Teacher Discussion Forums

I have created a Venn Diagram of the English catenatives (modals, and verbs followed by the gerunds and infinitives, etc.)

It can be viewed at:

http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/catenative.GIF
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/index

If you can't link from this site, type the URL - that usually works.

It is currently a work in progress and contains some errors. I am particularly interested in getting the rules on when words are followed by gerunds and infinitives right.

Thank you.

Andrew Patterson.
<[email protected]>

Frankly, it's pretty much beyond me, but I did notice that your explanation of "try" is the same on both sides. I think the one on the right should have a different meaning than "experiment to see what will happen."

Whoops, sorry. I had that right before, but copied the other side to get the width right. I have corrected the mistake. It now reads "attempt to do something".

Andrew Patterson.

Beautiful! Well done.

Did you see my post on "get" as having modal qualities? Would you agree?

E.G. Sarah gets to go to all the parties.

I get to do the washing up every night!

Don't get carried away, Metal56, the diagram contains still contains some mistakes. That's why I posted it here. I want to get it right. In particular, the rules ror gerunds have been causing me problems.

I've tried to reformulate the rules for gerunds and infinitives because some phrasal verbs can be
followed by "to" and the infinitive".
I'd like some feedback, because I'm not sure I've got it right

DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this discussion,
A phrasal verb means a verb followed by a preposition and or an adverb.
An adverb does not include the question words: who, what, where, when, how, etc.

VERBS FOLLOWED BY GERUNDS
1.A two word phrasal verb can always be followed by a gerund if,
a) It is logically capable of doing it's action to another verb.
b) It has no substantive object (the verb that follows it can have a substantive object.)
c) It does not begin with "would"
d) It does not end in "to"

Unless,
i) It is logically capable of doing it's action to a stative verb.
ii) It's meaning implies a single-minded purpose.

(Some two part phrasal verbs can also be followed by the infinitive and "to"
this significantly changes the meaning in the case of "go on")

2. Three part phrasal verbs that fulfill conditions a), b) and c) are always and only followed by gerunds.

3. A phrasal verb can still be followed by a gerund if it does not fulfill any of these conditions
except a) although "Prevent (someone/sth) from is the only exception to condition b) and is consequently
the only instance where a phrasal verb followed by a gerund has a substantive object.
(In fact, it is the only instance where a verb followed by a gerund has a substantive object.)

VERBS FOLLOWED BY "TO" AND THE INFINITIVE
A verb is always and only followed by the infinitive with "to" if,
a) It's meaning implies a single-minded purpose.
b) It begins with "would" and does not contain a stative verb as one of its component parts.

COMMENTRY
I note that "fired up" is intransitive, so perhaps the concession to single-minded purpose is unnecessary.
It could also be argued that winning is beyond the control of the speaker if
despite trying their best the other team is better.

Can anyone think of any phrasal verbs followed by "to" and the infinitive which are:
1. intransitive,
2. do not imply a single-minded purpose,
3. are under the control of the speaker. (I'm not sure maybe this can only apply to completed actions.)?

NB Rule 1 for gerunds does not imply that a verb CANNOT be followed by "to" and the infinitive,
It mearly implies that it CAN be followed by a gerund ("go on" for instance can be followed by either.
To prove this wrong you need to show catenatives.
that CANNOT be followed by a gerund.

Andrew Patterson.
I've tried to reformulate the rules for gerunds and infinitives because some phrasal verbs can be
followed by "to" and the infinitive".
I'd like some feedback, because I'm not sure I've got it right

DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this discussion,
A phrasal verb means a verb followed by a preposition and or an adverb.
An adverb does not include the question words: who, what, where, when, how, etc.

VERBS FOLLOWED BY GERUNDS
1.A two word phrasal verb can always be followed by a gerund if,
a) It is logically capable of doing it's action to another verb.
b) It has no substantive object (the verb that follows it can have a substantive object.)
c) It does not begin with "would"
d) It does not end in "to"

Unless,
i) It is logically capable of doing it's action to a stative verb.
ii) It's meaning implies a single-minded purpose.

(Some two part phrasal verbs can also be followed by the infinitive and "to"
this significantly changes the meaning in the case of "go on")

2. Three part phrasal verbs that fulfill conditions a), b) and c) are always and only followed by gerunds.

3. A phrasal verb can still be followed by a gerund if it does not fulfill any of these conditions
except a) although "Prevent (someone/sth) from is the only exception to condition b) and is consequently
the only instance where a phrasal verb followed by a gerund has a substantive object.
(In fact, it is the only instance where a verb followed by a gerund has a substantive object.)

VERBS FOLLOWED BY "TO" AND THE INFINITIVE
A verb is always and only followed by the infinitive with "to" if,
a) It's meaning implies a single-minded purpose.
b) It begins with "would" and does not contain a stative verb as one of its component parts.

COMMENTRY
I note that "fired up" is intransitive, so perhaps the concession to single-minded purpose is unnecessary.
It could also be argued that winning is beyond the control of the speaker if
despite trying their best the other team is better.

Can anyone think of any phrasal verbs followed by "to" and the infinitive which are:
1. intransitive,
2. do not imply a single-minded purpose,
3. are under the control of the speaker. (I'm not sure maybe this can only apply to completed actions.)?

NB Rule 1 for gerunds does not imply that a verb CANNOT be followed by "to" and the infinitive,
It mearly implies that it CAN be followed by a gerund ("go on" for instance can be followed by either.
To prove this wrong you need to show catenatives.
that CANNOT be followed by a gerund.

Andrew Patterson.
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/catenative.GIF

I've just up dated my diagram. The post on gerunds seems to have gone unanswered, so I'll ask simpler questions to start the ball rolling again.

First of all definitions:

Catenatives are modal verbs, and verbs followed by gerunds or infinitives with or without an object. Note that not all verbs can be followed by another verb.

I have hypothesised that if a catenative is a three past phrasal verb that:
1. Doesn't begin with "would"; and
2. Doesn't end with "to"

it is always and only followed by gerunds.
Can anyone find any counter-examples?

Andrew, it might be easier for people to think of counter-examples if you posted some examples here (rather than expect us to find where they might be located on your diagram).

But I appreciate that you might prefer to only get responses from serious-minded individuals, those who have the mental ability (and time, experience, references/resources, similar concerns/interests etc!) to appreciate verbal definition and more abstract ways of thinking and organizing knowledge (or should that be facts?).

Thank you Duncan, and sorry for the delay in responding.

Examples would include:

Fred made up for lying about Jane by giving her free tickets to the Scooter concert.

I won't put up with lying.

He got away with lying about his qualifications.

Jane was told off for smoking behind the bike-sheds.


DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this discussion,
A phrasal verb means a verb followed by a preposition and or an adverb.
So a three part phrasal verb must have a verb followed by:
a) two prepositions; or
b) two adverbs; or
c) a preposition and an adverb; or
d) an adverb and a preposition.
An adverb does not include the question words: who, what, where, when, how, etc.

If you can find examples of three-part phrasal verbs followed by "to" and the infinitive, then my hypothesis will be proved wrong.

http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/index

How about (having given it only 1 minute's thought): "Stimpy turns inside out to see inside his belly button"?

Hope your hard work hasn't been in vain. Will post more examples tomorrow, when my brain is working at 2 million gigglebytes per renosecond. Do say if the example isn't "permissable".

Not "permissable" Duncan. Your using an infitintive of purpose, which can be transferred to the begining of the sentence with no change in meaning.

A bit like trying to win a drinking contest by swallowing the beer and then puking it straight up. Within the letter of the law, but against all the rules of the game.

Duncan Powrie wrote:

"Stimpy turns inside out to see inside his belly button"?

Stephen Jones wrote:

Not "permissable" Duncan. Your using an infitintive of purpose, which can be transferred to the begining of the sentence with no change in meaning.

A bit like trying to win a drinking contest by swallowing the beer and then puking it straight up. Within the letter of the law, but against all the rules of the game.

Well, I'm not sure that it is necessarily outside the rules of the game, I altered the rule for two part phrasal verbs when someone pointed out that "fired up" was followed by "to" and the infinitive, as in,

"We're fired up to win."

However, at the risk of moving the goalposts, I note that,
"inside" can be a noun, adjective, preposition or adverb;
"out" can also be a noun adjective, preposition or adverb;
"inside out" is an idiomatic phrase which acts as a single adverb.

So, I'm not sure how I should look at "inside out,
let alone "turn inside out".

Can anyone clarify this for me?

Stephen Jones wrote:Not "permissable" Duncan. Your using an infitintive of purpose, which can be transferred to the begining of the sentence with no change in meaning.

A bit like trying to win a drinking contest by swallowing the beer and then puking it straight up. Within the letter of the law, but against all the rules of the game.

"Nice" analogy, Stephen!

I suppose you could move the "infITINTive (sic sic puke beer urgh hungover AGAIN puke puke sick - oh wait a minute, I was the one who originally used the scare quotes!!! ) of purpose" (i.e. "to see inside his belly button") to the head of the sentence - did Andrew say forms with possible variations in word order were not permissIble (:oops: ) according to his "rules"?

I guess I just tend to go for "spoken" word orders, even in my "writing" (i.e. SV...).

I'm afraid I didn't understand your last post, could you explain what you meant.

You didn't understand ANY of it? Or just the last sentence?

What I meant by that was that, although I could say, "To look inside his belly button, Stimpy turns inside out", I feel I'd be more likely to say "...and then, Stimpy turns inside out (to see inside his belly button)!" That is, this seems to me to be the most natural way to structure the information I am trying to relate to a listener in this context (of talking about a cartoon I saw, or rather, of continuing to talk about the cartoon to relate the next event in it).

Or maybe you didn't get the "joke(s)", Andrew?

Here's a breakdown:

1. I make a spelling mistake in a word within scare quotes ("permissable"), and don't notice (and correct/edit) it.

2. Stephen (retaining both the misspelling and the scare quotes) says my example is not "permissable".

3. I notice what has been retained in 2, and am "not sure" if Stephen is being sarcastic ("I can't believe he would be so cruel!!" ).

"Maybe" (=very probably, "knowing" him!) he is, so I counter by "pointing out", using "sic" (which also serves to link nicely to his saying I have been unfairly "puking up" examples!), that I am fully aware of HIS spelling mistake also (or at least, mistyping of what should read "infinitive"); but I also leave open the (remote!) possibility that he MIGHT have just copied my spelling mistake (and the scare quotes surrounding it) "unawares" when I go on to say, "oh wait a minute, I was the one who originally used the scare quotes!!!" (I also correct my own misspelling and show I am "hugely" embarrassed by such an unforgivable thing), because I like to appear a nice, easy-going, self-critical, "innocent" guy (even though I could here be being extremely "two-faced", that is, be STRONGLY IMPLYING that SJ is indeed a very very very sarcastic S.O.B ).

I know this isn't exactly rib-cracking stuff (especially the "scare quotes" thing-thang-thong), but I like to think at least a few of my jokes hit home a bit more often than most of my linguistic analyses do. (=My analyses are bad, not that Andrew is necessarily stupid in some respects at least ).

One potato, two potato, three potato four... (=jokes upon jokes!!). YEY!!!!