ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (02/18/86)
>> || What necessary machinery does English lack? > >Infinitives for the auxiliary verbs (can, will, &c.). > >You have to use circumlocutions (to be able to, to be going to, ...) or bad >grammer (might could, ...). - Alex Colvin English's auxiliaries {can, will, may, shall} are indeed quite odd. For instance, note that, in addition to lacking infinitives, participles gerunds, imperatives, (and passives, which would seem to have little use) they also lack -s in the 3rd person singular. As Alex pointed out, we must get by with circumlocutions to express the defective forms. I believe that, historically, these verbs were `preterite prsents', which means they were originally the past tenses of verbs whose present tense fell into disuse. Note that english never has had such a thing as past infinitives, participles, etc., and that past tenses do not suffix -s in the 3rd singular. The `new' past tenses {could, would, might, should} were subsequently formed analogy with other classes of verbs (the `l' in `could' does not really belong there). If I am not mistaken, these verbs likewise present irregularities in german as well, but not as great as in English, since german has gone farther to `normalize' them {eg: they have infinitives koennen, moegen, wollen, sollen}. I do not know about the scandinavian development of these verbs. Why would these auxiliaries derive from a past tense? Good question. I believe that `can' meant `learn' in its original present tense. (`uncouth', which is related, meant `unlearned'); thus, one who has learned to do something can do it. I have read similar explanations for the others (which I cannot recall). I suspect that the verb `must' (which has failed to produce even a new past tense) and, more recently, `ought' (whose original present `owe' is still with us) have had a similar development. Admittedly, these verbs represent a glitch in the english language. However, they hardly represent `lacking machinery', since we, in fact, get along quite well forming the defective forms as below: {to be, being, having been} able to {can} " about/going to {will, shall} " allowed/permitted to {may} ======================================================================== One frequently overlooked feature of english that is quite powerful is its generalized treatment of {intransitive verb} + {preposition} as a compound transitive in passive transformations. I know of few languages which allow such flexibility. For example, note the similarity between: John sees Mary Mary was seen by John Mary was the one (whom) John saw Mary was the one seen by John and John looked up the answer The answer was looked up by John This answer was the one (which) John looked up This answer was the one looked up by John -michael
rob@ptsfb.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (02/20/86)
In article <131@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > English's auxiliaries {can, will, may, shall} are indeed quite odd. > For instance, note that, in addition to lacking infinitives, participles > gerunds, imperatives, (and passives, which would seem to have little use) > they also lack -s in the 3rd person singular. As Alex pointed out, we > must get by with circumlocutions to express the defective forms. Historically speaking, the auxilliaries are derived from verbs. However, if you look at the syntax of English (as it is today) without trying to force it into the mold of some more "classical" grammar, these words would have to be considered in a class separate from verbs since they do not undergo verbal conjugation and have a different SYNTACTIC function than verbs. > ======================================================================== > > One frequently overlooked feature of english that is quite powerful is > its generalized treatment of {intransitive verb} + {preposition} as a > compound transitive in passive transformations. I know of few languages > which allow such flexibility. > > For example, note the similarity between: > > John sees Mary > Mary was seen by John > Mary was the one (whom) John saw > Mary was the one seen by John > > and > > John looked up the answer > The answer was looked up by John > This answer was the one (which) John looked up > This answer was the one looked up by John > Linguists have considered "up" in the expression "look up" (in the sense of "to search for") a "particle", not a preposition. Although historically derived from prepositions and homophonous with prepositions, particles function differently from prepositions. 1. The particle plus the verb are together an idiom. That is, the meaning of them together is not exactly predictable from their separate meanings. The "look" in "look up" does not necessarily having anything to do with visual attention and the "up" does not denote a skyward direction. 2. The particle, unlike the preposition, does not have an object. John looked up the answer. is NOT similar in structure to John looked up the chimney. In the former, "the answer" is the direct object of "look up", while "the chimney" is the object of the preposition "up". This is reflected in our attempts to make passives out of these sentences: The answer was looked up by John. [This is okay compared to ...] The chimney was looked up by John. [Doesn't quite sound like English to me] The fact that TWO words can make up a single verb is more an artifact of our writing than anything else. After all, Latin used prepositions as in a similar way, except the Romans wrote them together with the verb and considered them prefixes: pre-, a(d)-, a(b)-, co- ad nauseam :-) One reason why they are written separately from the original verb is because they do not always appear next to the verb. In fact, if the direct object is a pronoun, the particle MUST FOLLOW the direct object: John looked the answer up. [Okay.] John looked up the answer. [Okay.] John looked it up. [Okay.] John looked up it. [Not okay (unless you read this sentence with the non-idiomatic meaning of "look" and "up").] (That is further evidence that "up" does not function as a preposition here.) There are some verbs where an English preposition has been prefixed to a verb, e.g. "understand", "oversee".
mac@uvacs.UUCP (Alex Colvin) (02/22/86)
> Linguists have considered "up" in the expression "look up" (in the sense > of "to search for") a "particle", not a preposition. Although historically > derived from prepositions and homophonous with prepositions, particles > function differently from prepositions. In German these are called "separable prefixes". They're included in the infinitive, but detach from the verb in finite forms ("ankommen", "er kommt an"). > The fact that TWO words can make up a single verb is more an artifact of > our writing than anything else. After all, Latin used prepositions as > in a similar way, except the Romans wrote them together with the verb and > considered them prefixes: pre-, a(d)-, a(b)-, co- ad nauseam :-) Verbal prefixes (be-, er- ver-, etc. cannot be separated from their verb. ("bekommen", "er bekommt")
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/26/86)
In article <131@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > I believe that, historically, these verbs were `preterite prsents', > which means they were originally the past tenses of verbs whose present > tense fell into disuse. Note that english never has had such a thing as > past infinitives, participles, etc., and that past tenses do not suffix > -s in the 3rd singular. The `new' past tenses {could, would, might, should} > were subsequently formed analogy with other classes of verbs (the `l' > in `could' does not really belong there). An added note. The 'new' past tenses are apparently derived from the old subjunctive(or past subjunctive) forms. They are often still used in a subjenctive sense in English, and they correspond in form to the past subjunctive forms in German. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa