FLOODED

[LarryLatham]

Hello all,

I live in the countryside, where some of the roads wind through grassy hills, populated by wealthy horse people (I assure you I am not one of them) who breed and raise horses for the race tracks.

Today, at the request of my older son, I made a trip into our local village to go to the bank to cash a check (that'd be cheque to some of you) for him. It took me along some of those winding roads, and as we've been having quite a rainy period of several days, the grass is green, and the hills are beautiful. But nearing the entrance to a golf course, I came upon a temporary road sign erected, I imagine, by the highway administration near a low spot in the entrance road. It was a yellow, diamond-shaped sign, affixed to a small portable barrier, and in bold black letters said:

FLOODED

Sure enough, there was water in the roadway going into the course.

Now, as I am always curious about language in its real-world use, I got to wondering just what is the grammar of this word in this particular usage context. I'd be grateful if some of you could help me out here, and 'splain to me how this word works.

Thank you so much for your kind help.

Larry Latham

[Lorikeet]

Hmm. I just thought it was short for "The road is flooded."

[LarryLatham]

Fair enough, Lorikeet, but now...is the word an adjective or a past participle?

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

is the word an adjective or a past participle?

I doubt if it makes any difference if there is any difference in this case.

However, Larry, I rather suspect that what you are trying to do is to open the sluice gates to another of Lewis's pet theories - the 'non-eixistence' of the passive. You really should try to be less transparent

[metal56]

is the word an adjective or a past participle?

I doubt if it makes any difference if there is any difference in this case.

However, Larry, I rather suspect that what you are trying to do is to open the sluice gates to another of Lewis's pet theories - the 'non-eixistence' of the passive. You really should try to be less transparent

<Lewis's pet theories - the 'non-eixistence' of the passive. >

I don't remember Lewis ever saying anything about "non-eixistence".

[lolwhites]

I suppose you could call it a Past Participle being used as an adjective, but like SJ says, you'd probably be splitting hairs. With respect to Larry, this sort of question is normally asked by over-analytical students who confuse knowing the terminology with understanding the structure.

Non-existence of the passive? I don't recall Lewis ever saying that (though I'm open to correction), and I doubt I'd agree with anyone who did unless they had a very persuasive argument. If you say When I arrived at the party, the door was closed, it could mean either someone closed the door (in my face? behind me?) or that the door was already closed when I arrived - the meaning of was closed can be passive or adjectival but without further context it's impossible to know which.

[fluffyhamster]

I like that sluice gate - flood association, Stephen! Very droll.

I suppose you could call it a Past Participle being used as an adjective, but like SJ says, you'd probably be splitting hairs. With respect to Larry, this sort of question is normally asked by over-analytical students who confuse knowing the terminology with understanding the structure.

Non-existence of the passive? I don't recall Lewis ever saying that (though I'm open to correction), and I doubt I'd agree with anyone who did unless they had a very persuasive argument. If you say When I arrived at the party, the door was closed, it could mean either someone closed the door (in my face? behind me?) or that the door was already closed when I arrived - the meaning of was closed can be passive or adjectival but without further context it's impossible to know which.

With regard to 'the meaning of was closed can be passive or adjectival but without further context it's impossible to know which', lol, isn't it more likely that ...the door was closed is, indeed, a "stative" adjective, and that "further context" would involve not only "simply" the addition of a by agent phrase (as Willis seems to be maintaining), but also a change in verb form:

...the door had been closed by (somebody). (Is this narrator a post-cognitive?! Their ability to see who closed it without having seen it happen is indeed impressive! - X-man like emoticon there)

...the door was being closed by (somebody) (makes more sense than the past perfect example).

Or am I adding an unnecessary refinement ('Forms in first person Simple past narratives can't be passive in meaning') to Willis's ideas?

[lolwhites]

With regard to 'the meaning of was closed can be passive or adjectival but without further context it's impossible to know which', lol, isn't it more likely that ...the door was closed is, indeed, a "stative" adjective, and that "further context" would involve not only "simply" the addition of a by agent phrase (as Willis seems to be maintaining), but also a change in verb form

Not necessarily. You and a group of friends arrive at the theatre at the last minute. You just make it in when a helpful assistant closes the door behind you. It would be, under those circumstances, quite correct to say when we arrived, the door was closed. Granted, not the only possibility but one of them.

[Stephen Jones]

I put 'non-existence' in inverted commas to show I was not using it literally.

Anyway I needed some typing practice so here is an actual quote from Lewis.

The Lexical Approach suggests changes to the content of grammar teaching. Some items could unquestionably be deleted:
'Will' as 'the future'.
'Would' as 'the conditional'.
The traditional first, second and third conditionals.
The Passive
Reported Speech.

........................There is no jusfication for their retention in any language teaching syllabus, whether lexically orientated or not.
[p.146]

This contrasts with what he says in The English Verb which has a whole section on Introducing the Passive
[p.135]

[lolwhites]

It's been so long since I read The Lexical Approach I'd forgotten. Thanks Stephen.

Do you remember what his arguments was for getting rid of it?

[Stephen Jones]

I've only just browsed it. I'll get back to you on this.

I'm not sure of the argunents. In The English Verb he argies fairly convicingly against teachng it through transfomation from Active to Passive, though I feel he misses a great opportunity to simplify by not considering the pre-eminent importance of theme and focus in this respect.

Presumably he is arguing that you can just teach it as another use of the verb to be, but I've not found the exact quote. Larry should have it - if the writers of the gospels had only had his unerring faithfulness to the source there we'd have been spared many religious wars

[fluffyhamster]

With regard to 'the meaning of was closed can be passive or adjectival but without further context it's impossible to know which', lol, isn't it more likely that ...the door was closed is, indeed, a "stative" adjective, and that "further context" would involve not only "simply" the addition of a by agent phrase (as Willis seems to be maintaining), but also a change in verb form

Not necessarily. You and a group of friends arrive at the theatre at the last minute. You just make it in when a helpful assistant closes the door behind you. It would be, under those circumstances, quite correct to say when we arrived, the door was closed. Granted, not the only possibility but one of them.

Ingenious lol, but as I am fond of saying on Dave's, I think it is more likely that the speaker would include those words like "just make it in (in time)" in the actual linguistic context, and wouldn't the door-closing agent be mentioned in this regard (and not necessarily in a passive phrase)?

Hurrying to theatre, "late"...make it in/door being closed (by "helpful" assistant)...

There are obviously many ways and orders the two events seperated by the slash could be relayed, but if we HAD TO use '...we arrived, the door was closed, I reckon 'just after' would sound much better than 'when', or, indeed, 'after' (Do any of those make it sound like the assistant was waiting specifically for you to arrive, rather than simply looking at the clock!).

...and just after we arrived, this "helpful" assistant closed the doors, (so) we made it just in time!

Be honest, would you really be teaching these "subtle" nuances, or do you agree that there are clearer ways to express the intended meanings?

I'd just like to point out that mentioning the agent (to me, most naturally in an active verb phrase i.e. doing something) does helpfully allow us to direct our (likely, negative) emotions towards the agent (in this new context of yours), and this "us and them" mentality, rather than any purely grammatical reasoning, is what I think clinches it for me.

[lolwhites]

Obviously there are other, maybe better, ways to say it but don't forget that in real life the sentence wouldn't be said in isolation and the context would make it clear whether the meaning were passive or adjectival.

Ingenious? I like the sound of that...

[fluffyhamster]

[JuanTwoThree]

My two centimos. It becomes clear if you try to explain your meaning in another way:

Every winter the road is flooded. Leaving aside the "interesting" fact that this flood needn't be passive anyway (Every winter the road floods) this to me is a present simple passive, whereas "The road is flooded" is an adjective (unless the meaning in context is like the above) because the latter rewrites as "Somebody/God/The recent rain has flooded the road" and not "habitually floods".


Compare with "The class is cancelled" (adjective, probably) and "Guess what happens half the time. The class is cancelled" (passive).

Capitán Contexto