I got used to your being here.
1. How would this sentence be parsed?
2. Is 'used to' a prepositional verb?
3. How does 'here', which is an adverb, modify 'being', which is a gerund (noun)?
4. What if 'your' was replaced with 'you', would the obect of 'to' be a fused participle of you and being?
Thank you in advance,
Donna
Please parse this sentence
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
I'd say "used to" is a phrasal preposition here. The main verb is "got" and it's acting as a linking verb, as it does in clauses like, "I got bored".
Gerunds are technically nouns when they act as objects of prepositions, but they have characteristics that common nouns don't have. They can form all the verb phrase patterns that involve objects, complements, and adverbs. Sometimes they can also be modified by adjectives (or determiners), which is what is happening here. However, when a gerund takes an adjective, it usually doesn't also take an adverb.
If you replace "your" with "you", the result is fused, but it is not a participle. It's a noun phrase with "you" as the head and "being here" acting as a complement. There's a lot of disagreement about how to classify this sort of phrase. Some people will call it a non-finite clause with "you" as the subject, but I think it's misleading to do so.
Change the person of the pronoun to see what's happening.
I got used to her being here.
I got used to him being here.
I got used to his being here.
The last one is more awkward than the one before it because the gerund is being modified by both a determiner and an adverb.
Gerunds are technically nouns when they act as objects of prepositions, but they have characteristics that common nouns don't have. They can form all the verb phrase patterns that involve objects, complements, and adverbs. Sometimes they can also be modified by adjectives (or determiners), which is what is happening here. However, when a gerund takes an adjective, it usually doesn't also take an adverb.
If you replace "your" with "you", the result is fused, but it is not a participle. It's a noun phrase with "you" as the head and "being here" acting as a complement. There's a lot of disagreement about how to classify this sort of phrase. Some people will call it a non-finite clause with "you" as the subject, but I think it's misleading to do so.
Change the person of the pronoun to see what's happening.
I got used to her being here.
I got used to him being here.
I got used to his being here.
The last one is more awkward than the one before it because the gerund is being modified by both a determiner and an adverb.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I can't really get my head around how "you/your" could be fundamentally different, when it is just a question of formality. I would have gone for the non-finite clause myself, I suppose. I don't know if I think that "his being here" sounds any worse to me, by the way, Ouyang.
Here's what "Mr.Micawber" at Englishforums.com/appled linguistics said to Donna. There's a lot of good grammar "gurus" over there (including Mr.Pedantic), and a few familiar "faces". It's kind of overly busy and full of sometimes rather batty seeming non-native speakers though.
1.-- I would guess that there are several ways to approach this; here's mine:
I - Subject
got - verb
used - predicate adjective
to - preposition
your - possessive adjective
being - gerund (object of preposition)
here - noun complement
2. Is 'used to' a prepositional verb?-- No, it is an adjectival structure; get is an informal copular verb.
3. How does 'here', which is an adverb, modify 'being', which is a gerund (noun)?-- Gerunds keep some of their verbal characteristics, including supporting objects or complements: Being a man is always difficult; Eating too many hamburgers may kill you.
4. What if 'your' was replaced with 'you', would the object of 'to' be a fused participle of you and being?-- You replaces your in casual English. I suppose that then you would be the object of the preposition and being here would be an object complement. This structure (without the possessive) is indeed sometimes called a fused participle
Here's what "Mr.Micawber" at Englishforums.com/appled linguistics said to Donna. There's a lot of good grammar "gurus" over there (including Mr.Pedantic), and a few familiar "faces". It's kind of overly busy and full of sometimes rather batty seeming non-native speakers though.
1.-- I would guess that there are several ways to approach this; here's mine:
I - Subject
got - verb
used - predicate adjective
to - preposition
your - possessive adjective
being - gerund (object of preposition)
here - noun complement
2. Is 'used to' a prepositional verb?-- No, it is an adjectival structure; get is an informal copular verb.
3. How does 'here', which is an adverb, modify 'being', which is a gerund (noun)?-- Gerunds keep some of their verbal characteristics, including supporting objects or complements: Being a man is always difficult; Eating too many hamburgers may kill you.
4. What if 'your' was replaced with 'you', would the object of 'to' be a fused participle of you and being?-- You replaces your in casual English. I suppose that then you would be the object of the preposition and being here would be an object complement. This structure (without the possessive) is indeed sometimes called a fused participle
I don't have any problem with classifying "used" as a predicate adjective. If you consider "used to" a phrasal preposition, the phrase it forms would be functioning as a predicate adjective.
If you classify "used" as a predicate adjective, then its a type of adjective that must always take a prepositional phrase as a complement. This is not the "used" in "used car". This is the same sort of sentence pattern as "getting married" but prepositional phrases which follow "married" aren't necessary, i.e. "to her English teacher".
I suppose clauses containing "supposed to" could also be considered to use this pattern, but instead of a prepositional phrase they are complemented by an infinitive phrase. "He is supposed to help us". In each case the predicate adjective would be a past participle, but I don't think the concept of a past participle acting as an incomplete adjective is that useful.
As a predicate adjective, the adjective can be incomplete, "He is likely to win.", but it then functions as a complete pre-modifier, "likely winner". "supposed" does this but "used" doesn't, "supposed benefit", "used routine".
If you classify "used" as a predicate adjective, then its a type of adjective that must always take a prepositional phrase as a complement. This is not the "used" in "used car". This is the same sort of sentence pattern as "getting married" but prepositional phrases which follow "married" aren't necessary, i.e. "to her English teacher".
I suppose clauses containing "supposed to" could also be considered to use this pattern, but instead of a prepositional phrase they are complemented by an infinitive phrase. "He is supposed to help us". In each case the predicate adjective would be a past participle, but I don't think the concept of a past participle acting as an incomplete adjective is that useful.
As a predicate adjective, the adjective can be incomplete, "He is likely to win.", but it then functions as a complete pre-modifier, "likely winner". "supposed" does this but "used" doesn't, "supposed benefit", "used routine".
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
The question mainly seems to boil down to whether "to" is in a fixed unit with another word, and I believe Ouyang when he says that the experts are fairly divided over it, and that there are plausible arguments for both approaches.
However, I don't know how you can be happy with either approach. Surely you have to have a firm opinion on the way a sentence should be parsed, if you feel you understand the arguments.
However, I don't know how you can be happy with either approach. Surely you have to have a firm opinion on the way a sentence should be parsed, if you feel you understand the arguments.
Sorry, my bad. On second thought, this "Mr.Micawber" is completely and hopelessly confused, deluded, misguided, and WRONG. The notion that a sentence could paradoxically conform to two different patterns is beyond untenable. It undermines faith in the absolute truth of linguistic thought. Let's limit paradoxes to subjective subjects like physics and mathematics.woodcutter wrote:I don't know how you can be happy with either approach. Surely you have to have a firm opinion on the way a sentence should be parsed, if you feel you understand the arguments.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I just mean ultimately surely you must view "used to" as a unit, or not, within your own system of understanding. I didn't mean that heretics should burn, or that you even had to be sure about it. If the sentence is in fact best understood as a paradox that conforms to two particular patterns, then that seems like a very exact analysis, and a particular kind of grammatical philosophy which allows several different parsings of one particular sentence.
Maybe that is in fact a good philosophy, I don't know. But internet forum parsing, as I have argued recently, is a funny business. People often want a concrete answer to give their teacher, and ask as if there is one out there, but different forum experts will give different opinions, a bit of categorical truth here, a bit of "opinions differ" here, sometimes rather at random, it seems to me.
I would generally tend to think that opinions vary due to lack of understanding, rather than the inherent multi-sided nature of the exercise. That is what I was really trying to discuss - do you think that experts differ because consensus is impossible, and consensus should not be sought?
Anyway, I would say that you have to parse how your teacher parses, so forums are not the way to go.
Maybe that is in fact a good philosophy, I don't know. But internet forum parsing, as I have argued recently, is a funny business. People often want a concrete answer to give their teacher, and ask as if there is one out there, but different forum experts will give different opinions, a bit of categorical truth here, a bit of "opinions differ" here, sometimes rather at random, it seems to me.
I would generally tend to think that opinions vary due to lack of understanding, rather than the inherent multi-sided nature of the exercise. That is what I was really trying to discuss - do you think that experts differ because consensus is impossible, and consensus should not be sought?
Anyway, I would say that you have to parse how your teacher parses, so forums are not the way to go.