Grammar Girl on Adverbs
Scott Edward Skinner
over adverbs, specifically:
I want to go home.
Call me a heretic, but I do not believe that "home" in this example is
an adverb. Rather, it is a noun and the object of the verb "go." I base
my conclusion on the following:
I want to go home.
I want to go quickly.
There is a substantive qualitative difference between "go" and "home"
in the first example, and "go" and "quickly" in the second. "Home" is
not qualifying *how* one is going; "quickly" is. "Home" is qualifying
*where* one is going, but this would also be the case with:
I want to go to my home.
And "home" is certainly not an adverb here. Indeed, there is no
substantive difference in meaning between:
I want to go home.
I want to go to my home.
Admittedly, the second example is awkward, perhaps. Stylistically
different, perhaps. But both sentences communicate the same substantive
information. Yet in the former, "home" is considered an adverb, while
in the latter, it is considered a "noun." This is logically
inconsistent. How can the same word be used differently in both
sentences with both sentences communicating the exact same information?
Your thoughts?
psi
> over adverbs, specifically:
>
> I want to go home.
>
I think you're right, and Grammar Girl should be ditched immediately
psi
Robert Lieblich
>
> Well my nemesis, Grammar Girl, is at it again. This time we're feuding
> over adverbs, specifically:
>
> I want to go home.
>
> Call me a heretic, but I do not believe that "home" in this example is
> an adverb. Rather, it is a noun and the object of the verb "go." I base
> my conclusion on the following:
>
> I want to go home.
> I want to go quickly.
>
> There is a substantive qualitative difference between "go" and "home"
> in the first example, and "go" and "quickly" in the second. "Home" is
> not qualifying *how* one is going; "quickly" is.
You're both right. In standard grammar "nome" is considered a noun
that can be used adverbially, as in your example. According go
Curme, who knows a lot more about this than I do (or at least did
until he passed on to his reward), this is the English equivalent of
the "adverbial accusative of goal" in Latin usage. English-speakers
routinely use nouns adjectivally -- it's one of the language's most
distinctive features -- but in customary nomenclature they remain
nouns. So most people do not call "home" in "home town" an
adjective. And by the same logic it isn't an adverb in "I want to
go home" -- it's *used* adverbially.
Still, one could certainly argue that such a distinction is mere
nit-picking -- and I would agree. If "well" can be used as noun,
verb, adverb, adjective or interjection, which part of speech is
it? Or does its use determine that? If the latter, then why can't
"home" be noun, verb ("home in"), adverb or adjective, depending.
It's again but a matter of how you define your terms.
Now kiss and make up.
Mark Wallace
"Scott Edward Skinner" <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:140420011502468750%sski...@cloud9.net...
She's trying to call a spade a shovel, and Robert has given you the "let's
go three times around Robin Hood's barn to try to fit this in the way we
want it" explanation. Both are wrong.
'Home', in the sentence, does not modify the verb; it is the object of the
verb. That is unarguable.
Trying to call it an adverb is equivalent to saying that 'it', in the clause
'I like it', is an adverb.
'~~ to go homeward' would be another matter, and would fit in more with what
Robert wrote.
Tell GG to stop looking for the hard answers, but to take the time to see
what's patently obvious.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
Opinicus
news:9bc72o$8irqr$3...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> > I want to go home.
> 'Home', in the sentence, does not modify the verb; it is the object of
the
> verb. That is unarguable.
Huh?
:: I want to go here / there / up / down / in / out / home / south / north
/ east / west ...
> Trying to call it an adverb is equivalent to saying that 'it', in the
clause
> 'I like it', is an adverb.
Huh?
* I go it.
When was "go" promoted to a transitive verb? Or did someone slip another
category of object other than "direct" and "indirect" into the English
language while I was napping?
--
Bob
Foça, Turkey
---
Kanyak's Doghouse <http://www.geocities.com/kanyak.geo>
Robert Lieblich
[ . . . ]
> 'Home', in the sentence, does not modify the verb; it is the object of the
> verb. That is unarguable.
I will nevertheless argue against it.
The sentence in question is "I want to go home."
The direct object of a verb is *acted upon* by the verb. If you
have a true direct object, it can be transformed into the subject of
a passive sentence -- in which the verb then necessarily takes the
passive form and acts upon the subject. The actor may then appear
in a prepositional phrase. Hence "The boy hit the ball" can be
transformed into "The ball was hit by the boy."
> Trying to call it an adverb is equivalent to saying that 'it', in the clause
> 'I like it', is an adverb.
No one could correctly argue that -- because that sentence can be
transformed into "It is liked by me." Inelegant, but correct.
Now let's look at the sentence that started all this: "I want to go
home." The analysis is contaminated by the infinitive, so let's
reduce it to its essentials: "I go home." (If you don't to that,
your transformation becomes "To go home is wanted by me" -- again,
clumsy but grammatical. But also irrelevant, because "home" is the
object of "go," and it is irrelevant that "to go home" is the object
of "want.") Compare that to what you would do with "I want to eat
pizza." Isolate "eat" as your verb taking an object and analyze "I
eat pizza." No problem -- your passive is "Pizza is eaten by me."
But "I go home" becomes "Home is gone by me." That isn't English.
It's beyond clumsy and even unidiomatic -- it isn't English at all.
It follows that in "I want to go home," "home" is not the direct
object of "go." Q.E.D.
> '~~ to go homeward' would be another matter, and would fit in more with what
> Robert wrote.
> Tell GG to stop looking for the hard answers, but to take the time to see
> what's patently obvious.
Tell GG to read again what I wrote. I was right the first time, and
I still am.
John Flynn
I think there is a confusion going on about the terms being used, not
only by you but also some of the replies further down the thread.
An adverb is what they used to call a part of speech or a word-class
or whatever. Essentially, the labels apply to one particular word.
"Home" is not an adverb (at least not in any dictionary that I have).
An adverbial, however, is on the 'next level up', and describes the
function that any word may have within its clause. In your sentence,
"home" is still a noun but is used as an adverbial. The types of
adverbials are quite varied, and it is possible to find all manner of
word types/classes/parts-of-speech acting in that role.
(In your comparative example above, "I want to go to my home", the
phrase "to my home" is acting in an adverbial role, but none of the
individual words are adverbs.)
So, as Bob Lieblich said, you're both right. It is a noun, but it is
also acting as an adverbial (but NOT as an adverb).
--
johnF
P. Schultz
>
> Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
>
> > I want to go home.
> <...> In your sentence,
> "home" is still a noun but is used as an adverbial. <...>
How do you know that it is not an adverb, which elsewhere is sometimes
employed as a noun?
Any good dictionary will tell you that "home" is an adverb.
But if it is a noun, then pardon me because I have to go bathroom.
\\P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
>
> John Flynn wrote:
> >
> > Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> >
> > > I want to go home.
Me, too. This is getting exhausting.
>
> > <...> In your sentence,
> > "home" is still a noun but is used as an adverbial. <...>
>
> How do you know that it is not an adverb, which elsewhere is sometimes
> employed as a noun?
>
> Any good dictionary will tell you that "home" is an adverb.
Ah, yes, the dictionary, which the noted lexicographer Dr. Johnson
once described as "the last refuge of the pedant" -- or something
like that.
> But if it is a noun, then pardon me because I have to go bathroom.
Isn't "bathroom" a verb in your example, on the analogy of "go fish"
or "go figure"? Which I guess makes "home" a verb, too, in "go
home." I know you can "home in" on something, and I've heard an
infielder (in baseball) shouting at an outfielder to "home it."[1]
So I checked "any good dictionary" (M=W online) and, sure enough,
"home" is as a verb. And a noun. And an adjective. And -- yes --
an adverb. What could be clearer than that?
It's all in the definitions. Look up "adverb" and "adverbial" in
"any good dictionary." Is it an accident that "adverb" is a noun
(when it's not a verb) and "adverbial" an adjective (when it's not a
noun)? I think not.
[1] M-W lists a transtive sense of that sort for "home" the verb.
Scott Edward Skinner
<joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> So, as Bob Lieblich said, you're both right. It is a noun, but it is
> also acting as an adverbial (but NOT as an adverb).
When you say "acting as an adverbial," do you mean acting as an adverb?
Because if "home" in my example is "acting like an adverb," then as far
as I'm concerned it *is* an adverb in this case. Similarly, I would
consider "cooking" a noun in:
My hobby is cooking.
Yes, "cooking" is normally a verb but in this case it is acting as a
noun. It is the gerund form of the verb. It is perfectly appropriate to
call it a noun in this case.
-S
Robert Lieblich
It's true that gerunds are considered nouns, as participles are
considered adjectives. It's also true, as P. Schultz pointed out in
another posting, that dictionaries treat every established use of a
given word as a part of speech (or word class). So "well" can be
any of five parts of speech, and "home" any of four. If, that is,
you use the terms that way. Dictionaries do so, even if not with
perfect consistency. Grammarians disagree among themselves. Whose
book did you read last?
There is no absolute truth or single correct answer. Whether you
trust the published authorities or the cranks that have assembled
under the banner of this newsgroup, you're going to get more than
one answer -- and some answers will contradict others -- and more
than one will be right. This isn't the Super Bowl or the Stanley
Cup. There will never be a single winner declared.
Life is uncertainty. Deal with it.
John Flynn
> John Flynn wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> So, as Bob Lieblich said, you're both right. It is a noun, but it
>> is also acting as an adverbial (but NOT as an adverb).
>
> When you say "acting as an adverbial," do you mean acting as an
> adverb?
Yes and no!
An "adverbial" is in a category of sentence analysis 'above' that of
word-class/part-of-speech/whatever. Each word can be classified as
noun, verb, adjective, conjuction, etc, etc... and that's one level
of analysis. But sitting on top of that (and to be used for
analysing whole sentences or clauses with respect to what the words
in them are doing) there are the categories of Subject, Verb/Predicate,
Object, Complement, and Adverbial.[1]
A concise definition of an adverbial that I've just found[2] sums up
its use quite nicely:
"A functional label applied to any linguistic term, of whatever
category, that behaves like an adverb with respect to the rest of
its sentence."
At the end of the entry for ADVERBIAL, there's a sample sentence with
its adverbials in brackets:
"Susie confessed to me [rather unhappily] that she would have to go
[to London] [this week] [to see her solicitor] [because there are
problems with her contract]."
> Because if "home" in my example is "acting like an adverb,"
> then as far as I'm concerned it *is* an adverb in this case.
> Similarly, I would consider "cooking" a noun in:
>
> My hobby is cooking.
>
> Yes, "cooking" is normally a verb but in this case it is acting as
> a noun. It is the gerund form of the verb. It is perfectly
> appropriate to call it a noun in this case.
That's assigning the word-class/part-of-speech label to it, yes. But
it is also acting as a Complement in the 'next level up' analysis.
The same way that "home" is your sentence's Adverbial no matter which
category of word-class/part-of-speech you assign it.
[1] Basic first-year UK A-level English Language stuff, here.
[2] _Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar_ by RL Trask.
--
johnF
Scott Edward Skinner
<joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> An "adverbial" is in a category of sentence analysis 'above' that of
> word-class/part-of-speech/whatever. Each word can be classified as
> noun, verb, adjective, conjuction, etc, etc... and that's one level
> of analysis. But sitting on top of that (and to be used for
> analysing whole sentences or clauses with respect to what the words
> in them are doing) there are the categories of Subject, Verb/Predicate,
> Object, Complement, and Adverbial.[1]
OK. So in the sentence:
I want to go home.
Home is a noun and an adverbial, but not an adverb. It's word class is
noun and its meta-word-class is adverbial. How does that sound?
-S
Scott Edward Skinner
Skinner <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote:
> It's word class...
I meant "Its" word class...
I speak the Inglese :-)
-S
John Flynn
> OK. So in the sentence:
>
> I want to go home.
>
> Home is a noun and an adverbial, but not an adverb. Its word class
> is noun and its meta-word-class is adverbial. How does that sound?
Looking at the M-W site, I suppose it is an adverb in the original
sentence you gave and a noun in the "... to my home" version. But
despite its shifting word-class, it's still an adverbial.
I gave up trying to pin down individual words into the traditional
"parts of speech" a little while ago -- it starts becoming a game of
infinite pedantry after a certain level.
What matters (in my opinion) is what role it plays in the 'larger
picture' of the particular sentence it inhabits.
That's my view -- others' will definitely vary.
--
johnF
meirm...@erols.com
Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> posted:
>Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
>>
>> Well my nemesis, Grammar Girl, is at it again. This time we're feuding
>> over adverbs, specifically:
>
>Still, one could certainly argue that such a distinction is mere
>nit-picking -- and I would agree. If "well" can be used as noun,
>verb, adverb, adjective or interjection, which part of speech is
>it? Or does its use determine that? If the latter, then why can't
>"home" be noun, verb ("home in"), adverb or adjective, depending.
>It's again but a matter of how you define your terms.
>
>Now kiss and make up.
I pretty much agree with most of this, but I am going to take issue
with the last line. Don't do that, Scott. Stick her pig-tails in the
inkwell.
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Posted on %date%, at %time%
P. Schultz
>
> "P. Schultz" wrote:
> >
> > John Flynn wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> > >
> > > > I want to go home.
>
> Me, too. This is getting exhausting.
> >
> > > <...> In your sentence,
> > > "home" is still a noun but is used as an adverbial. <...>
> >
> > How do you know that it is not an adverb, which elsewhere is sometimes
> > employed as a noun?
> >
> > Any good dictionary will tell you that "home" is an adverb.
>
> Ah, yes, the dictionary, which the noted lexicographer Dr. Johnson
> once described as "the last refuge of the pedant" -- or something
Yeah, it is that. But I didn't take refuge there -- I just assumed what
it would say, since the function of the word in question was obvious.
But the dictionary is also sometimes the sole source for the clueless,
and that's why I made the recommendation.
If someone claims that "go" is never verb, you can steer them to the
dictionary without being a pedant.
\\P. Schultz
P. Schultz
>
> Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> >
> > In article <3AD9AD75...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk>, John Flynn
> > <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > So, as Bob Lieblich said, you're both right. It is a noun, but it is
> > > also acting as an adverbial (but NOT as an adverb).
> >
> > When you say "acting as an adverbial," do you mean acting as an adverb?
> > Because if "home" in my example is "acting like an adverb," then as far
> > as I'm concerned it *is* an adverb in this case. Similarly, I would
> > consider "cooking" a noun in:
> >
> > My hobby is cooking.
> >
> > Yes, "cooking" is normally a verb but in this case it is acting as a
> > noun. It is the gerund form of the verb. It is perfectly appropriate to
> > call it a noun in this case.
>
> It's true that gerunds are considered nouns, as participles are
> considered adjectives. It's also true, as P. Schultz pointed out in
> another posting, that dictionaries treat every established use of a
Maybe you're misinterpreting what the dictionary says. When it says:
Hammer (n.) 1. A tool used for....
You might interpret that to mean that the dictionary says that "hammer"
is a noun.
But maybe it means that the word "hammer", when employed in the word
class of "noun", has the stated meaning.
No English word is intrinsically a member of any particular word class.
It becomes so only when it is so employed. Even the fact that a
particular word may have been employed only in a single word class and
in no other for centuries does not alter that fact. Any word is a
candidate for employment in a different class.
That's the why and the wherefore.
\\P. Schultz
John Flynn
> Maybe you're misinterpreting what the dictionary says. When it says:
>
> Hammer (n.) 1. A tool used for....
>
> You might interpret that to mean that the dictionary says that
> "hammer" is a noun.
>
> But maybe it means that the word "hammer", when employed in the
> word class of "noun", has the stated meaning.
Or that when you wish to use the word "hammer" with the stated meaning
then it becomes a noun!
--
johnF
P. Schultz
It sounds bad. It's wrong on two counts.
A single-word "adverbial" is an adverb, by definition. In fact, since it
is a single word, there's no reason to call it an "adverbial," since ANY
adverb is also an "adverbial."
Second, it is not true that the word class of "home" is noun. "Home" is
in the word class noun when it is so employed, in word class verb when
so employed, in word class adverb when so employed, etc. Like every
other English word, it has no intrinsic word class.
\\P. Schultz
Odysseus
>
[snip]
>
> And "home" is certainly not an adverb here. Indeed, there is no
> substantive difference in meaning between:
>
> I want to go home.
> I want to go to my home.
>
> Admittedly, the second example is awkward, perhaps. Stylistically
> different, perhaps. But both sentences communicate the same substantive
> information. Yet in the former, "home" is considered an adverb, while
> in the latter, it is considered a "noun." This is logically
> inconsistent. How can the same word be used differently in both
> sentences with both sentences communicating the exact same information?
>
> Your thoughts?
The main issue has already been covered in some detail, but I'd like to
point out that in "I want to go to my home", "to my home" is
unquestionably an adverbial phrase; "home" here is the object of the
preposition "to", so it clearly plays a different role (grammatically
speaking, as opposed to semantically) from its function in the previous sentence.
--Odysseus
Scott Edward Skinner
<schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> > OK. So in the sentence:
> >
> > I want to go home.
> >
> > Home is a noun and an adverbial, but not an adverb. It's word class is
> > noun and its meta-word-class is adverbial. How does that sound?
>
> It sounds bad. It's wrong on two counts.
>
> A single-word "adverbial" is an adverb, by definition. In fact, since it
> is a single word, there's no reason to call it an "adverbial," since ANY
> adverb is also an "adverbial."
OK. But looking strictly at the word-class level and not the
meta-word-class level, how do you explain this awkward role-changing
that "home" undergoes in the following two examples:
I want to go home.
I want to go to my home.
Again, both sentences communicate the same substantive information. In
the former, "home" is an adverb? In the latter, a noun? This doesn't
seem right to me.
> Second, it is not true that the word class of "home" is noun. "Home" is
> in the word class noun when it is so employed, in word class verb when
> so employed, in word class adverb when so employed, etc. Like every
> other English word, it has no intrinsic word class.
I understand and agree. However, as you will note, I said, "So in the
sentence..." I don't think I or anyone else has ever argued that any
word has some intrinsic word class. Obviously, words can be *potential*
members of various word classes depending upon their usage. It is
reasonable to say that some words "normally" or "typically" belong to
one word class or another, but that is really beside the point.
-S
Scott Edward Skinner
<odysseu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The main issue has already been covered in some detail, but I'd like to
> point out that in "I want to go to my home", "to my home" is
> unquestionably an adverbial phrase; "home" here is the object of the
> preposition "to", so it clearly plays a different role (grammatically
> speaking, as opposed to semantically) from its function in the previous sentence.
I guess what is really being said here is that "go" as used in my
aforementioned examples must be followed by either an adverb or an
adverbial, but is never followed by a noun. The verb intrinsically does
not allow for a noun at the grammatical level, or an object at the
meta-word level.
-S
Mark Wallace
"Scott Edward Skinner" <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:160420010852023881%sski...@cloud9.net...
And God forbid that we should look at what the sentence says -- not when we
can go around and around in circles, trying to find a good excuse to call a
spade a shovel.
The intention of the speaker of word 'home', in the sentence, is that the
word point at the building (an object, described by a noun) that he
considers to be his home. There is no intent that the word amend the
meaning of the word 'go'. If the intent of the speaker were to amend the
word 'go', then the adverbial 'homeward' would have been used.
Give someone a grammar book, and their common sense flies straight out of
the window.
Mark Wallace
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> went another few times around Robin
Hood's barn in message news:3AD9A73D...@erols.com...
So it's obviously an adverb, eh?
Yeah, right.
In fact, your description; taken across both postings; is so convoluted that
it is hard to see whether you are proclaiming it to be an adverb or a noun.
It really is betond me why people insist on tying themselves up in these
grammatical knots, in order to find an excuse for calling something what it
is not intended to be.
'Objectives or goals' do not have to be adverbial, so I suggest you read
through Curme again.
My example, 'I like it', is a lot more pertinent and revealing than you seem
to have noticed.
> > '~~ to go homeward' would be another matter, and would fit in more with
what
> > Robert wrote.
>
> > Tell GG to stop looking for the hard answers, but to take the time to
see
> > what's patently obvious.
>
> Tell GG to read again what I wrote. I was right the first time, and
> I still am.
Yeah, right.
"I want to go in such a way that my going is homely".
The goal or objective does not always modify the verb. Curme, and anyone
else who knows anything, will tell you that in no uncertain terms; and if
the word does not modify a verb in the sentence, that it ain't an adverb.
If we're really lucky, this discussion could revert to one of prepositional
usage.
Look carefully at:
-- I want to go home
-- I want to be home
-- I want to leave home
And the penny might drop.
Mark Wallace
Ja. P. Shultz has also stated this several times; but some people seem
unwilling to listen to him.
If I say "I want to go home", I do not mean that the 'going' is amended by
the fact that I want to go to a place which I call 'home'. I do not mean
that my activity, 'going', is in any way 'homely' or 'home-ish'. I mean
that 'home' is the *place* which I am wanting to go to; and it is therefore
a noun.
Rather than waste their time looking for grammatical reasons to call this
noun an adverb, some people would better spend their efforts in looking for
grammatical reasons to call it precisely what it is.
Opinicus
> Look carefully at:
> -- I want to go home
Adverb(ial) of place
> -- I want to be home
Adverb(ial) of place
> -- I want to leave home
Direct object.
The (deep) structure of the third sentence is completely different from
that (those?) of the first two. The surface structures in English happen to
be the same. That's not true in other languages, such as Turkish or Latin
(and no doubt lots more), where the differences in deep structure appear on
the surface as well.
Do you really believe that the underlying structure (and thus the function)
of "home" in the third sentence is the same as that of "home" in the other
two sentences. If so, you're saying that "go" and "be" take direct objects.
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Scott Edward Skinner" <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:160420010815442784%sski...@cloud9.net...
> > In article <3ADA4146...@erols.com>, P. Schultz
> > <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> >
> > > > OK. So in the sentence:
> > > >
> > > > I want to go home.
> > > >
> > > > Home is a noun and an adverbial, but not an adverb. It's word class is
> > > > noun and its meta-word-class is adverbial. How does that sound?
> > >
> > > It sounds bad. It's wrong on two counts.
> > >
> > > A single-word "adverbial" is an adverb, by definition. In fact, since it
> > > is a single word, there's no reason to call it an "adverbial," since ANY
> > > adverb is also an "adverbial."
> >
> > OK. But looking strictly at the word-class level and not the
> > meta-word-class level, how do you explain this awkward role-changing
> > that "home" undergoes in the following two examples:
> >
> > I want to go home.
> > I want to go to my home.
> >
> > Again, both sentences communicate the same substantive information.
Risking a metaphor, I inquire if you invariably follow the same
route from one place to another. You can say what you have to say
in a variety of locutions. The grammatical structure of any given
locution is analyzed not on the basis of its semantic content
(except as context affords clues) but on the basis of the words used
and their relations to one another. No matter what anyone says to
the contrary, "home" functions adverbially in the first sentence and
as a noun, the object of the preposition "to", in the second.
Most dictionaries differentiate the differing functions of words by
assigning them to multiple word classes (aka parts of speech) and
defining them as used in those differing classes. That's why
dictionaries classify the word "home" to four different word classes
-- noun, verb, adjective, and adverb. Here, don't take my word for
it; check it out:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/93/H0249300.html
http://www.mgr.com/websters/search/search.html
> > In
> > the former, "home" is an adverb? In the latter, a noun? This doesn't
> > seem right to me.
Think about it until it does seem right. You will then have
internalized your learning.
> > > Second, it is not true that the word class of "home" is noun. "Home" is
> > > in the word class noun when it is so employed, in word class verb when
> > > so employed, in word class adverb when so employed, etc. Like every
> > > other English word, it has no intrinsic word class.
> >
> > I understand and agree.
Bravo! You're getting there.
> > However, as you will note, I said, "So in the
> > sentence..." I don't think I or anyone else has ever argued that any
> > word has some intrinsic word class. Obviously, words can be *potential*
> > members of various word classes depending upon their usage. It is
> > reasonable to say that some words "normally" or "typically" belong to
> > one word class or another, but that is really beside the point.
>
> Ja. P. Shultz has also stated this several times; but some people seem
> unwilling to listen to him.
I doubt that P. Schultz has stated that. Words belong to the class
to which their function *in context* assigns them.
> If I say "I want to go home", I do not mean that the 'going' is amended by
> the fact that I want to go to a place which I call 'home'. I do not mean
> that my activity, 'going', is in any way 'homely' or 'home-ish'. I mean
> that 'home' is the *place* which I am wanting to go to; and it is therefore
> a noun.
No, it is not. It cannot be a noun because it cannot function as a
noun in the grammatical structure in which you have placed it. The
grammatical equivalent of "I want to go home" is "I want to go
east," in which "east" is an adverb, indicating the direction in
which one is going. So, in the parallel sentence, is "home."
Here's the beginning of M-W's definition of "home, adverb": "1 :
to, from, or at one's home <go home>."
> Rather than waste their time looking for grammatical reasons to call this
> noun an adverb, some people would better spend their efforts in looking for
> grammatical reasons to call it precisely what it is.
And yet you still haven't come up with one. I fear this is the old
Mark Wallace recrudescing -- make it up as you go along and sneer at
those who attempt to deal with the terms as actually defined by use.
I'd be willing to adopt the alternative terminology that calls
"home" in "I want to go home" a noun functioning adverbially. It
really doesn't make any difference. The point is that it is not
functioning as a noun ordinarily functions -- it isn't the subject
or object of anything. It sure as hell isn't the direct object of
"go"; I explained why in a prior posting -- the verb does not act on
or affect the supposed "object." You can throw a ball, but you
can't go a home.
Stand by for more Mark Wallace double-talk, probably seasoned with
mock outrage.
Robert Lieblich
Keeping it simple, as you seem to prefer, let's consider if you even
know what an adverb is and does. Here's a dictionary definition,
from M-W online (not a grammar book, please note): "a word belonging
to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages,
typically serving as a modifier of a verb, an adjective, another
adverb, a preposition, a phrase, a clause, or a sentence, expressing
some relation of manner or quality, place, time, degree, number,
cause, opposition, affirmation, or denial, and in English also
serving to connect and to express comment on clause content."
If you think, in light of that definition, that "home" in "I want to
go home" has to modify specifically "go" or it isn't an adverb, then
you have little if any grasp of what an adverb is or -- for that
matter -- how to read. If you think "home" in "I want to go home"
doesn't fit within M-W's definition of "adverb," then you and I
don't speak the same language. So you seem to be reduced to arguing
that the dictionary doesn't know how to define "adverb." If you
don't like M-W, try Cambridge (British, please note), which is less
all-embracing but still covers far more ground with its definition
than is consistent with the notion that an adverb can only modify a
single verb.
It's still a lot easier to make up your own rules than to learn the
ones that are already in existence, right?
Scott Edward Skinner
<gez...@spamcop.net> wrote:
I really don't see "home" being used any differently in the third
example. Can you please clarify?
Perhaps it would be accurate to say that both "go" and "be" do indeed
take direct objects: home. It may be that "home" is the only direct
object they take. I will admit that every other example I consider is
clearly an adverb or an adverbial. Certainly there is an efficiency and
consistency to forcing "home" in these examples into the
adverb/adverbial class. No one wants to pollute perfectly good grammar
rules with such an ugly exception. But in my heart of hearts, I just
don't see "home" being used any differently in the third example. I see
a noun and a direct object.
-S
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <tdm1fu2...@news.supernews.com>, Opinicus
> <gez...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > "Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
> > news:9beul6$8rtuf$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > > Look carefully at:
> >
> > > -- I want to go home
> > Adverb(ial) of place
> >
> > > -- I want to be home
> > Adverb(ial) of place
> >
> > > -- I want to leave home
> > Direct object.
> >
> > The (deep) structure of the third sentence is completely different from
> > that (those?) of the first two. The surface structures in English happen to
> > be the same. That's not true in other languages, such as Turkish or Latin
> > (and no doubt lots more), where the differences in deep structure appear on
> > the surface as well.
> >
> > Do you really believe that the underlying structure (and thus the function)
> > of "home" in the third sentence is the same as that of "home" in the other
> > two sentences. If so, you're saying that "go" and "be" take direct objects.
>
> I really don't see "home" being used any differently in the third
> example. Can you please clarify?
I agree with you. See the end of this posting.
>
> Perhaps it would be accurate to say that both "go" and "be" do indeed
> take direct objects: home.
You're backsliding. "Be" is intransitive and by definition cannot
take an object. "Go" can be transitive in certain instances, mostly
dialectal, but not in this context. We've been through that
before. You're just throwing raw meat to Mark Wallace.
> It may be that "home" is the only direct
> object they take.
No.
> I will admit that every other example I consider is
> clearly an adverb or an adverbial.
Yet you resist the obvious conclusion.
> Certainly there is an efficiency and
> consistency to forcing "home" in these examples into the
> adverb/adverbial class.
No forcing needed. That's where it fits.
> No one wants to pollute perfectly good grammar
> rules with such an ugly exception.
You don't need the exception. There's no rule being violated or
even stretched. Leave the language alone. It doesn't need this
kind of "help."
> But in my heart of hearts, I just
> don't see "home" being used any differently in the third example. I see
> a noun and a direct object.
Merriam Webster sees an adverb: "to, from, or at one's home <go
home> <left home at the age of 12>." Here's the URL:
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary>. Search for "home." To be
fair, Cambridge seems to analyze "leave home" as verb plus direct
object. Life isn't always simple. But "leave" is a standard
transitive verb that can take a direct object. "Be" is totally
transitive and "go" mostly so, and the transitive uses of "go" don't
fit with "home." Don't lose sight of this important distinction.
Have we gone around in circles twice yet or does it just seem that
way?
P. Schultz
> <...>
> The direct object of a verb is *acted upon* by the verb. If you
> have a true direct object, it can be transformed into the subject of
> a passive sentence -- in which the verb then necessarily takes the
> in a prepositional phrase. <...>
Our motor home sleeps nine people.
Nine people are slept by our motor home.
Sally couldn't stand Ron's voice.
Ron's voice couldn't be stood by Sally.
She flipped me the bird.
The bird was flipped to me by her.
\\P. Schultz
P. Schultz
> > > Home is a noun and an adverbial, but not an adverb. It's word class is
> But looking strictly at the word-class level and not the
> meta-word-class level, how do you explain this awkward role-changing
> that "home" undergoes in the following two examples:
>
> I want to go home.
You know that "home" can be used in several word classes. If you use
motor oil to oil your bike chain, then the word "oil" has changed roles.
But there's nothing awkward about it. Unless you have some basic quarrel
with the English language itself.
> > Second, it is not true that the word class of "home" is noun. "Home" is
> > in the word class noun when it is so employed, in word class verb when
> > so employed, in word class adverb when so employed, etc. Like every
> > other English word, it has no intrinsic word class.
>
> I understand and agree. However, as you will note, I said, "So in the
> sentence..." I don't think I or anyone else has ever argued that any
> word has some intrinsic word class. <...>
Then what did you mean when you said, above, "It's word class is
noun and its meta-word-class is adverbial." That was incorrect. There
was no noun involved in any way.
You are used to thinking of "home" as a noun, which is the wrong way to
think about it. And when you saw it acting as something else, you
assumed that it was "a noun acting as an adverb." But it wasn't. It was
an *adverb* acting as an adverb.
\\P. Schultz
P. Schultz
> <...> I mean
> that 'home' is the *place* which I am wanting to go to; and it is therefore
> a noun.
Surely you meant to write "and it is therefore an adverb," since
defining the place is one of the things that adverbs do. As Sister
Nivard told us in second grade: "An adverb tells how, when, or where."
Otherwise, "Daddy is home!" means that you live inside Daddy. Do you?
\\P. Schultz
Scott Edward Skinner
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
> > I really don't see "home" being used any differently in the third
> > example. Can you please clarify?
>
> I agree with you. See the end of this posting.
<snip>
Yes I agree that every authoritative source says it's an adverb, even
though it is clearly not an adverb in our examples. Here's a theory my
friend came up with...
At some point in time, instead of saying:
I want to go to home.
We dropped the article and just said:
I want to go home.
Conversely, when we say this we really do mean "to home," because
"home" really is a noun and a direct object (although "to home," is an
adverbial). We *should* be saying "to home." We don't. So that leaves
us with this little conundrum.
Now all I need is the proof to back this theory up...
-S
Scott Edward Skinner
<schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> As Sister
> Nivard told us in second grade: "An adverb tells how, when, or where."
>
> Otherwise, "Daddy is home!" means that you live inside Daddy. Do you?
This is a good point. See me other post regarding my friend's theory.
When you say "Daddy is home!" you really mean "Daddy is at home!" only
we leave off the article. Leaving off that article doesn't suddenly
alter what "home" is or how "home" is being used here.
-S
Scott Edward Skinner
<schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> > > > Home is a noun and an adverbial, but not an adverb. It's word class is
> > > > noun and its meta-word-class is adverbial. <...>
>
> > But looking strictly at the word-class level and not the
> > meta-word-class level, how do you explain this awkward role-changing
> > that "home" undergoes in the following two examples:
> >
> > I want to go home.
> > I want to go to my home. <...>
>
> You know that "home" can be used in several word classes. If you use
> motor oil to oil your bike chain, then the word "oil" has changed roles.
> But there's nothing awkward about it. Unless you have some basic quarrel
> with the English language itself.
This is not a fair analogy. Given:
I want to go <insert word here>
I want to go to <insert same word here>
I challenge you to find any word that fits other than "home." Clearly
we are dealing with an unusual exception here, yet all the hardcore
grammarians are acting like it's nothing unusual at all. Obviously
exceptions in English are not unsusual, I would simply like some
authoritative source to admit that this is one of them.
> You are used to thinking of "home" as a noun, which is the wrong way to
> think about it.
OK. How are you able to convince yourself that it is *not* a noun?
I want to go home.
I want to leave home.
Looks like "home" is a noun to me...
-S
Scott Edward Skinner
Skinner <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote:
> This is not a fair analogy. Given:
>
> I want to go <insert word here>
> I want to go to <insert same word here>
>
> I challenge you to find any word that fits other than "home."
Whoops! I meant:
I want to go <insert word here>
I want to go to my <insert same word here>
The point is that the substantive meaning is the same in both cases,
although you are claiming that "home" is serving two very different
purposes. Now how can that be? If "home" was indeed *acting* as an
adverb in one and a noun in the other, then the substantive meaning
would be different.
-S
Robert Lieblich
[ . . . ]
> This is not a fair analogy. Given:
>
> I want to go <insert word here>
> I want to go to <insert same word here>
>
> I challenge you to find any word that fits other than "home."
Lunch.
Clearly
> we are dealing with an unusual exception here, yet all the hardcore
> grammarians are acting like it's nothing unusual at all. Obviously
> exceptions in English are not unsusual, I would simply like some
> authoritative source to admit that this is one of them.
You're in the wrong place, pal. No one here is authoritative.
Disputatious, yes. Authoritative, no.
>
> > You are used to thinking of "home" as a noun, which is the wrong way to
> > think about it.
>
> OK. How are you able to convince yourself that it is *not* a noun?
>
> I want to go home.
> I want to leave home.
>
> Looks like "home" is a noun to me...
Circles upon circles. I quit -- aside, maybe, from a few snotty
remarks in response to Mark Wallace. who I'm sure will be back.
P. Schultz
> Yes I agree that every authoritative source says it's an adverb, even
> though it is clearly not an adverb in our examples. <...>
Yes, and every authoritative source says that "obvious" means apparent
at a glance, although that clearly doesn't include your glance.
\\P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <160420012136489309%sski...@cloud9.net>, Scott Edward
> Skinner <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>
> > This is not a fair analogy. Given:
> >
> > I want to go <insert word here>
> > I want to go to <insert same word here>
> >
> > I challenge you to find any word that fits other than "home."
>
> Whoops! I meant:
>
> I want to go <insert word here>
> I want to go to my <insert same word here>
Lunch (again). Study. Dancing. North (and other directions,
including southwest, north-northeast, etc.). No doubt there are
more, but the horse is dead.
This is easier than the last one. (Broke my vow of silence, but it
was worth it).
meirm...@erols.com
Skinner <sski...@cloud9.net> posted:
>In article <150420011938443162%sski...@cloud9.net>, Scott Edward
>Skinner <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>
>> It's word class...
>
>I meant "Its" word class...
>
>I speak the Inglese :-)
>
I think you mean In'glese. :)
Seems world class to me.
>-S
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Posted on %date%, at %time%
meirm...@erols.com
<schu...@erols.com> posted:
>Then what did you mean when you said, above, "It's word class is
>noun and its meta-word-class is adverbial." That was incorrect. There
>was no noun involved in any way.
>
>You are used to thinking of "home" as a noun, which is the wrong way to
>think about it. And when you saw it acting as something else, you
>assumed that it was "a noun acting as an adverb." But it wasn't. It was
>an *adverb* acting as an adverb.
>
As I understand it, they're not acting. They really feel like
adverbs.
I'm told that adverbs don't have an easy life and words wouldn't
choose to be them. That it's not a choice.
>\\P. Schultz
Scott Edward Skinner
<schu...@erols.com> wrote:
That's because my glance is more discriminating :-)
Don't worry. If anyone ever asks me I'll say it's an adverb. If I'm
quizzed on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, I'll say it's an adverb.
Secretly, however, I'll be thinking: NOUN!
-S
Scott Edward Skinner
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
> Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> >
> > In article <160420012136489309%sski...@cloud9.net>, Scott Edward
> > Skinner <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote:
> >
> > > This is not a fair analogy. Given:
> > >
> > > I want to go <insert word here>
> > > I want to go to <insert same word here>
> > >
> > > I challenge you to find any word that fits other than "home."
> >
> > Whoops! I meant:
> >
> > I want to go <insert word here>
> > I want to go to my <insert same word here>
>
> Lunch (again). Study. Dancing. North (and other directions,
> including southwest, north-northeast, etc.). No doubt there are
> more, but the horse is dead.
Great! "Study" is a perfect example. Notice how the substantive meaning
changes?
"I want to go study" does not mean "I want to go to my study"
However...
"I want to go home" is equivalent to "I want to go to my home."
BTW, although we may not agree, I appreciate all your responses.
-S
meirm...@erols.com
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> posted:
>
>If I say "I want to go home", I do not mean that the 'going' is amended by
>the fact that I want to go to a place which I call 'home'.
By the same token, I don't think the "going" has an effect on "home"
as is supposed to be the case with a direct object, no?
> I do not mean
>that my activity, 'going', is in any way 'homely' or 'home-ish'. I mean
>that 'home' is the *place* which I am wanting to go to; and it is therefore
>a noun.
>
>Rather than waste their time looking for grammatical reasons to call this
>noun an adverb, some people would better spend their efforts in looking for
>grammatical reasons to call it precisely what it is.
How about regarding "home" as meaning "homeward"? I think that is
what it means. So it's an adverb there, no?
meirm...@erols.com
Skinner <sski...@cloud9.net> posted:
>
>"I want to go study" does not mean "I want to go to my study"
>
>However...
>
>"I want to go home" is equivalent to "I want to go to my home."
>
>BTW, although we may not agree, I appreciate all your responses.
This thread was your idea?! Ohh-owe.
>-S
Mark Wallace
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:imgndtgttjcd005s8...@4ax.com...
> In alt.english.usage on Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:20:51 +0200 "Mark Wallace"
> <mwallac...@noknok.nl> posted:
>
>
> >
> >If I say "I want to go home", I do not mean that the 'going' is amended
by
> >the fact that I want to go to a place which I call 'home'.
>
> By the same token, I don't think the "going" has an effect on "home"
> as is supposed to be the case with a direct object, no?
>
> > I do not mean
> >that my activity, 'going', is in any way 'homely' or 'home-ish'. I mean
> >that 'home' is the *place* which I am wanting to go to; and it is
therefore
> >a noun.
> >
> >Rather than waste their time looking for grammatical reasons to call this
> >noun an adverb, some people would better spend their efforts in looking
for
> >grammatical reasons to call it precisely what it is.
>
> How about regarding "home" as meaning "homeward"? I think that is
> what it means. So it's an adverb there, no?
Absolutely, but when you say "I want to go home", is the picture you intend
to convey to the listener one of your being in the process of travelling
home; or of you, sitting snug and warm in your home?
"I want to go home" has simply had a preposition (or prepositional phrase)
dropped, for ease of conveyance -- that is, because the word 'to' is already
there, so why say it again so soon?
meirm...@erols.com
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> posted:
>
><meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:imgndtgttjcd005s8...@4ax.com...
>> In alt.english.usage on Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:20:51 +0200 "Mark Wallace"
>> <mwallac...@noknok.nl> posted:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >If I say "I want to go home", I do not mean that the 'going' is amended
>by
>> >the fact that I want to go to a place which I call 'home'.
>>
>> By the same token, I don't think the "going" has an effect on "home"
>> as is supposed to be the case with a direct object, no?
>>
>> > I do not mean
>> >that my activity, 'going', is in any way 'homely' or 'home-ish'. I mean
>> >that 'home' is the *place* which I am wanting to go to; and it is
>therefore
>> >a noun.
>> >
>> >Rather than waste their time looking for grammatical reasons to call this
>> >noun an adverb, some people would better spend their efforts in looking
>for
>> >grammatical reasons to call it precisely what it is.
>>
>> How about regarding "home" as meaning "homeward"? I think that is
>> what it means. So it's an adverb there, no?
>
>Absolutely, but when you say "I want to go home", is the picture you intend
>to convey to the listener one of your being in the process of travelling
>home; or of you, sitting snug and warm in your home?
Travelling. Because that's what it says. Otherwise I would have said,
I want to be home.
>"I want to go home" has simply had a preposition (or prepositional phrase)
>dropped, for ease of conveyance -- that is, because the word 'to' is already
>there, so why say it again so soon?
See, that's what I told my boss. It was Friday at three and I said
why do I need to put the money in the register, when in just two
hours, you're going to have to take it out to pay me, and that is so
soon. So it's really the same if I just take the money from the
customer and put it in my pocket for ease of conveyance. (they just
throw away those little white receipts anyway.)
Red Valerian
>adverbs.
>I'm told that adverbs don't have an easy life and words wouldn't
>choose to be them. That it's not a choice.
>
>>\\P. Schultz
>
Poor adverbs. I'm now picturing them mopping their fevered brows
before once more girding their loins to rejoin the fray.
But back to the word under discussion. Last refuge of the pedant or
not, I decided to see what NODE had to say about 'home' as an adverb.
Here goes:
home adverb:
* to the place where one lives: what time did he get home last night?
* in or at the place where one lives: I stayed home with the kids.
* to the end or conclusion of a race or something difficult: the
favourite romped home six lengths clear
* to the intended or correct position: he slid the bolt home noisily.
Red
Mark Wallace
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3ADBAC15...@erols.com...
> Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> >
> > In article <160420012136489309%sski...@cloud9.net>, Scott Edward
> > Skinner <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote:
> >
> > > This is not a fair analogy. Given:
> > >
> > > I want to go <insert word here>
> > > I want to go to <insert same word here>
> > >
> > > I challenge you to find any word that fits other than "home."
> >
> > Whoops! I meant:
> >
> > I want to go <insert word here>
> > I want to go to my <insert same word here>
>
> Lunch (again). Study. Dancing. North (and other directions,
> including southwest, north-northeast, etc.). No doubt there are
> more, but the horse is dead.
In "I want to go lunch", 'lunch' is an extremely irregular use of the verb.
This would be an Americanism. That's non-standard grammar. What is
intended is: 'I want to go and eat lunch'
In "I want to go to my lunch", 'lunch' is a noun. The meaning is the same
because the above is an idiomatic usage.
No match.
In "I want to go study", 'study' is a verb. This would be another
Americanism. That's non-standard grammar. What is intended is: 'I want to
go and study'.
In "I want to go to my study", 'study' is a noun, which is not even related
in meaning to the verb 'to study'.
No match.
In "I want to go dancing", 'dancing' is a gerund -- unless the speaker means
'I want to dance away from here'. This, again, is idiomatic; and intends:
'I want to go somewhere where I may dance'.
In "I want to go to dancing", 'dancing' can intend the same as the above
idiomatic usage, but is more likely to intend 'dancing lessons'.
No match.
In "I want to go North', *BINGO!* we have an adverbial usage!
In "I want to go to my north", 'north' is a noun, but it has a different
intent to 'North'; and, indeed, is not even the proper noun.
No match.
So, you have given us three idiomatic uses, and one standard grammar
usage -- all of which you seem to think will prove that the object of
'wanting to go' is always adverbial. I'm surprised you didn't include, 'I
want to go large, Ronald'.
What's "I want to go home", again?
What is intended by the word 'home'?
Wake up and smell the home-made coffee.
"I want to go to a destination, and that destination is my home" is too much
of a mouthful.
Mark Wallace
Red Valerian
wrote:
>
>I'm told that adverbs don't have an easy life and words wouldn't
>>choose to be them. That it's not a choice.
Oops....I snipped the wrong address. The above wit was Meirman's not
Schultz's. Sorry. It is only six am in England.
Red.
Mark Wallace
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:86jndts6qhotm5kkh...@4ax.com...
Don't say that, for God's sake, or the whole thread will start over with 'to
be' and direct objects!
> >"I want to go home" has simply had a preposition (or prepositional
phrase)
> >dropped, for ease of conveyance -- that is, because the word 'to' is
already
> >there, so why say it again so soon?
>
> See, that's what I told my boss. It was Friday at three and I said
> why do I need to put the money in the register, when in just two
> hours, you're going to have to take it out to pay me, and that is so
> soon. So it's really the same if I just take the money from the
> customer and put it in my pocket for ease of conveyance. (they just
> throw away those little white receipts anyway.)
Makes sense to me. Did he go for it?
Mark Wallace
Apologies.
Ah, so now I don't know what an adverb is.
Ok, but those who graded my doctorate may disagree with you.
What I am saying in this thread -- and you may have noticed me write in
other threads -- is that the point of English grammar is not to discover
convoluted excuses for calling something what it is not intended to be, and
then snootily proclaim that 'God is on my Right!'
If you want to parse idiomatic expressions as if they were standard grammar,
then you're either a better or a dumber man that I, Gunga din; but you ought
to try looking at what the speaker means by his idiomatic statements, and
parsing that, instead.
'I go home' is one thing; 'I want to go home' is another matter entirely.
meirm...@erols.com
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> posted:
>
>"I want to go home" has simply had a preposition (or prepositional phrase)
>dropped, for ease of conveyance -- that is, because the word 'to' is already
>there, so why say it again so soon?
Sarcasm aside, :( , let me put it another way. If there were a "to"
in front of "home", it would be a prepositional phrase, I think you
agree, and it would be used like an adverb to modify "go". When "to"
is dropped, "home" has to pick up the slack. What was once a plain
noun, now has all the meaning of "to home". It has the meaning of an
adverb. It's used like an adverb. It may even be an adverb.
meirm...@erols.com
<hg...@dial.pipex.com> posted:
I didn't even notice. No harm done.
>Red.
Opinicus
> > > -- I want to go home.
> > Adverb(ial) of place
> > > -- I want to be home.
> > Adverb(ial) of place
> > > -- I want to leave home.
> > Direct object.
> I really don't see "home" being used any differently in the third
example. Can you please clarify?
Let me try with a little expansion:
[a] I want to go home.
= Home is where I want to go.
[b] I want to be home.
= Home is where I want to be.
[c] I want to leave home.
= Home is what I want to leave.
Now consider:
[d] I want to leave the country / this life / a large egg on the table / a
million dollars to my kids.
= The country / this life / a large egg on the table / a million dollars to
my kids is what I want to leave.
In [a] and [b] the expansion of "home" requires the word "where" in
English. This is because "home" is an adverb(ial) in those sentences. In
[a] it indicates the direction of motion; in [b] it indicates the location
of a state [of being]. In [c] the expansion of "home" requires the word
"what" in English. This is because "home" is a noun in this sentence. It's
the direct object of "leave" and answers the question "What do you want to
leave?". The same is true in [d]. All of the expressions ("the country",
"this life", "a large egg on the table", and "a million dollars to my
kids") are possible answers to the question "What do you want to leave?".
In [a] and [b] on the other hand "home" answers the questions "Where do you
want to go?" and "Where to do want to be?" respectively
As I said in my previous post, the surface structures of "I want to go / be
/ leave home" are the same in English. But the underlying deep structures
are completely different.
To show the difference in another way, consider transforming the sentences
into the passive voice. (Something Bob Lieblich I think advanced as an
argument the other day.)
A sentence containing "leave home" etc can be transformed into a passive
phrase:
[e1] Leave home / the country / this life / large egg / a million dollars
at 10 o'clock sharp.
[e2] Home / the country / this life / a large egg / a million dollars is to
be left at 10 o'clock sharp.
Let's try that with "go home":
[f1] Go home at 10 o'clock sharp.
[f2] * Home is to be gone at 10 o'clock sharp.
Doesn't work, does it? The best you can do is:
[f3] Home is to be gone to at 10 o'clock sharp.
Which is awful but at least it's English. Notice that in order to "save the
sentence" we had to introduce "to" after "gone". That's because in the deep
structure of "home" in [f1] there's an implicit "to" indicating direction
of motion. (In other words, "home" is an adverb(ial).) That "to" doesn't
appear in the surface structure of [f1] because English idiom doesn't
require it. But it's there. And when you transform the sentence and get
[f3] it raises its cute little head and says "Here I am".
Now try this:
[g1] Be home at 10 o'clock sharp.
Changing this into a sentence with a passive verb phrase is left as an
exercise for the reader. Please don't cheat by looking at the answer on the
other side of this message.
--
Bob
Foça, Turkey
---
Kanyak's Doghouse <http://www.geocities.com/kanyak.geo>
Mark Wallace
"Opinicus" <gez...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:tdnub2c...@news.supernews.com...
This is all very well, but the point of the thread is the sentence "I want
to go home", which is a special case -- otherwise it would not be worth
discussing at all -- where the speaker does not mean that he wants to 'be'
in a 'where'; but that he wishes to exclude being anywhere other than an
abstract location which for him holds special connotations and values.
It is an abstract idiom which means either "I want to be in my place of
security", "I want to be where those things precious to me are", or, "I just
want to be the hell out of here!".
Trying to bypass all that meaning by saying: "Duh, well it's an adverb,
innit?" does justice neither to the meaning of the sentence, nor to the
visible value of a system of grammar which *can* cover such things -- once
people take their heads out of the 'basic principles' sand and start looking
for ways of using grammar and parsing in the ways they should be used.
That is, the application of the rules of grammar should be to find,
highlight, and/or make obvious the meaning of what has been written/spoken;
not to brush all the meaning away because "well, in such and such a book it
sez it's an adverb, dunnit?".
Mark Wallace
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
news:9bgv73$98438$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> That is, the application of the rules of grammar
Hell, I meant 'rules of parsing'.
Normally, I content myself with being as annoying to the people who
pompously flood the ether with baby-talk as they are to me; with their "I
know best, because I studied it in fourth form and I've read a book!" crap;
but this one is getting to me.
Opinicus
news:9bgv73$98438$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
want
> to go home", which is a special case -- otherwise it would not be worth
> discussing at all
"downtown".
(adv) I want to go downtown.
(adv) I want to be downtown.
(d.obj) I want to leave downtown.
There are plenty more.
Scott Edward Skinner
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote:
> How about regarding "home" as meaning "homeward"? I think that is
> what it means. So it's an adverb there, no?
If home = homeward then it is definitely an adverb. But home !=
homeward. Two very different connotations.
-S
Scott Edward Skinner
<gez...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Let's try that with "go home":
>
> [f1] Go home at 10 o'clock sharp.
> [f2] * Home is to be gone at 10 o'clock sharp.
>
> Doesn't work, does it? The best you can do is:
>
> [f3] Home is to be gone to at 10 o'clock sharp.
>
> Which is awful but at least it's English. Notice that in order to "save the
> sentence" we had to introduce "to" after "gone". That's because in the deep
> structure of "home" in [f1] there's an implicit "to" indicating direction
> of motion. (In other words, "home" is an adverb(ial).) That "to" doesn't
> appear in the surface structure of [f1] because English idiom doesn't
> require it. But it's there. And when you transform the sentence and get
> [f3] it raises its cute little head and says "Here I am".
I'm going to keep reading this and the other posts and attempt to take
them to heart. At the moment, however, I still have a fighting spirit.
I agree with the above, especially the part about "home" having an
implicit "to." But I draw very different conclusions from this.
I want to go (to) home.
Now home is a noun, correct? Just as
I want to go to America. (Oh I dread the day when my country is reduced
to a mere adverb).
Yes, "to home" is adverbial, but the "home" in "to home" is a noun,
just as "to America" is adverbial, but "America" in "to America" is a
noun.
As further proof, I bring up my tired argument once again:
I want to go home = I want to go to home.
Adverb in the first; noun in the second? That doesn't make sense! Their
meanings are substantively equivalent. The dropping of "to" (because it
is idiomatically implicit) shouldn't alter the nature of the word or
how it is being used.
-S
Opinicus
> I want to go home = I want to go to home.
> Adverb in the first; noun in the second? That doesn't make sense! Their
> meanings are substantively equivalent. The dropping of "to" (because it
> is idiomatically implicit) shouldn't alter the nature of the word or
> how it is being used.
Most words in English don't have an implicit grammatical class because
English is not a strongly inflected language. (Inflected isn't the right
word. My linguistic terminology has grown rusty through disuse.) The fact
that a word is an "noun" or an "adjective" or a "verb" or an "adverb" in
English has very little to do with the word itself and almost everything to
do with the position of the word in a sentence and its relationship to the
other words. Depending on where it appears in a sentence, "home" can be a
noun:
Home is where the heart is.
... an adjective:
I like home fries so keep the home fires burning.
... a verb:
These new missiles home in on their targets very quickly.
... and an (ahem) adverb:
I want to go home.
There is nothing intrinsic about "home" (or most other words in English)
that require them to be this or that.
On the other hand:
* I want to go to home.
... is simply bad English as things stand now.
In a previous post to Mark I mentioned the word "downtown", which behaves
very much like "home". What is that? A noun? A verb? An adjective? An
adverb? No. It's a string consisting of eight letters, six phonemes, and
two syllables. By itself it has no "function". Its function arises from its
use in a sentence in conjunction with other words.
In some languages, words are strongly typed. That is, by looking at the
word you can almost always tell what its function must be. That's not so in
English:
<q>
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe
</q>
As a native speaker you know intrinsically that "gyre" and "gimble" are
verbs. Why?
---
Bob
Foça, Turkey
---
Kanyak's Doghouse <http://www.geocities.com/kanyak.geo>
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/poem/jabberwocky.html
Mark Wallace
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
> news:9bgv73$98438$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> > This is all very well, but the point of the thread is the sentence "I
> want
> > to go home", which is a special case -- otherwise it would not be worth
> > discussing at all
>
> "downtown".
>
> (adv) I want to go downtown.
> (adv) I want to be downtown.
> (d.obj) I want to leave downtown.
>
> There are plenty more.
Ja, and; as I pointed out to Robert; a good number of them are idiomatic.
"I want to go shopping" is adverbial. The modification of the verb smacks
you squarely in the face.
"I want to go home" is not.
With "I want to go downtown", it depends what the speaker means by
'downtown'. If he intends 'a physical area of the city where the
shops/stores/theatres are', then it's an adverb. If he intends 'the seedy
underbelly of society', then it is far more complex, and deserves more
attention than an off-handed "it's an adverb, 'cause [insert book name] says
so, so there!".
Scott Edward Skinner
<gez...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> The fact
> that a word is an "noun" or an "adjective" or a "verb" or an "adverb" in
> English has very little to do with the word itself and almost everything to
> do with the position of the word in a sentence and its relationship to the
> other words.
We are in complete agreement on this point, and I believe I said as
much some thirty posts ago. But I accuse you of the exact opposite:
determining the word class based *solely* on the word's position in the
sentence, and not taking into account its function in the sentence and
its relationship to the other words.
> In a previous post to Mark I mentioned the word "downtown", which behaves
> very much like "home".
Not really.
I want to go home.
I want to go downtown.
Can I sell my "downtown" to you? Can I renovate my "downtown?" What is
the mortgage on your "downtown?" Clearly "downtown" has more in common
with "outside" and other adverbs, because "downtown" as used above is
an adverb.
If you agree that: I want to go home = I want to go to my home, then
you will understand why I have difficult accepting "home" as an adverb
in these examples.
-S
Odysseus
>
> What I am saying in this thread -- and you may have noticed me write in
> other threads -- is that the point of English grammar is not to discover
> convoluted excuses for calling something what it is not intended to be, and
> then snootily proclaim that 'God is on my Right!'
>
> If you want to parse idiomatic expressions as if they were standard grammar,
> then you're either a better or a dumber man that I, Gunga din; but you ought
> to try looking at what the speaker means by his idiomatic statements, and
> parsing that, instead.
>
> 'I go home' is one thing; 'I want to go home' is another matter entirely.
>
phrasal verb and leave it at that?
--Odysseus
Robert Lieblich
Each of my pairings contains two legitimate locutions in American
English. Read the "challenge" again -- I answered the mail. I
thought you were the proponent of dealing with reality and to hell
with all those artificial grammatical classifications. Now you're
parsing parts of speech to prove that I violated a rule that was
never imposed on me.
How does it feel?
Scott Edward Skinner
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
> Each of my pairings contains two legitimate locutions in American
> English. Read the "challenge" again -- I answered the mail. I
> thought you were the proponent of dealing with reality and to hell
> with all those artificial grammatical classifications. Now you're
> parsing parts of speech to prove that I violated a rule that was
> never imposed on me.
>
> How does it feel?
Actually, this is entirely my fault. I did not explain my "challenge"
fully and I apologize (and by apologize I mean this in the full dao4
qian4 Chinese sense of the word :-)
The complete challenge is:
I want to go <insert word here>
I want to go to my <insert same word here>
WHERE BOTH SENTENCES REMAIN SUBSTANTIVELY EQUIVALENT IN MEANING.
Your "north" example is pretty close but not quite; the connotations
are different.
-S
P. Schultz
>
> In article <3ADB97DB...@erols.com>, P. Schultz
> <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > As Sister
> > Nivard told us in second grade: "An adverb tells how, when, or where."
> >
> > Otherwise, "Daddy is home!" means that you live inside Daddy. Do you?
>
> This is a good point. See me other post regarding my friend's theory.
> When you say "Daddy is home!" you really mean "Daddy is at home!" only
> we leave off the article. Leaving off that article doesn't suddenly
> alter what "home" is or how "home" is being used here.
1) "At" is not an article. It's a preposition. (You're kind of fuzzy
about grammar dynamics and terminology aren't you? Come on, admit it.)
2) If "home" in this sentence means "at home", then you're saying that
"home" is a substitution for a prepositional phrase "at home". And,
clearly, the prepositional phrase "at home" acts as an adverb here.
(We're making real progress here now.) And if so, then you were wrong
when you said that "home" was the direct object of the verb in "I want
to go home." Right? It's ok, you can make the logical concession.
Everybody watching can see that you were wrong, so there's no sense in
back-pedaling. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's not an ego thing
here. You're not shaming yourself by the admission. Be a man here. You
were mistaken, right? Otherwise you'll just continue in a state of
arrogant self-stroking and chest-thumping philistinism, and you won't
make any spiritual progress. This is grammar we're talking here, and it
ain't for sissies. So, what do you say, huh? How manly are you going to
be, huh?
\\P. Schultz
Mark Wallace
"Scott Edward Skinner" <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:170420012308253601%sski...@cloud9.net...
That's how I read it. Robbie must have got the wrong idea (I wondered why
his posting was so ineffectual; he's usually much sharper than that).
> Your "north" example is pretty close but not quite; the connotations
> are different.
Yup.
Mark Wallace
"Odysseus" <odysseu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3ADCE2FC...@my-deja.com...
heh.
Actually, that works. It allows for more extra meaning to be added to the
phrase, context-dependantly.
Opinicus
> Can I sell my "downtown" to you? Can I renovate my "downtown?" What is
I think Donald Trump did once. Or at least tried to. And US downtowns are
frequently renovated after being trashed.
Scott Edward Skinner
<schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> 1) "At" is not an article. It's a preposition. (You're kind of fuzzy
> about grammar dynamics and terminology aren't you? Come on, admit it.)
Sure, I admit it.
> 2) If "home" in this sentence means "at home", then you're saying that
> "home" is a substitution for a prepositional phrase "at home". And,
> clearly, the prepositional phrase "at home" acts as an adverb here.
I'm going to have to decline your offer to recognize me as a bona fide
"man" and disagree. "At home" may indeed be a prepositional phrase and
an adverbial at that, but the "home" in "at home" is a noun at the
word-level. Just so that we understand each other, I am saying that
everything you said is correct *at the meta-word level*. It does not
follow, however, that a two-word adverbial reduces to an adverb.
> (We're making real progress here now.) And if so, then you were wrong
> when you said that "home" was the direct object of the verb in "I want
> to go home." Right? It's ok, you can make the logical concession.
> Everybody watching can see that you were wrong, so there's no sense in
> back-pedaling. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's not an ego thing
> here. You're not shaming yourself by the admission. Be a man here. You
> were mistaken, right? Otherwise you'll just continue in a state of
> arrogant self-stroking and chest-thumping philistinism, and you won't
> make any spiritual progress. This is grammar we're talking here, and it
> ain't for sissies. So, what do you say, huh? How manly are you going to
> be, huh?
Your logic is puzzling. Essentially you are saying, "Since you were
wrong about A, you must be wrong about B." Save your dimestore
psychology for your kids; if you want to convince me, address my
arguments with cogent and rational thought.
-S
Scott Edward Skinner
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
> > Would it solve this issue if we were to declare "to go home" a single
> > phrasal verb and leave it at that?
>
> heh.
> Actually, that works. It allows for more extra meaning to be added to the
> phrase, context-dependantly.
Seriously, will this work? Can you provide me with other examples of
single-phrasal verbs? I am "fuzzy" on this concept.
-S
P. Schultz
> <...>
> Don't worry. If anyone ever asks me I'll say it's an adverb. If I'm
> quizzed on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, I'll say it's an adverb.
> Secretly, however, I'll be thinking: NOUN!
I'm curious about your other secret thoughts. Like, when some asks you
what is two plus two, you say four. But you'll be thinking: FIVE!
\\P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Scott Edward Skinner" <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:170420012308253601%sski...@cloud9.net...
> > In article <3ADCE37C...@erols.com>, Robert Lieblich
> > <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Each of my pairings contains two legitimate locutions in American
> > > English. Read the "challenge" again -- I answered the mail. I
> > > thought you were the proponent of dealing with reality and to hell
> > > with all those artificial grammatical classifications. Now you're
> > > parsing parts of speech to prove that I violated a rule that was
> > > never imposed on me.
> > >
> > > How does it feel?
> >
> > Actually, this is entirely my fault. I did not explain my "challenge"
> > fully and I apologize (and by apologize I mean this in the full dao4
> > qian4 Chinese sense of the word :-)
> >
> > The complete challenge is:
> >
> > I want to go <insert word here>
> > I want to go to my <insert same word here>
> >
> > WHERE BOTH SENTENCES REMAIN SUBSTANTIVELY EQUIVALENT IN MEANING.
>
> That's how I read it. Robbie must have got the wrong idea (I wondered why
> his posting was so ineffectual; he's usually much sharper than that).
I'm a lawyer. Post a sentence that has a given meaning, and I
reserve the right to respond to that question as if it truly means
what it says. I may deign to notice and honor the unepxressed
implications, or I may not, depending on whatever such decisions
depend on. In this case I took the question literally -- which I
could do without even relying on any typographical error or pun or
any other gimmick like that -- and answered it literally. Did the
person asking the question get the answer he wanted? Plainly not.
But he got an answer to the question he asked. I have no obligation
to read his mind.
Okay, now we've all demonstrated how smug we can be, so I can
graciously concede that except for "north" (whoops, I snipped that
part), there is no exact or even close parallel of which I am aware
for "home" in the sentences in question if one seeks to maintain
parallel structure and semantics. Fair enough?
It still doesn't change the status of "home" in "I want to go
home." Adverb.
Scott Edward Skinner
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
> so I can
> graciously concede that except for "north" (whoops, I snipped that
> part), there is no exact or even close parallel of which I am aware
> for "home" in the sentences in question if one seeks to maintain
> parallel structure and semantics. Fair enough?
>
> It still doesn't change the status of "home" in "I want to go
> home." Adverb.
I appreciate your conceding this point to me.
I would like to explain why I believe this point is significant, but
before I do I would like to ask you: Can a *single* instance of a word
in a *single* sentence be classified as both an adverb and a noun at
the same time? For example, in:
I want to leave home.
What is "home" here? An adverb, a noun, or is it functioning as both an
adverb and a noun? Are the word-categories themselves mutually
exclusive? Are some word-categories mutually exclusive but not others?
For example, I cannot imagine a word functioning as an adjective in a
sentence while at the same time functioning as a verb. What do you
think?
-S
Robert Lieblich
This isn't like wave-particle duality, nor is it quantun physics in
any other respect. You can certainly analyze a word in a given
locution as being either a noun or an adverb -- we've done that on
this very thread. Adamant as I am in my opinion that "home" is an
adverb in "I want to go home," I've read my Korzybski, and I
acknowledge that my view is not necessarily the best one, much as I
may think so. And when we get to "I want to leave home," a case can
certainly be made that "home" is a noun in that sentence.
Merriam-Webster says it's a verb, but I interpret Cambridge as
saying it's a noun. But in terms of what part of speech it *is*,
you have to pick one. You can even agree that a good case can be
made for either -- but that doesn't mean it's both. It's one or the
other, hard as it may be in a given case to decide which it is, and
even though reasonable people can differ. It can no more be noun
and adverb simultaneously than Mars can be a planet and a sun
simultaneously.
But we're shading into epistemology here, and semantics, and perhaps
even philosophy on the hoof. And I'm rapidly getting over my
head. I have enough trouble just dealing with grammar.
Scott Edward Skinner
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
> It can no more be noun
> and adverb simultaneously than Mars can be a planet and a sun
> simultaneously.
Good. Then we are in agreement on this point. Now, given:
I want to leave home.
I want to leave home.
with "home" as an adverb in the former and "home" as a noun in the
latter, do you think these two sentences convey different meanings? If
so, what is the difference?
Can you see where I am going with this?
We have already agreed that words are classified according to how they
are used in a sentence. And now we agree that the classifications are
mutually exclusive with respect to a given instantiation. Logically,
then, if a word's classification changes, then the word's usage has
changed. We cannot claim that a word's classification has changed and
at the same time claim that the word's relationship to the other words
in the sentence has *not* changed. A change in the word-class can only
follow from a change in usage.
Now a change in usage would certainly change the meaning of the
sentence. So if you postulate that "home" can be an adverb in the
former and a noun in the latter, then the sentences must convey
different meanings. And yet they are identical...
We are almost at the point where I can bring this back to my example.
But first I would like to give you an opportunity to respond.
-S
Robert Lieblich
[ . . . ]
> Now a change in usage would certainly change the meaning of the
> sentence.
Not necessarily. It may simply mean that there are two ways (or
more) of analyzing the same sentence with the same meaning, just as
you have several choices of routes from point A to point B when
driving, yet you always wind up at point B. Routes aside, you can
go by taxi, train, plain, pedicab, horseback, depending on what's
available. Yet again, you always wind up at point B. And so it is
in your case -- call each word whatever part of speech you want;
when you're done labeling, you still have the same sentence with the
same meaning.
> So if you postulate that "home" can be an adverb in the
> former and a noun in the latter, then the sentences must convey
> different meanings.
False premise. False conclusion.
> And yet they are identical...
They are *the same* sentence, not two different identical sentences
-- whatever on earth that is supposed to mean. What differs is how
you analyze them, not what they say or what they mean. The meaning
does not change.
Okay, you might be able to contrive sentences where the meaning
changes as the part of speech changes. But not "I want to leave
home."
> We are almost at the point where I can bring this back to my example.
> But first I would like to give you an opportunity to respond.
Good thing you did. You were drifting into dangerous waters.
(I know I promised a few postings ago to shut up about this. But
look at the fun I'm having.)
Scott Edward Skinner
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Now a change in usage would certainly change the meaning of the
> > sentence.
>
> Not necessarily. It may simply mean that there are two ways (or
> more) of analyzing the same sentence with the same meaning
I agree that a sentence can be analyzed at the word-level, the
meta-word level, etc., and none of this changes the meaning of the
sentence. But are you really attempting to argue that parts of speech
have no relation to the meaning of a sentence?! Consider this example:
<Some word> Stevens wants to go home.
Now if I tell you that "some word" is a proper noun (perhaps Stevens'
first name), will the sentence communicate the same exact information
as when "some word" is an adjective? I think not.
> just as
> you have several choices of routes from point A to point B when
> driving, yet you always wind up at point B. Routes aside, you can
> go by taxi, train, plain, pedicab, horseback, depending on what's
> available. Yet again, you always wind up at point B. And so it is
> in your case -- call each word whatever part of speech you want;
> when you're done labeling, you still have the same sentence with the
> same meaning.
But we cannot "call each word whatever part of speech [we] want." The
part of speech is determined by usage and meaning on the one hand, and
the category definitions on the other. Mutually exclusive categories
means no overlap and no fuzziness in which to make a choice.
Classification is not an arbitrary process.
-S
Mark Wallace
> Mark Wallace wrote:
> >
> > "Scott Edward Skinner" <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> > news:170420012308253601%sski...@cloud9.net...
> > > In article <3ADCE37C...@erols.com>, Robert Lieblich
> > > <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Each of my pairings contains two legitimate locutions in American
> > > > English. Read the "challenge" again -- I answered the mail. I
> > > > thought you were the proponent of dealing with reality and to hell
> > > > with all those artificial grammatical classifications. Now you're
> > > > parsing parts of speech to prove that I violated a rule that was
> > > > never imposed on me.
> > > >
> > > > How does it feel?
> > >
> > > Actually, this is entirely my fault. I did not explain my "challenge"
> > > fully and I apologize (and by apologize I mean this in the full dao4
> > > qian4 Chinese sense of the word :-)
> > >
> > > The complete challenge is:
> > >
> > > I want to go <insert word here>
> > > I want to go to my <insert same word here>
> > >
> > > WHERE BOTH SENTENCES REMAIN SUBSTANTIVELY EQUIVALENT IN MEANING.
> >
> > That's how I read it. Robbie must have got the wrong idea (I wondered
why
> > his posting was so ineffectual; he's usually much sharper than that).
>
> I'm a lawyer.
There's a condemnation, if ever I heard one.
> Post a sentence that has a given meaning, and I
> reserve the right to respond to that question as if it truly means
> what it says. I may deign to notice and honor the unepxressed
> implications, or I may not, depending on whatever such decisions
> depend on. In this case I took the question literally -- which I
> could do without even relying on any typographical error or pun or
> any other gimmick like that -- and answered it literally. Did the
> person asking the question get the answer he wanted? Plainly not.
> But he got an answer to the question he asked. I have no obligation
> to read his mind.
I wouldn't argue with that.
> Okay, now we've all demonstrated how smug we can be, so I can
> graciously concede that except for "north" (whoops, I snipped that
> part), there is no exact or even close parallel of which I am aware
> for "home" in the sentences in question if one seeks to maintain
> parallel structure and semantics. Fair enough?
I tried to think of one, myself, and came up blank.
But doesn't this seeming uniqueness tell you something? Where else does
similar exclusivity occur?
> It still doesn't change the status of "home" in "I want to go
> home." Adverb.
An adverbial usage which has a unique result, if one particular noun is used
to form it, but has another result if formed from any other word?
I think not.
Mark Wallace
Play fair; that's not what Robert said (well, it might be *literally* what
he said, but his intent was obvious).
In the clause:
-- John got away with the money.
'Got away with' could be parsed as a phrasal verb, or 'away with' could be
parsed as a prepositional phrase; but not both at the same time. This is
not a perfect example, I know; and I'm pushing it a bit; but it confirms
Robert's point that the meaning of the sentence does not change, whichever
preference is applied to the parsing of it -- without having to stimulate my
currently torporous mind into too much activity.
If you're leading up to the idea that if a word in a particular sentence
*can* be classified as one part of speech, then it can *not* be subsequently
classified as another, it won't work.
I will readily admit that there will be instances of 'I want to go home'
where the meaning is adverbial; as in the context:
"What do you fancy doing?"
"Dunno. I think I'll just go home."
However, the intrinsic intent of the 'desire to be in a special place' which
normally accompanies the phrase is lost, in this instance.
Parsing the sentence with meaning shows that 'I want to go home' is a
special case. 'Home' is a noun.
Hell, I'm expressing myself like a squirrel at a hazelnut convention, this
morning. I think I'll quit whilst I'm ahead.
Mark Wallace
It would be pushing it a bit (a bit further than I'd like to push it, that
is), and it wouldn't resolve the discussion at hand. With many phrasal
verbs it can be argued that the sentences which contain them can be parsed
directly; and the 'adverb supporters' will argue that point.
Scott Edward Skinner
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
> Play fair; that's not what Robert said (well, it might be *literally* what
> he said, but his intent was obvious).
> In the clause:
> -- John got away with the money.
> 'Got away with' could be parsed as a phrasal verb, or 'away with' could be
> parsed as a prepositional phrase; but not both at the same time.
But in this case you are comparing apples (got away with; phrasal verb
word-class) with oranges (away with; meta-word class prepositional
phrase). I am talking about an instance where only the word-class is
reevaluated, as in:
I want to leave home. [home as adverb]
I want to leave home. [home as noun]
Clearly, if you are willing to call "leave home" a phrasal verb then
this paradox is solved quite nicely. If not, and if the word-categories
are mutually exclusive, then either the substantive informational
content must change or one of these evaluations is incorrect.
> If you're leading up to the idea that if a word in a particular sentence
> *can* be classified as one part of speech, then it can *not* be subsequently
> classified as another, it won't work.
Would you say that a meta-word class evaluation takes precedence over a
word-class evaluation? Are higher-level evaluations more meaningful? I
will accept this.
> I will readily admit that there will be instances of 'I want to go home'
> where the meaning is adverbial; as in the context:
> "What do you fancy doing?"
> "Dunno. I think I'll just go home."
> However, the intrinsic intent of the 'desire to be in a special place' which
> normally accompanies the phrase is lost, in this instance.
I understand. So here, you're showing that:
"What do you fancy doing?"
I think I'll just go home. [home as adverb; emphasis is on verb]
"Where do you fancy having dinner?"
I think I'll just go home. [home as noun; emphasis is on noun]
The same sentence carries a subtle difference in connotation as
determined by its context. I will concede the point. I doubt, however,
that this is possible with any other word-class pairings.
S
Chris C
<sski...@cloud9.net> wrote:
> In article <3ADE58DB...@erols.com>, Robert Lieblich
> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now a change in usage would certainly change the meaning of the
> > > sentence.
> >
> > Not necessarily. It may simply mean that there are two ways (or
> > more) of analyzing the same sentence with the same meaning
>
> I agree that a sentence can be analyzed at the word-level, the
> meta-word level, etc., and none of this changes the meaning of the
> sentence. But are you really attempting to argue that parts of speech
> have no relation to the meaning of a sentence?! Consider this example:
>
> <Some word> Stevens wants to go home.
> Now if I tell you that "some word" is a proper noun (perhaps Stevens'
> first name), will the sentence communicate the same exact information
> as when "some word" is an adjective? I think not.
Come on - you chose 'Stevens' deliberately. The answer is Shakin' and you
know it's both an adjective and his first name.
Now if you'd said 'Eisenstein' I might have had a problem.
(snip)
Chris C
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <3ADE58DB...@erols.com>, Robert Lieblich
> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now a change in usage would certainly change the meaning of the
> > > sentence.
> >
> > Not necessarily. It may simply mean that there are two ways (or
> > more) of analyzing the same sentence with the same meaning
>
> I agree that a sentence can be analyzed at the word-level, the
> meta-word level, etc., and none of this changes the meaning of the
> sentence. But are you really attempting to argue that parts of speech
> have no relation to the meaning of a sentence?! Consider this example:
>
> <Some word> Stevens wants to go home.
>
> Now if I tell you that "some word" is a proper noun (perhaps Stevens'
> first name), will the sentence communicate the same exact information
> as when "some word" is an adjective? I think not.
But I understood youto be saying that one could find different
meanings in sentences that did not differ by the words they
contained, only by the part of speech of one or more of the
(unchanged) words. That's what I was responding to. Of course you
can change the meaning of a sentence by inserting differing words in
it. A valid point, but trivial.
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <9bm2ri$a4u8l$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>, Mark Wallace
> <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>
> > Play fair; that's not what Robert said (well, it might be *literally* what
> > he said, but his intent was obvious).
> > In the clause:
> > -- John got away with the money.
> > 'Got away with' could be parsed as a phrasal verb, or 'away with' could be
> > parsed as a prepositional phrase; but not both at the same time.
>
> But in this case you are comparing apples (got away with; phrasal verb
> word-class) with oranges (away with; meta-word class prepositional
> phrase). I am talking about an instance where only the word-class is
> reevaluated, as in:
>
> I want to leave home. [home as adverb]
> I want to leave home. [home as noun]
>
> Clearly, if you are willing to call "leave home" a phrasal verb then
> this paradox is solved quite nicely. If not, and if the word-categories
> are mutually exclusive, then either the substantive informational
> content must change or one of these evaluations is incorrect.
Well, of course only one evaluation is correct if both words and
content remain unchanged. But "correct" itself can vary, depending
on which system of grammar and syntax you use. A capable linguist
could probably analyze a sentence like "I want to leave home"
without ever mentioning a word class (aka part of speech). His
analysis would be correct in his system, and possibly gibberish to
you and me. But within a given system, one answer is correct and
all others are wrong. The problem is that there's no guarantee
we're using the same system. Mark Wallace frequently uses the
Wallace System. He's right in his own terms. The rest of us
disagree with him because we don't subscribe to his system.
In your own example ("leave home"), it appears that M-W thinks
"home" is an adverb and Cambridge thinks it's a noun. They are
clearly applying different grammatical views to the same sentence.
But the meaning of the sentence doesn't change -- only the
terminology used to parse it.
You are making obvious points by overlooking the deeper implications
of what you're saying, and this is becoming tiresome. Sorry.
>
> > If you're leading up to the idea that if a word in a particular sentence
> > *can* be classified as one part of speech, then it can *not* be subsequently
> > classified as another, it won't work.
I'm not "leading up" to it, I've been there all along. In any given
system, of course.
Odysseus
>
> > > Would it solve this issue if we were to declare "to go home" a single
> > > phrasal verb and leave it at that?
> >
> > heh.
> > Actually, that works. It allows for more extra meaning to be added to the
> > phrase, context-dependantly.
>
> Seriously, will this work? Can you provide me with other examples of
> single-phrasal verbs? I am "fuzzy" on this concept.
>
example would be "throw up" (= vomit), whose meaning cannot be deduced
(or at lest is not obvious) from the component words, which are often,
as in this example, a verb and a preposition.
--Odysseus
P. Schultz
>
> I'm not sure of the precise definition of a phrasal verb, but a typical
> example would be "throw up" (= vomit), whose meaning cannot be deduced
> (or at lest is not obvious) from the component words, which are often,
> as in this example, a verb and a preposition.
Often the meaning is obvious ("Pick up the book"). The fact that the
meaning of something isn't obvious from its components makes it an
idiom.
\\P. Schultz
Scott Edward Skinner
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
> In your own example ("leave home"), it appears that M-W thinks
> "home" is an adverb and Cambridge thinks it's a noun. They are
> clearly applying different grammatical views to the same sentence.
> But the meaning of the sentence doesn't change -- only the
> terminology used to parse it.
> You are making obvious points by overlooking the deeper implications
> of what you're saying, and this is becoming tiresome. Sorry.
Forgive me for making obvious and tiresome points. It may indeed be
that I am slow in catching on. Will you bear with me for just a moment?
First off, let us define what you mean by "grammatical views."
POSSIBLE GRAMMATICAL VIEWS (NOT INCLUSIVE):
A word can be viewed as a (noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc.)
A word can be viewed as a (subject, object, etc.)
A word can be viewed as a (content word, function word, etc.)
And the list goes on and on. Now, I am *not* denying that you can view
a word on one or more of these levels without altering the meaning of
the sentence. I *am* denying that you can alter what a word is within
any given view without altering the meaning. For example, you cannot
say a word that was once a proper noun is now and adjective, and have
the meaning remain unchanged. You cannot say a subject is now an object
without altering the meaning. You cannot say a content word is now a
function word without altering the meaning. Obvious? Tiresome? Sorry,
but if you reread the paragraph that you wrote that I quoted above, it
sounds as if you are saying that M-W can say adverb, Cambridge can say
noun, and they are both right, and the meaning doesn't change.
Mark gave me an idea for a simple proof. The same exact sentence will
indeed change meaning if the words are being used differently (within
the same "view"). You may be able to deduce the part-of-speech from the
context. For example:
What do you fancy doing?
The answer to your question is: I want to go home. (Home is an adverb
here; emphasis is on the verb).
Where, which is to say, what special specific place with a definite
boundary and an exact location, would you like to reside tonight?
The answer to your question is: I want to go home. (Home is a noun
here; emphasis is on the noun).
Now if you claim that "home" is an adverb in the second example, then
the answer does not make any sense, because the question is asking for
a noun, not an adverb. Note that the answer does indeed make sense
precisely due to the idiomatic and unusual way in which "home" can be
used.
-S
Scott Edward Skinner
Skinner <sski...@cloud9.net> wrote:
> What do you fancy doing?
> The answer to your question is: I want to go home. (Home is an adverb
> here; emphasis is on the verb).
>
> Where, which is to say, what special specific place with a definite
> boundary and an exact location, would you like to reside tonight?
> The answer to your question is: I want to go home. (Home is a noun
> here; emphasis is on the noun).
>
> Now if you claim that "home" is an adverb in the second example, then
> the answer does not make any sense, because the question is asking for
> a noun, not an adverb.
More accurately, the question is asking for an adverbial (which
contains a noun). However, no mere aderb would make sense as an answer.
-S
Mark Wallace
> Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> >
> > In article <9bm2ri$a4u8l$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>, Mark Wallace
> > <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
> In your own example ("leave home"), it appears that M-W thinks
> "home" is an adverb and Cambridge thinks it's a noun. They are
> clearly applying different grammatical views to the same sentence.
> But the meaning of the sentence doesn't change -- only the
> terminology used to parse it.
Did I say that? If I did, it was a slip of the pen.
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3ADF7D64...@erols.com...
> > Scott Edward Skinner wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <9bm2ri$a4u8l$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>, Mark Wallace
> > > <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>
> > In your own example ("leave home"), it appears that M-W thinks
> > "home" is an adverb and Cambridge thinks it's a noun. They are
> > clearly applying different grammatical views to the same sentence.
> > But the meaning of the sentence doesn't change -- only the
> > terminology used to parse it.
>
> Did I say that? If I did, it was a slip of the pen.
I said that. I stand by it. I hope I possess sufficient restraint
that this is the last thing I say on this thread.
Mark Wallace
Oop! The *other* MW.
My misread.
meirm...@erols.com
<odysseu...@my-deja.com> posted:
Er, adverb?
Is this where I came in?
>--Odysseus
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Posted on %date%, at %time%
Richard Maurer
The complete challenge is:
I want to go <insert word here>
I want to go to my <insert same word here>
WHERE BOTH SENTENCES REMAIN SUBSTANTIVELY EQUIVALENT IN MEANING.
>>>>
Will this do?
I want to go work.
I want to go to my work.
Here work may be fixing a fence.
The similarity with "I want to go home" is that there is presumably
only one such "home" or "work" in mind.
Also, different preposition but similar structure,
I want to go her way.
I want to go via her way.
especially if we agree that "my home" is implied in "to go home".
We could write out in full a reasonable expansion for "I want to go home"
and compare with another sentence
I want to go to my home.
I want to go to Mary's home.
The first thought has been expressed thousands of times by nearly everyone,
including 6 year olds, so it is normal that a few superfluous words were
dropped.
Home is an old and special word, worthy of exceptions.
------ ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of the homonym of the synonym for also.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer
I want to go work.
I want to go to my work.
believing that the first expands to
I want to go do my work
which sounds similar, but that is not the point.
Or it expands to
I want to go and do my work.
I will keep
I want to go her way.
I want to go via her way.
delme
delme