0
MrPedantic Posted 22 years ago
Hello Casi (and anyone else who would care to comment),
I've taken the liberty of putting this in a new thread, as it would have vexingly entangled the danglers.
I too find this odd. 'Did not perpetrate any act' doesn't seem to me satisfactory; you could as easily say that the subject in any negative construction doesn't 'perpetrate an act' upon the object — e.g. 'the waiter didn't give service'. I would myself take 'service' as the object. But I'm happy to be corrected.
The 'adverb' sentence also seems strange. Couldn't we say:
'The waiter surlily refused service.'
'The waiter always refused service.'
'The waiter unusually refused service.'
MrP
Grammar
Copular verb
In this sentence:
The waiter refused service
the subject `the waiter’ did not perpetrate any act upon `service’. So the noun `service’ is the complement in this sentence. It instructs the copular verb `refused’ in the content of the subject's act, which is `service refusal'.
--------------------
Where there is a verb there can also be an adverb. There is no verb in copula and copular-verb sentences. There cannot, therefore, be an adverb in copular and copular-verb sentences.
(From: http://www.englishgrammartutor.com/The%20Parts%20Of%20Speech.htm#copular%20verb
Hello Casi (and anyone else who would care to comment),
I've taken the liberty of putting this in a new thread, as it would have vexingly entangled the danglers.
I too find this odd. 'Did not perpetrate any act' doesn't seem to me satisfactory; you could as easily say that the subject in any negative construction doesn't 'perpetrate an act' upon the object — e.g. 'the waiter didn't give service'. I would myself take 'service' as the object. But I'm happy to be corrected.
The 'adverb' sentence also seems strange. Couldn't we say:
'The waiter surlily refused service.'
'The waiter always refused service.'
'The waiter unusually refused service.'
MrP
Top answer
I took a look at that site and found it decidedly quirky. A fair number of statements there show that the author has quite an idiosyncratic way of approaching grammar, not to mention that he has an axe to grind (in the final paragraphs). There may be a few interesting and creative ideas in it, but they are too undeveloped in their present state to rely on for any really good practical advice.
- I took a look at that site and found it decidedly quirky.
- A fair number of statements there show that the author has quite an idiosyncratic way of approaching grammar, not to mention that he has an axe to grind (in the final paragraphs).
- There may be a few interesting and creative ideas in it, but they are too undeveloped in their present state to rely on for any really good practical advice.
- I would not recommend the site.
- There are many others which are better.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
21 Answers
0
I took a look at that site and found it decidedly quirky. A fair number of statements there show that the author has quite an idiosyncratic way of approaching grammar, not to mention that he has an axe to grind (in the final paragraphs). There may be a few interesting and creative ideas in it, but they are too undeveloped in their present state to rely on for any really good practical advice.
00
To be honest, I'm not all that convinced myself that 'refused' is 'coplular' (is that the correct term even?). A tried 'n true test-passivization-offers up conflicting results. The expectation, I believe, is that linking verbs when passivized generate ungrammaticality, and yet our example does not do what we expect:
Active: The waiter refused service.
Passive: Service wa
Active: The waiter refused service.
Passive: Service wa
00
Hello Casi
This is an interesting question. I would say as follows:
1. We can't reasonably doubt that adverbs can modify the verb {'to be' = copula}, even if we reduce the sentence to the bare minimum:
a) 'Are you really you?' 'I really am me!'
b) 'He is poor' => 'he really is poor', 'he probably is poor'.
The adverb here denotes the degree of 'co
This is an interesting question. I would say as follows:
1. We can't reasonably doubt that adverbs can modify the verb {'to be' = copula}, even if we reduce the sentence to the bare minimum:
a) 'Are you really you?' 'I really am me!'
b) 'He is poor' => 'he really is poor', 'he probably is poor'.
The adverb here denotes the degree of 'co
00
Mr. P and Casi,
Take a look at this (from m-w.com)
1 a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : SYMBOLIZE b : to have identity with c : to constitute the same class as d : to have a specified qualification or characterization e : to belong to the class of -- used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication
2 a : to have an obj
Take a look at this (from m-w.com)
1 a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : SYMBOLIZE b : to have identity with c : to constitute the same class as d : to have a specified qualification or characterization e : to belong to the class of -- used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication
2 a : to have an obj
00
Thanks for that, CJ!
The little I've looked at of the site so far suggests a curious intergalactic parsing entity from M34 who (millennia hence) has lighted upon our devastated planet and attempted to reconstruct the primitive lingo of its long-dead inhabitants...Probably largely from dental records and a lone fluttering half-page of 'I Am John's Kidney'...
The little I've looked at of the site so far suggests a curious intergalactic parsing entity from M34 who (millennia hence) has lighted upon our devastated planet and attempted to reconstruct the primitive lingo of its long-dead inhabitants...Probably largely from dental records and a lone fluttering half-page of 'I Am John's Kidney'...
00
Nice find, CalifJim! And yet, you should also be commended on proving the validity of the tutor's claim. Shame on you! SMILE
That there is a difference between copular BE and existential BE, or "the locative use" of BE, nicely supports the claim that there is no adverb in a copular construct because the claim does not address existential BE.
1a. Copular BE (No verb, no adverb
That there is a difference between copular BE and existential BE, or "the locative use" of BE, nicely supports the claim that there is no adverb in a copular construct because the claim does not address existential BE.
1a. Copular BE (No verb, no adverb
00
Actually, I think that half-page is from Chomsky's The Minimalist Program!
Seriously, Mr. Pendantic, you are so clever at composing these humorous bits that you must let me know if and when you take your act on the road!
CJ
Seriously, Mr. Pendantic, you are so clever at composing these humorous bits that you must let me know if and when you take your act on the road!
CJ
00
For my part, I'll be first in the queue when your 'Paradigm of the English Verb' comes out, CJ!
00
Hello Casi
Reducing copular 'be' to the bare minimum again, could we not say:
'roughly ='
'more or less ='
'probably ='
'indisputably ='
'sometimes ='
etc?
Thus 2 = 2, but 2.1167 = 2.1392 to one decimal place, i.e. 2.1167 roughly = 2.1392.
Or: 'Coke is probably it.'
MrP
Reducing copular 'be' to the bare minimum again, could we not say:
'roughly ='
'more or less ='
'probably ='
'indisputably ='
'sometimes ='
etc?
Thus 2 = 2, but 2.1167 = 2.1392 to one decimal place, i.e. 2.1167 roughly = 2.1392.
Or: 'Coke is probably it.'
MrP
00
Yes, exactly. And what a pleasure it is to be able to discuss this issue with you, MrP. I appreciate your style. Your posts provide delectable food for thought for a healthy discussion. It's truly an immovable feast. Thank you.
I more than agree that there's a problem with the tutor's claim, be it fundamental or semantics, and thank you for using numbers as an example, but I feel the ad
I more than agree that there's a problem with the tutor's claim, be it fundamental or semantics, and thank you for using numbers as an example, but I feel the ad
0
Related Questions