Teacher Discussion Forums

Can someone please explain it to me?

Yes, but you'll be even more confused at the end of it!

The easiest explanantion is to say that catatenatives are verbs the study of which leaves any normal person catatonic

They are basically linking verbs. For example 'stop' as in Stop talking
or 'try' as in try and come on time or 'go' as in Let's go eat

Some "authorities" will include modal auxiliaries in the mix; for example 'must' as in You mustn't even think of studying the English catenatives; it's a complete waste of time.

I can sure relate to the "catatonic" part I've looked up this word in a lot of on-line dictionaries, including some that are specialty dictionaries for linguistics only, and have yet to find it. Anyone have better luck?

I'm sure you won't be surprised if I put my oar in here. And I supose I should put a simple definition like this on my diagram. I will get round to it, honestly.

The word "catenative" comes from the Greek word for "chain". Basically, if a modal or a verb is followed by a non-finite verb it's a catenative. The non-finite verbs are the gerunds and the infinitives.

The complexity comes because there are many different structures:

The modals are followed by the bare infinitive ie without "to". There are also three idiomatic/semi-idiomatic verb-verb expressions:
"Make do", "Let go" and "Dare say", and so on. You can see all this in my diagram.

Extra complexity is introduce by the object, and the word "to".

I can't guarantee that everything is correct yet on my diagram, but you should get the general idea:

http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/cat.html

But type "catenatives" in a search engine and you should find some good explanations.

For those who aren't already scared off, I've extended my diagram to include other related structures.

I've posted this new verson at:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/CatSbjv.html

Can I ask any Americans out there to look at the present subjunctive (Americans use this more than the British.)
Can you understand what I've done with "Minimal change in meaning. Can anyone think of more elegant solutions?

This diagram isn't clickable like the other, by the way.

Finally, I still have:

http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/catanative.html

which was the original diagram, and which I havent finished taking all the info from.

When I have, this will be the main website's URL.

I hope this has helped, William.

Steven, did I detect a hint of scarcasm in your example using "must"? You've made me very unhappy

I did what you suggested, Andrew, and put "catenatives" in Google. I thought it was pretty funny that out of 120 hits, the first one was a request you sent a year ago to linguistlist.org .

Anyway, it looks like the hits could keep me busy for a while. I'll check them out little by little and see what sinks in.

Steven,

I don't really know if I should correct you, because you are sort of right.

Catenatives are indeed linking verbs, but be sure you know what linking verbs are:

Linking verbs are verbs that indicate that the transitive element is a compliment and not an object.

This may be true in the catenatives because technically catenatives have a non-finite verb as their compliment, not their object.

I think, though you meant that they link two verbs together. This is not what is meant by "linking verbs."

Your statement got me thinking, however. If it is a compliment then it cannot do its action to anything but the subject, but in a sense catenatives do seem to do their action to the verb that follows as well. Could it be that catenatives link back to the subject while doing their action to the verb.

...Or am I talking rubbish?
[/b]

There is a sizeable and reasonably clear section on catenatives in the grammar chapter of the Routledge Guide to Modern Standard English, Second edition (I'm pretty sure that's the title!). I'm actually thinking of buying it next payday, and not just for the catenative bits - the whole chapter seems and would make a very succinct and useful overview (for me, at least!). Are there any other BOOKS that you could recommend, Andrew (that deal with catenatives, AMONG OTHER THINGS)? It's just, I'm a bit wary of depending entirely (and certainly solely) on web information (mainly because you don't need a whole load of money and trust invested in you, or editors behind you, to post stuff on the net - not that the links you mentioned have been at all bad or too misleading, Andrew Sorry that I STILL haven't replied on your other thread, v. v. busy boy now me!).

Edit: oops, I told you guys about this book before on the "Genetive (sic) case" thread...jeez, it HAS been a while since I've been on here, then! Miss me? Want me?! HUG HUG, KISS KISS...