FLOODED

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:02 pm

We all know that floods are caused "ultimately" by water, that roads get flooded with water etc, so aren't we ultimately describing what we saw? Contemplating much beyond an adjectival quality seems to be excessive and unnecessary (unless the speaker wants to add something that alters the semantics of "flooded", in which case, it is the speaker, rather than us the poor "listener", who will do all the work "for us"!

). And couldn't the state hold for a whole winter too? And just because there is an active "alternative" doesn't mean that the adjectival reading is any more or less valid. (All of this is obviously in relation to JTT's road, rather than classroom examples, although I can see how the "half the time" links to "Every winter". I guess that "potential" or "behind the scenes" human agents are more liable to "psychologically intrude" even in contexts where they aren't explicitly mentioned).

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:15 pm

Stephen Jones wrote: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

You are quite right, Stephen. I really should try to be less transparent. But, do you see what happened overnight? The topic was FLOODED.

Larry Latham

Oh, and BTW, I quite agree with your assessment that it makes no difference whether it's an adjective or a past participle. I was, as you suspected, just trying to pick a fight.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 1:33 pm

Basically, then, is flooded can be adjectival or passive but the only way to be sure is by reading the speaker's mind.

Harzer · Post by **Harzer** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:55 pm

The sign should read:

FLOODING

This would indicate that the road is from time to time subject to flooding.

There is no need for a sign saying "FLOODED" .

Harzer

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:55 am

Harzer wrote:The sign should read:

FLOODING

This would indicate that the road is from time to time subject to flooding.

There is no need for a sign saying "FLOODED" .

Harzer

IMO, FLOODING (verb) would be saying "there has been flooding of the road" and FLOODED (adjective) would describe the present state of the road.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:05 am

I would think FLOODING would mean the water's getting deeper by the minute.

Larry Latham

Harzer · Post by **Harzer** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:50 am

Surely you don't need a sign to describe the "present state of the road"; and surely you DO need one to describe the potential state of the road.

Harzer

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:32 am

In that case isn't the sign more likely to say Prone to flooding or something similar?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:17 pm

What about The road was flooded when the dam collapsed? Surely was flooded here has a passive sense in that it describes the dynamic process of a road becoming covered with water, even if there isn't an agent you can point a finger at. Compare that with The road was impassable because it was flooded.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:34 pm

Harzer wrote:Surely you don't need a sign to describe the "present state of the road

Remember that the sign I saw (the one that started all this) was on a temporary holder, and so it most likely is intended to describe the present state of the road. Moreover, the actual flooding that I observed was down the road a piece from the sign, maybe 100 yards further on. I guess you could say it describes the present state of the road ahead.

Larry Latham

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:37 pm

A driver who can't see a flood 100 yards ahead without a warning sign clearly should not be driving without spectacles and poses a danger to other road users. Does this mean the sign was aimed at people who know how to read but don't know a flood when they see one?

A: Hey, this car seems to be floating!
B: Of course, dumbass, didn't you see the freakin' sign?

Or was it the local authority's way of saying "Look, people, it's OK, the road isn't always like this"?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:24 pm

Harzer wrote:Surely you don't need a sign to describe the "present state of the road"; and surely you DO need one to describe the potential state of the road.

Harzer

?? ?????

Have you ever seen a sign that says:

SNOW or SNOW AHEAD?

Or others that say:

BRIDGE DOWN

DETOUR

ROAD WORKS AHEAD

Harzer · Post by **Harzer** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:07 am

I have never seen a sign that says "snow ahead" since I live on parallel 34S.

But I can imagine a sign that has a symbol on it saying "road ahead subject to snow drifts", which is an "-ing"-concept and not a "ed"-concept, so you perk up if you see it and it happens to be snowing, and take some defensive action.

I mean you can't have men running all over the countryside erecting signs and taking them down on an hourly basis. No you have permanent signage that lets you figure out for yourself what's what.

As to non-natural hazards, well I don't need to respond to that.

Harzer

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:36 am

lolwhites wrote:
Or was it the local authority's way of saying "Look, people, it's OK, the road isn't always like this"?

It was the authorities way of keeping a council worker busy.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:49 am

A driver who can't see a flood 100 yards ahead without a warning sign clearly should not be driving without spectacles and poses a danger to other road users.

There was a bend in the road.

Surely you guys are old enough to have had an occasional brush with local authorities, right? If you step up to a clerk's window to fill out a form and there's a box of pens there, sure as shootin' there'll be a sign there that says, "PENS"!

Earlier I said to SJ that I agreed with him that it doesn't make any difference whether this sign, "FLOODED", contains an adjective or a past participle, but I've changed my mind. I think it should be easy to select one of those on logical grounds, and dismiss the other. What do you think?

Larry Latham