EXCLUSIVE: Fluffyhamster declared grammar dunce!

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:19 pm

It's axiomatic that a word is at least one morpheme. What does "to" mean?

ouyang · Post by **ouyang** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:57 pm

Some grammarians classify words as function or content words. Others use the terms structural and semantic. See http://www.towson.edu/ows/PtsSpch.htm

Most structural / function words do have some meaning, but not in the same sense as content words. In Chinese, the particle "ma" signifies that the sentence is a question. If you ask what it means, the answer is that it means the other words in the sentence form a question. I think "to" is similar in that it means the verb which follows it is not a predicate verb or main verb or whatever term you like if there are no such things as "predicate verbs" in your universe.

Actually, I think there are combinations of main verbs and infinitives in which the infinitive determines the structure of the predicate, but you didn't include one in your examples, and the particle "to" still functions in the same way, anyway.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:13 am

For some people it justs marks the infinitive. So it's a sort of prefix that's not attached to its verb. That's the thinking that lead to split infinitives being such an anathema.

Others question whether the blocks of meaning don't put the "to" more with its left-hand verb:

I want/ to go or I want to/go

Cetainly "wanna" "hafta" and "gonna" suggest that there is blocking of the "to" with its LH verb.

"To" does at least time-sequence the verb it precedes as being after (sometimes just after) the verb it follows. Whilst some verbs followed by an -ing verb can look forward (anticipate, avoid, recommend, suggest etc) no verb which takes to can look backwards.

So maybe "to" means "What is on my left is the situation prevailing for the stuation on my right to occur".

1) I want to buy the same dictionary as you have
2) John went to London to see the lights.
3) John didn't have money to buy the furniture for his new room.
4) Mary was pleased to hear the news.
5) Mary had no friends to talk about the matter with.
6) Many Japanese like to have nori for breakfast.
7) This bridge is not strong enough for the lorry to cross.

How careless he is to have lost his umbrella

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:32 pm

woodcutter wrote:FH - I tend to think that there are serious implications for all our definitions if we can't agree on the nature of the most basic definitions. Does a prepositon have an actual meaning concerning position, for example? If so that would obviously be very important to what we call a preposition.

(and it seems that in most languages, by the way, wikipedia at least still kicks off with "a noun is a person, place or thing").

Do you remember "Prawn"? There are plenty of people like him, with a very different approach, I suppose, who would never bother to post here.

Juan, since in Chinese you can live without a "to" like word, I suppose I'm very open to the idea that it is fairly content free. Maybe the main reason for it is just a habit of having only one tensed verb per clause?

If you have the time and intellect to thrash "basic" issues out to your and more importantly other people's full satisfaction, then go for it. Generally however, such pondering can become a distraction, and one can probably ahieve more/be more productive in at least the short term by adopting those useful things called 'working definitions'.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:59 am

Most people of the world may be happy with their working definitions. However, these definitions tend to include meaning - a verb is an action for example. Therefore you will often see people talk about the verb in the sentence "They were eating a pie" and meaning the word "eating". However by linguistic criteria "were" is more likely the verb, since it bears the tense and agrees with the subject. By your recent posts I guess you would class the two as a "verb complex". Anyway, it is a fairly fundamental thing to disagree about, but I contend that online parsers of sentences will have rather varied views on the matter.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:29 pm

woodcutter wrote:Most people of the world may be happy with their working definitions. However, these definitions tend to include meaning - a verb is an action for example. Therefore you will often see people talk about the verb in the sentence "They were eating a pie" and meaning the word "eating". However by linguistic criteria "were" is more likely the verb, since it bears the tense and agrees with the subject.

Woody, such a simple notional definition is clearly insufficient for learning and understanding about lexical (or, if you prefer, main) verbs, finiteness etc. Your argument appears to be little more than 'Nobody really wants to read (or themselves write) an at all sophisticated definition or indeed a whole grammar, but they shouldn't then be at all surprised that they remain almost completely uninformed about the possible complexities of grammar'.

By your recent posts I guess you would class the two as a "verb complex".

I'd just call 'were eating' (in 'They were eating a pie') a verb phrase (to be precise, a complex - or should that be "complex" - verb phrase, as opposed to a simple). One could also invoke the notion of 'compound tense' here.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:36 pm

Whenever I have been forced to parse sentences I had to do each word, and find the verb (the head) in a verb phrase.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:12 pm

woodcutter wrote:Whenever I have been forced to parse sentences I had to do each word, and find the verb (the head) in a verb phrase.

Your tutors were asking you to be 100% explicit. What of it?

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:18 am

Therefore mentioning a phrase doesn't help when we're deciding which word in the phrase is what.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:00 pm

Woody, you're moving the goalposts and then complaining that my goals weren't quite perfect. The fact is, grammar allows multiple levels of analysis, and if anyone were dissatisfied with or confused by what 'verb phrase' could possibly mean e.g. in relation to 'were eating', they'd be welcome to subanalyze 'were' as an auxiliary (and finite) verb and 'eating' as the lexical/main verb (main verb = 'a verb functioning as the head of a verb phrase' (Chalker & Weiner)).

In my imaginary grammar I'd probably call single verbs by themslves simply verbs, and two or more a verb phrase. I might even toy with the notion of analyzing progressive aspect constructions as being copula + gerund/literal meaning (now or then, or at whatever time may be added), just to stir things up a bit.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:59 am

Yes, I'm all for not classing the copula as a verb (and adding a gerund). What is the point when it behaves quite differently from most verbs? Just so we can say that "each sentence has a verb"?

I think that's exactly the trouble. People wish to assign classes to odd things and then make blanket statements which will then not hold up. The way we assign names to the individual words, and the basis we have for doing it, is important for making a coherent system. It isn't that important for rough translations from one language to another, which rely on simple notional ideas.

I don't think you are a grammar dunce at all. Anyone who realizes how hard it is to actually talk coherently about grammar is at the very top of the field. Plenty of people are good at spouting formidable garbage and not listening to others though.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu May 20, 2010 9:17 pm

A question re-asked... A hamster recondemned... A reattempt to make something sound like an exciting Hollywood blockbuster...

http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic ... 005#857005

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri May 21, 2010 12:53 pm

Does it really bother you to be attacked by "Swan sez it so it's true" type people? Most bigwigs these days seem to use the term "ing form", as I think you know.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri May 21, 2010 7:35 pm

Well, the silly thread title, and tagline above, were meant to suggest that I'm not too bovvered (and certainly don't feel like I'm being attacked - much!); as for "Swanners" (not that I believe you think Swan himself/itself is too bad, Woody), they are of course right (in a formal if not ultimately also generally functional sense also)...it's just, I (like most I suspect) would prefer grammar (or at least, that fantasy grammar I'm slowly writing in my head) to be conveyed in more digestible dollops of maximum salience, and one way to achieve that would be (as I'm suggesting in the latest above link in this "saga" I'm sort of archiving) to perhaps place and mention 'verbs in phase' well above 'gerunds', certainly in those instances where shouting 'STOP! That there is a gerund - a "verbal noun" - you absolutely need to know and really really appreciate!' could rather slam the brakes on whatever provisional (yet potentially perfectly adequate, for the purposes of general comprehension-communication!) parsing had been chugging along nicely enough. And like everyone is now telling everyone it seems, -ing forms are the new delicious tasty fudge. But doubtless I'd at least have a few clear 'activity' gerunds (in copula sentences) floating around earlier in the grammar, so that those who felt their brains twitching 'Finite verb plus non-finite verb...no, wait, not non-finite verb but something objecty-nouny?' would have something to analogize back to if they really wanted to get hung up on just -ings as opposed to say -ings vs to-Vs!).