ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/28/85)
>...One thing I have spent some time working on is a transformational >explaination. It is probably not the most favored course in this day and >age, but there are compelling arguments. Consider a special type of >"adjective" those adjectives that are formed with the "-ing" form of a verb >or the past participle. I was sorting through words for another purpose >when I noticed that the past participle form of intranstive verbs cannot be >used as adjectives. > > Transitive verbs: need, fry. > > 1) He needed the books. > 2) The needed books are here. > 3) He fried the fish. > 4) The fried fish were delecious. > > Intransitive verbs: "agree", "bark". > > 5) The dogs barked. > 6) *The barked dogs . . > 7) The doctors agreed. > 8) *The agreed doctors . . >... > Notice that with the "-ing" suffix intranstive verbs work fine: > > 11) The barking dogs . . . > 12) the agreeing doctors . . . > > Don Steiny It is hard for an oldtimer like me (whose ideas derive more from classical grammar than from Chomsky) to understand the utility of this approach. First, it seems clear that the participles in English are PRESENT ACTIVE (-ing) and PAST PASSIVE (-ed). Therefore, I am hardly surprised that present participles can be freely used as adjectives, unlike past participles, which logically ought to be useless for intransitive verbs outside of the HAVE + PAST-PARTICIPLE construction. Second, past participles are not necessarily identical with the preterit tense of the verb. If the transformation: X fried the fish => the fried fish ...is correct, why does it fail so badly as below: X broke the glass => *the broke glass It would seem a wiser course to derive these through the normal passive voice, thereby selecting the correct form of the verb: the fish are fried => the fried fish the glass is broken => the broken glass ...just like ordinary adjectives and progressives: the frogs are green => the green frogs the frogs are hopping => the hopping frogs Or do I misunderstand something here? This problem regards the issue, `what exactly are past participles of intransitive verbs'? As far as I can tell, usually, they can appear only in periphrastic perfects with `have'. However, certain verbs (of motion?) also seem to allow `be' with a slightly different time-sense -- some verbs in this category even allow adjectival use of the past participle with an active force: they have barked *barked dogs? they have gone / they are gone (*)gone dogs? they have departed / they are departed departed flights My guess is that the alternation between be/have with certain verbs is very old -- note that biblical language prefers `be' where we often use `have' -- and perhaps this is related to the German haben/sein variation in auxiliary usage. A second use for intransitive past participles occurs where the verb has a secondary (transitive) causative meaning, which is seems to be implied by the otherwise meaningless past passive partiple: intransitive: I have walked causative: I have walked the dog => the walked dog A third use involves a distinctly English phenomenon involving the passive transformation of certain compounds formed by intransitive verb + preposition: we have agreed upon this solution/the solution was agreed upon/ the agreed upon solution ============================================================================ Summary: Past participles as adjectives are almost invariably passive and are consequently limited to use with transitive verbs; certain intransitives exceptionally have active past participles, as in (3) below: 1a: Passive of transitive verbs: he has stolen the book/the book was stolen/the stolen book 1b: `Passive' of compounds with a transitive sense: we have agreed upon a solution/the solution was agreed upon/ the agreed upon solution 1c: Passive of the transitive meaning of a verb which has both transitive or intransitive senses: he has walked he has walked the dog/the dog was walked/the walked dog the cake has baked he has baked the cake/the cake was baked/the baked cake 2: Intransitives whose past participles may neither be used in passives or adjectivally (except for compounds, as in 1b): the conflict has existed but not /*the conflict was existed/*the existed conflict the monster has looked but not /*the monster was looked/*the looked monster 3: Active of intransitives (typically allowing both have/be): the flight {has/is} departed/the departed flight Class 3 seems most illogical. -michael
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (09/08/85)
> > > >...One thing I have spent some time working on is a transformational > >explaination. It is probably not the most favored course in this day and > >age, but there are compelling arguments. Consider a special type of > >"adjective" those adjectives that are formed with the "-ing" form of a verb > >or the past participle. I was sorting through words for another purpose > >when I noticed that the past participle form of intranstive verbs cannot be > >used as adjectives. > > > > Transitive verbs: need, fry. > > > > 1) He needed the books. > > 2) The needed books are here. > > 3) He fried the fish. > > 4) The fried fish were delecious. > > > > Intransitive verbs: "agree", "bark". > > > > 5) The dogs barked. > > 6) *The barked dogs . . > > 7) The doctors agreed. > > 8) *The agreed doctors . . > >... > > Notice that with the "-ing" suffix intranstive verbs work fine: > > > > 11) The barking dogs . . . > > 12) the agreeing doctors . . . > > > > Don Steiny > > Past participles as adjectives are almost invariably passive and are > consequently limited to use with transitive verbs; certain intransitives > exceptionally have active past participles, as in (3) below: > > 1a: Passive of transitive verbs: > > he has stolen the book/the book was stolen/the stolen book > > 1b: `Passive' of compounds with a transitive sense: > > we have agreed upon a solution/the solution was agreed upon/ > the agreed upon solution > > 1c: Passive of the transitive meaning of a verb which has both > transitive or intransitive senses: > > he has walked > he has walked the dog/the dog was walked/the walked dog > > the cake has baked > he has baked the cake/the cake was baked/the baked cake > > 2: Intransitives whose past participles may neither be used > in passives or adjectivally (except for compounds, as in 1b): > > the conflict has existed > but not /*the conflict was existed/*the existed conflict > the monster has looked > but not /*the monster was looked/*the looked monster > > 3: Active of intransitives (typically allowing both have/be): > > the flight {has/is} departed/the departed flight > > Class 3 seems most illogical. > > -michael The original question was about adjective order. I agree that the past participles are derived from passives in that situation. I left out the transformational steps because the article was too long as it was. There are several other steps I left out. My point was that NP's like: 1) The needed money came from 2) The money was needed by X. and several transformations got to "The needed money" I said that there would have to be a rule that switched the verb and noun. I was having a hard time translating an argument I have worked out as trees on paper into a netnews article. I believe that your discussion presupposes that the NP is derived from the underlying S. NP's like: 3) The running man come from 4) The man is running (according to my theory). I am saying that those are past participles being used as past participles and not past participles being used as ajectives. I suggeted that perhaps all NP's that appear as: DET ___ NOUN are really generated in deep structure as NOUN "be" ____ Of course, in some cases, passive must have first applied to get this string. Remember, the original question was about adjective ordering. You seem to agree that the NP's are derived from an underlying S. I proposed that, as a hypothesis, we do away with the PS rule: I) NP => (DET) ADJ[0] N and instead say that the string (DET) ADJ[0] N is derived from an underlying S. Notice that the blank above, so far, must be a verb, either the -ing form or the past participle. With just those, it is easy to explain their order in the NP because of the semantics of the underlying S. This seems to be a great advantage to the idea that such NP's are reduced relative clauses. It simplifies the lexicon. There do not need to be two words "chosen", one a past participle and the other an adjective. I proposed that the blank could also be an adjective. There needs to be a transformation that converts the string 5) The book is red To the: 6) The book that is red so that the "The book" can be modified recursively: 7) The book that is red is big. which is transformed to: 8) The big red book. 9) The barn that is red that is old that is big. Transforms to: 10) The big old red barn I was speculating that there were more natural orders to the way we modify objects based on our knowledge of the world that would prefer #10 to: 11) The barn that is big that is old is red. I have not found a convincing string that does not also use past participle, but, in the absence of any other explaination of adjective order, I think it is worth persuing. It simplifies the lexicon, it eliminates a PS rule, and it might provide an explaination of adjective ordering. BTW: If anyone really makes it this far, are you familiar with "Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar?" I just got a book on it, but it is obviously not one I can read on breaks and I am going to have to spend a serious few weekends ploughing through it. ihnp4!pesnta!scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382 (also: hplabs!hpda!steiny)
michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael b maxwell) (09/18/85)
In article <546@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: >I proposed that, as a hypothesis, we do away with the PS rule: > > I) NP => (DET) ADJ[0] N > >and instead say that the string (DET) ADJ[0] N is derived from an >underlying S. I think I may have said this before, but: the late Shah of Iran =/= the Shah of Iran who was late There's a long literature on this topic; it was indeed one of the ideas popular in earlier versions of transformational grammar (mid '60's-mid '70's); there are good reasons why it was dropped. One was the sort of example I gave above. If adjectives like "late" need to be generated by your PS rule (I), then all adjectives *can*, thus eliminating the need for a transformational derivation. Then apply Occam's razor... > If anyone really makes it this far, are you familiar with >"Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar?" I just got a book on >it, but it is obviously not one I can read on breaks and I am going >to have to spend a serious few weekends ploughing through it. Yes, I am familiar w/ GPSG (although like you, I haven't gotten around to plowing through that particular book). It does away with transformations entirely, as do a number of other recent generative linguistic theories (not including Government Binding!) -- Mike Maxwell ..uw-beaver!{uw-june,ssc-vax}!bcsaic!michaelm