ambiguity - Does a ver­bal noun turn back into a verb when mod­ified by an ad­verb?



Here singing is a noun:



  1. I like singing.


But what about here?



  1. I like singing loudly.


Loudly is still an ad­verb, right? But singing is still be­hav­ing like a noun, right?


So which is it, a noun or a verb? How can it be­have like a noun when it gets mod­i­fied by an ad­verb?



Answer



In your sec­ond ex­am­ple, the ob­ject of the verb like is the gerund clause singing loudly, which serves as the NP ob­ject of the verb here. The head of that clause is the verb singing as mod­i­fied by the ad­verb loudly. Like an in­fini­tive clause, a gerund clause is a non-fi­nite verb clause that can serve as an NP when em­bed­ded. Which of the two pos­si­ble verb forms you choose does­n’t mat­ter in this case, as these are equiv­a­lent in meaning:



  1. I like singing loudly.

  2. I like to sing loudly.


Had your verb been a tran­si­tive one, you could have added ob­ject com­ple­ments to your clauses:



  1. I like call­ing her loudly.

  2. I like to call her loudly.


Those ad­mit some ad­ver­bial mo­tion, but only within the non-fi­nite verb clause:



  1. I like loudly call­ing her.

  2. I like to loudly call her.


You can even have a dif­fer­ent sub­ject in that clause than you had in the main sen­tence:



  1. I like her call­ing me loudly.

  2. I like for her to call me loudly.


No­tice how when the to-in­fini­tive clause has a dif­fer­ence sub­ject, you need to stick a spe­cial for-com­ple­men­tizer there when us­ing the clause as an NP as we do here. Read more about these po­tent­ially cu­ri­ous com­ple­men­tiz­ers in this an­swer by Pro­fes­sor Law­ler or in these lec­ture notes from his web­site, or in the notes from this more tech­ni­cal lin­guis­tics lec­ture on the struc­ture of clauses.



I fear that un­til you move on from sim­plis­tic anal­y­sis fo­cussing merely on parts of speech to higher level anal­y­sis of gram­mat­i­cal struc­tures and how these em­bed as syn­tac­tic con­stituents, you will of­ten find your­self stuck with seem­ing para­doxes that can­not be re­solved so long as parts of speech are all you think of. That’s be­cause hu­man lan­guage uses these syn­tac­tic struc­tures, so no anal­y­sis of the for­mer can ex­empt the lat­ter and sur­vive.


Embed­ded deep struc­tures are a fun­da­men­tal part of how hu­man lan­guage works.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

phrases - Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey

I heard this phrase when I was watching Battleship. An old man said, "Somebody is gonna kiss the donkey." I do not know what it means, I only heard it in a movie. What is this phrase mean? In Addition: I think it was Rihanna who said "Saddle Ridge will be in weapons range in five minutes," then the old man stated the phrase. Answer It is a confused attempt at a play on (for example) "kiss my ass," or, some similar phrase. It is quite common in English today that idioms get mangled.
Read more

typography - When a dagger is used to indicate a note, must it come after an asterisk?

The typographical symbol dagger (†) has several meanings. Possibly its most common use is as a footnote marker. According to You Have a Point There: A Guide to Punctuation and Its Allies ( Partridge , 1953), when it is used for this purpose, it must be used for second footnotes only; the first footnote should be indicated by an asterisk (*), the third a double dagger (‡) and further footnotes other symbols or numbers. Where does Patridge's rule fall on a scale of one to ten, where one is "this is just one guy's random opinion" and ten is "this is a widely accepted rule of English and any deviation from it is unarguably incorrect"? This question was inspired by this Meta Stack Overflow question about the use of daggers on Stack Exchange site FAQ pages . Answer The dagger (also known as an obelisk ) is properly used for the second footnote. The asterisk is for the first, and the double dagger is for the third. This is supported by several websites: And so
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more