But this might help the student understand things in purely structural terms, by possible structural analogy with the be-passive

johnslat · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:58 pm Post subject:

Dear fluffyhamster,

What say you?

"Get Passive Look-Alikes
"As with be passives, sentences that look like get passives may actually be active sentences. In the main type of look-alike, get means 'become' and is followed by a participial adjective.

"Sentence (46) looks like a short get passive, but it is in fact an active sentence in which the past participle form complicated is an adjective.

(46) His explanation is getting complicated.

Here the verb get expresses the idea of becoming or of coming into a state or condition. Sentence (46) may, for instance, be paraphrased as in (47).

(47) His explanation is becoming complicated.

However, get passives can also express events that have no adverse implication, as in (41a), (41b), and (41c), as well as actions that benefit the subject, as in (41d).

(41a) Fred got examined by a specialist.
(41b) The mail gets delivered every day.
(41c) My letter to the editor got published in the Sunday Times.
(41d) Janice got promoted last week.

Get passives cannot occur with verbs that describe cognition (e.g. comprehend, know, understand, etc.)"
(Ron Cowan, The Teacher's Grammar of English: A Course Book and Reference Guide. Cambridge University Press, 2008)"

This seems to say (to me, anyway) that "get started" is a "get passive."

The "look-alikes" are descriptive - adjectival; the "get passive" speaks of an action.

Regards,
John

JN · Joined: 17 Jan 2008 Posts: 214

I still remain rather confused myself, but I'll use the comparison with "be serious," etc. and see if that helps her. Thanks.

Sashadroogie · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:10 pm Post subject:

Just tell the student 'started' is like an adjective, and move on.

No phrasal verbs in sight...

johnslat · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:19 pm Post subject:

Dear Sasha,

How is "started" like an adjective? Is it describing "us?" Or is it conveying the idea of an action?

Regards,
John

Sashadroogie · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:31 pm Post subject:

Dear Johnslat

Coz ir functions like an adjective here. As in 'let's get physical/ready/bolshie/ ahead of the pack/ thee behind me devil/ hammered/ plastered/ sloshed/ suited and booted....

The list goes ever on.... hic!

With Communist greetings

Sasha

johnslat · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:46 pm Post subject:

Dear Sasha,

So, "started" is adjectival, describing "us," then? Or would it be adverbial, modifying "get?"

Sorry, but I still see it as conveying an action, not a description, as all the examples in your list do.

Regards,
John

Sashadroogie · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:45 pm Post subject:

Dear Johnslat

If you want to get bogged down in that with low level students, go for it. Easy just to tell 'em it is like and adjective.

With Communist greetings

Sasha

johnslat · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:27 pm Post subject:

By the way, wouldn't "start" be called ambitransitive rather than intransitive? Come to think on it, could the past participle of a strictly intransitive verb ever be used with "get?" With the "passiveness" that's implied, I think not.

Regards,
John

fluffyhamster · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:35 pm Post subject:

I go away for a few hours to cook a tikka, and come back to find enough to stop me ol' ticker! (BTW I'll try to get around to thinking of something to add to the 'He is one of the students, who was/were praised'-related thread, but I think you guys pretty much covered everything).

Oops I changed the Perhaps we can get started to Let's..., but all my above points still follow(ed).

@Johnslat re. Cowan's grammar: I think applying the label passive to any 'get' is a bit of a non-starter, unless they are clearly "adversative" and/or unremarkably replaceable by 'be' (but I'm sure there'd still be a few "overlaps" going either way). Cf: ??Let's be started. I'd thus be more inclined to call this particular instance simply a linking rather than auxiliary verb, and the OALD(6) and COBUILD seem to agree with me (you'll probably need the paper versions to see the grammar codes). Cowan seems to be saying the same thing too (his get-passive look-alikes aren't actually get-passives, the key phrase being 'into a state or condition'). So I'm not sure where you're getting your 'This seems to say (to me, anyway) that "get started" is a "get passive"' (I think you've read things wrong or are trying to draw your own, different conclusions). And you did follow that with 'The "look-alikes" are descriptive - adjectival; the "get passive" speaks of an action'. Sooo, just to be clear, I only mentioned "get(~be) passives" for surface-structural rather than deeper semantic reasons, and I doubt actually that they will help JN's student LOL.

scot47 · Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Posts: 15343

Gerund or Participle ? Who cares ? Gall it the -ing form and there is no problem !

johnslat · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:29 pm Post subject:

Dear scot47

It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that -ing.

However, since we're discussing the past participle form (-ed), the suggestion regarding the present participle form (-ing) does seem somewhat irrelevant. Cool

Regards,
John

scot47 · Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Posts: 15343

If you so smart how come you aint rich ?

Actually old bean I was referring to the reviews of that book on Amazon where some schoolmarm was getting her knickers twisted about the distinction between gerund and present participle.

Excuse me - I have to go and poach some of the Laird's deer.

Sashadroogie · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:25 pm Post subject:

Twisted knickers? Uraaaaaa! Happy May Day to you al!