"I'm loving it!" --- Is the sentence grammatical?
Frank Fang
love. We should use present or past tense."
But yesterday, I saw a propoganda (advertisement) slogan in
MacDonald:"I'm loving it!" So I want to know whether the sentence is
grammatical.
Thanks.
Mike987
- in other words, not at all. But then many advertising slogans are
ungrammatical, since this can make them more memorable.
datsy
It's certainly ungrammatical according to the rule book, but I think it's
being used more and more in everyday life, not just in advertising slogans,
e.g. "I've got a new job and I'm loving it!". I can see the grammar books
changing over this one in the not too distant future.
James Taylor
Mike987 <mik...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> In article <64ead18.04021...@posting.google.com>,
> Frank Fang <synta...@163.com> wrote:
> >
> > Our teacher says, "Never use progressive tense with verbs like know or
> > or love. We should use present or past tense." But yesterday, I saw a
> > propoganda (advertisement) slogan in MacDonald: "I'm loving it!"
> > So I want to know whether the sentence is grammatical.
>
> - in other words, not at all.
Please would someone explain this to me. I am not familiar with
the meta-language of grammar such as "progressive tense", although
my assumption is that this refers to words that end in ~ing.
Is it not the case that any verb can be used in the progressive
tense if one is in the process of enacting the verb? Therefore,
while it may be more natural to say "I love it", isn't it also
valid to say "I am currently loving it"? In the latter usage
the word "loving" is synonymous with "enjoying" except stronger.
It seems to me that the former usage suggests that I always
love it, when I get the opportunity, although I may not currently
be in the position of enjoying it right now. (Eg. I love pizza.)
The latter usage suggests that I am indeed loving it right now,
but with the implication that the loving is not static and may
change in future. (Eg. I'm loving that book you leant me.)
Anyway, how would you distinguish the verbs that should not be
used in the progressive tense from those that can be used this way?
Thanks.
--
James Taylor, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK. PGP key: 3FBE1BF9
To protect against spam, the address in the "From:" header is not valid.
In any case, you should reply to the group so that everyone can benefit.
If you must send me a private email, use james at oakseed demon co uk.
datsy
> Please would someone explain this to me. I am not familiar with
> the meta-language of grammar such as "progressive tense", although
> my assumption is that this refers to words that end in ~ing.
>
> Is it not the case that any verb can be used in the progressive
> tense if one is in the process of enacting the verb? Therefore,
> while it may be more natural to say "I love it", isn't it also
> valid to say "I am currently loving it"? In the latter usage
> the word "loving" is synonymous with "enjoying" except stronger.
> It seems to me that the former usage suggests that I always
> love it, when I get the opportunity, although I may not currently
> be in the position of enjoying it right now. (Eg. I love pizza.)
> The latter usage suggests that I am indeed loving it right now,
> but with the implication that the loving is not static and may
> change in future. (Eg. I'm loving that book you leant me.)
>
> Anyway, how would you distinguish the verbs that should not be
> used in the progressive tense from those that can be used this way?
>
Yes, the progressive or continuous refers to the -ing form. You are also
right when you say that this is used when you are currently doing something.
However, there are a number of verbs which are not used in the continuous
form, e.g. verbs which express feeling or having opinions such as believe,
know, love, hate, etc.; verbs to do with the senses such as taste, see,
hear, etc. You would never say "I'm loving you", for example, but I think it
is changing where love has the meaning of enjoy.
Mxsmanic
> Our teacher says, "Never use progressive tense with verbs like know or
> love. We should use present or past tense."
Is your teacher a native speaker?
Always be wary of rules stated as absolutes, as there are very few such
rules in real-world grammar.
> But yesterday, I saw a propoganda (advertisement) slogan in
> MacDonald:"I'm loving it!" So I want to know whether the sentence is
> grammatical.
Yes, it is.
The progressive tenses are used to describe things that have a
beginning, a duration, and an end in the mind of the speaker. "I'm
loving it" emphasizes loving something as a thing that begins and
continues, and thus functions as an intensive.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> Please would someone explain this to me. I am not familiar with
> the meta-language of grammar such as "progressive tense", although
> my assumption is that this refers to words that end in ~ing.
Progressive tenses in English are those formed with the verb "be" plus
the present participle of another verb, e.g., "I am loving this" as
opposed to "I love this."
> Is it not the case that any verb can be used in the progressive
> tense if one is in the process of enacting the verb?
Fundamentally, progressive tenses are used when the speaker has in mind
the clear notion of a beginning, duration, and end to the action.
Simple tenses are used when the duration, beginning, and end of the
thing described are nonexistent or unimportant.
"The sun shines every day." = The sun is always there, its shine has no
beginning, end, or duration, or these are irrelevant.
"The sun is shining this afternoon." = The shine of the sun is has
begun, it is now in progress, and presumably it will end at some point.
Very often progressive tenses are used to describe something in progress
when something else happens:
"The sun was shining when I left the house."
> Therefore, while it may be more natural to say "I love it",
> isn't it also valid to say "I am currently loving it"?
It's perfectly valid to say it, as long as the meaning implied by the
use of the progressive is the one you intend. In this case, using the
progressive emphasizes the action, and thus works as an intensifier.
Loving it didn't just happen independently of time, it is an ongoing
process, something important enough to consider in its duration.
> In the latter usage the word "loving" is synonymous with "enjoying"
> except stronger.
Exactly.
> It seems to me that the former usage suggests that I always
> love it, when I get the opportunity, although I may not currently
> be in the position of enjoying it right now. (Eg. I love pizza.)
That's one typical connotation of the simple tenses. Another
connotation may be that the beginning, end, and duration of the action
described are not relevant in context. Both connotations are variations
of the same theme.
To native speakers, use of the progressive tense always implies a sort
of bar on a timeline in one way or another, whereas use of the simple
tense implies a simple X or line at a specific instant (or something
that isn't really marked at any specific point on the timeline at all).
> The latter usage suggests that I am indeed loving it right now,
> but with the implication that the loving is not static and may
> change in future. (Eg. I'm loving that book you leant me.)
You're overcomplicating things. It just emphasizes the process of
loving, thereby intensifying its meaning.
> Anyway, how would you distinguish the verbs that should not be
> used in the progressive tense from those that can be used this way?
Just about any verb can be used in a progressive tense, if the use of
the progressive tense fits the meaning you wish to convey. It's not
that certain verbs are forbidden, it's just that certain verbs rarely
are used to express meanings that require a progressive construction.
You're generally always free to use either construction, as long as it
correctly expresses what you wish to say. That's the key, not the rules
in a book. Remember the bar on the timeline.
Mxsmanic
> You would never say "I'm loving you", for example ...
Sure you would, if you needed that notion of duration, beginning, or
end. It's just that this type of notion is rarely needed with that
particular verb in its most common senses.
Mike987
>> MacDonald:"I'm loving it!" So I want to know whether the sentence is
>> grammatical.
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>The progressive tenses are used to describe things that have a
>beginning, a duration, and an end in the mind of the speaker. "I'm
>loving it" emphasizes loving something as a thing that begins and
>continues, and thus functions as an intensive.
No it's not.
"Love" is a non-progressive verb, so is not used in the progressive
form in grammatically correct English. See, for example, Swan,
Practical English Usage, Second Edition, section 451.2.
James Taylor
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> progressive tenses are used when the speaker has in mind the
> clear notion of a beginning, duration, and end to the action.
Thanks err... "Mxsmanic", I now feel I understand it.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
'Love' is a stative verb. Stative verbs are not normally used in the
progressive (unless you want to sound like you are from the
subcontinent). You could even argue that when 'love' is used in the
progressive, it ceases to be a stative verb. For example, if someone
were to be having sex with someone else and said, "I am loving you", the
person would be referring to the action of making love and not the
stative meaning of 'love'.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > Therefore, while it may be more natural to say "I love it",
> > isn't it also valid to say "I am currently loving it"?
>
> It's perfectly valid to say it, as long as the meaning implied by the
> use of the progressive is the one you intend. In this case, using the
> progressive emphasizes the action, and thus works as an intensifier.
>
I would suggest not using the progressive as a way to show
intensification for stative verbs. The McDonald's slogan has gotten a
lot of heat for being slangy and if your statement lacks the immediacy
of eating a Big Mac, you could get into trouble.
> You're generally always free to use either construction, as long as it
> correctly expresses what you wish to say. That's the key, not the rules
> in a book. Remember the bar on the timeline.
>
Here's a useful webpage with a list of stative verbs:
http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/progressive.htm
#begin quote
The progressive forms of a verb indicate that something is happening or
was happening or will be happening. When used with the past, the
progressive form shows the limited duration of an event: "While I was
doing my homework, my brother came into my room." The past progressive
also suggests that an action in the past was not entirely finished.
(Compare "I did my homework." to "I was doing my homework.") This is
even more evident in the passive progressive construction: "He was being
strangled in the alley" suggests an action that was not finished,
perhaps because the act was interrupted by a good citizen, whereas the
simple past "He was strangled in the alley" suggests an action that was
finished, unfortunately.
A neat categorization of the uses of the progressive can be found on the
page describing the "To Be" Verb.
The progressive forms occur only with dynamic verbs, that is, with verbs
that show qualities capable of change as opposed to stative verbs, which
show qualities not capable of change.* For instance, we do not say, "He
is being tall" or "He is resembling his mother" or "I am wanting
spaghetti for dinner" or "It is belonging to me." (We would say,
instead: "He is tall," "He resembles his mother," "I want spaghetti,"
and "It belongs to me.") The best way to understand the difference
between stative and dynamic verbs is to look at a table that lists them
and breaks them into categories and then to build some sentences with
them, trying out the progressive forms to see if they work or not.
These categories and lists are derived from Randolph Quirk and Sidney
Greenbaum's A University Grammar of English (used with the publisher's
permission). The examples are our own. The lists are not meant to be
complete.
DYNAMIC VERBS
Activity Verbs
I am begging you. I was learning French. They will be playing upstairs..
Virtually identical in meaning to simple tense forms:
I beg you. I learned French. They will play upstairs.
abandon
ask
beg
call
drink eat
help
learn
listen
look at play
rain
read
say
slice throw
whisper
work
write
Process Verbs
The corn is growing rapidly. Traffic is slowing down.
Virtually identical in meaning to simple present tense forms:
The corn grows rapidly. Traffic slows down.
change
deteriorate grow
mature slow down widen
Verbs of Bodily Sensation
"I feel bad" and "I am feeling bad" are virtually identical in meaning.
ache feel hurt itch
Transitional Events Verbs
Progressive forms indicate the beginning of an event,
as opposed to the simple present tense.
"She was falling out of bed [when I caught her]" as opposed to
"She falls out of bed every night."
arrive
die fall
land leave lose
Momentary Verbs
Progressive forms indicate little duration and suggest repetition.
She is hitting her brother.
He is jumping around the house.
hit
jump kick
knock nod tap
STATIVE VERBS
Verbs of Inert Perception and Cognition*
I detest rudabaga, but not I am detesting rudabaga.
I prefer cinnamon toast, but not I am preferring cinnamon toast.
abhor
adore
astonish
believe
desire
detest
dislike
doubt
feel
forgive
guess
hate
hear
imagine
impress
intend
know
like
love
mean
mind
perceive
please
prefer
presuppose
realize
recall
recognize
regard
remember
satisfy
see
smell
suppose
taste
think
understand
want
wish
Relational Verbs
I am sick, but not I am being sick.
I own ten acres of land, but not I am owning ten acres.
My brother owes me ten dollars" but not
My brother is owing me ten dollars.
be*
belong to
concern
consist of
contain
cost
depend on
deserve
equal
fit
have
include
involve
lack
matter
need
owe
own
possess
require
require
resemble
seem
sound
*Kolln suggests that we think of the difference between stative and
dynamic in terms of "willed" and "nonwilled" qualities. Consider the
difference between a so-called dynamic adjective (or subject complement)
and a stative adjective (or subject complement): "I am silly" OR "I am
being silly" versus "I am tall." I have chosen to be silly; I have no
choice about being tall. Thus "tall" is said to be a stative (or an
"inert") quality, and we cannot say "I am being tall"; "silly," on the
other hand, is dynamic so we can use progressive verb forms in
conjunction with that quality.
The same applies to verbs. Two plus two equals four. Equals is inert,
stative, and cannot take the progressive; there is no choice, no
volition in the matter. (We would not say, "Two plus two is equalling
four.") In the same way, nouns and pronouns can be said to exhibit
willed and unwilled characteristics. Thus, "She is being a good worker"
(because she chooses to be so), but we would say "She is (not is being)
an Olympic athlete" (because once she becomes an athlete she no longer
"wills it").
Mxsmanic
writes:
> I would suggest not using the progressive as a way to show
> intensification for stative verbs.
It's a matter of personal preference.
> The McDonald's slogan has gotten a lot of heat for being slangy ...
So their objective of widespread publicity has been achieved.
> ... and if your statement lacks the immediacy
> of eating a Big Mac, you could get into trouble.
I wouldn't use it as an intensive, but this type of construction is not
absent from proper English. "I'm going to the movies tonight" is an
example of the same type of construction: it implies that going to the
movies is a process, with a beginning marked by the purchase of tickets
or the decision to go, a duration marked by waiting to go, and an end
marked by going. Emphasizing this entire process (which normally would
not be treated as a unit) is a form of intensification, even though
English teachers don't usually teach it or understand it that way (as
they simply repeat what they've learned from books).
> Here's a useful webpage with a list of stative verbs:
I don't worry much about stative verbs. Communication is important.
The progressive is not used with many verbs simply because it rarely
makes sense with those verbs, not because there is any ironclad
prohibition on doing so.
> The progressive forms of a verb indicate that something is happening or
> was happening or will be happening. When used with the past, the
> progressive form shows the limited duration of an event: "While I was
> doing my homework, my brother came into my room." The past progressive
> also suggests that an action in the past was not entirely finished.
> (Compare "I did my homework." to "I was doing my homework.") This is
> even more evident in the passive progressive construction: "He was being
> strangled in the alley" suggests an action that was not finished,
> perhaps because the act was interrupted by a good citizen, whereas the
> simple past "He was strangled in the alley" suggests an action that was
> finished, unfortunately.
This is just a longwinded restatement of what I've already said: Using
the progressive implies that the speaker has in mind a beginning, an
end, and a duration. Using simple tenses implies that the speaker
either doesn't care about these details, or they are not applicable.
Obviously, given my own simple definition above, stative verbs would
rarely be used in progressive tenses, as states often do not have
beginnings or endings (or at least these are often ignored).
> The progressive forms occur only with dynamic verbs, that is, with verbs
> that show qualities capable of change as opposed to stative verbs, which
> show qualities not capable of change.* For instance, we do not say, "He
> is being tall" or "He is resembling his mother" or "I am wanting
> spaghetti for dinner" or "It is belonging to me." (We would say,
> instead: "He is tall," "He resembles his mother," "I want spaghetti,"
> and "It belongs to me.") The best way to understand the difference
> between stative and dynamic verbs is to look at a table that lists them
> and breaks them into categories and then to build some sentences with
> them, trying out the progressive forms to see if they work or not.
Another long-winded restatement of the same basic thing.
> These categories and lists are derived from Randolph Quirk and Sidney
> Greenbaum's A University Grammar of English (used with the publisher's
> permission). The examples are our own. The lists are not meant to be
> complete.
They must have had word counts to achieve for their publishers.
Do you really expect students to memorize lists of verbs? Native
speakers don't, and they use the progressive correctly. Therefore
students need not, and yet they'll still be able to use the progressive
correctly, too. Once you know what the progressive does, certain verbs
tend not to be used with it automatically--you don't have to memorize
them.
> *Kolln suggests that we think of the difference between stative and
> dynamic in terms of "willed" and "nonwilled" qualities.
Kolln must have had a pressing need to publish and a word count to meet.
One thing about people who study something all their lives is that they
tend to overcomplicate what they study. Sometimes Occam's Razor is
useful in linguistics.
> We would not say, "Two plus two is equalling four."
Because it isn't something with a beginning, a duration, and an end.
Simple.
> In the same way, nouns and pronouns can be said to exhibit
> willed and unwilled characteristics.
Sure, if you've studied grammar for forty years and you're trying to
justify those four decades of activity. Or you can just go with the
simple rule above and not worry about it.
Mxsmanic
> No it's not.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you won't be persuasive without
supporting arguments.
> "Love" is a non-progressive verb, so is not used in the progressive
> form in grammatically correct English.
No. Love is a verb that rarely finds use in constructions that
reference things with a beginning, a duration, and an end; and so this
verb is rarely seen in progressive tenses.
> See, for example, Swan, Practical English Usage, Second Edition,
> section 451.2.
No need. I already know what I'm doing.
Mxsmanic
writes:
> 'Love' is a stative verb. Stative verbs are not normally used in the
> progressive (unless you want to sound like you are from the
> subcontinent).
Or unless you have a specific meaning you wish to convey that emphasizes
duration, beginning, and end.
It's not the verb that matters, it's the fuhction of what you are
saying.
> You could even argue that when 'love' is used in the
> progressive, it ceases to be a stative verb.
Sure, and you could argue about how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin, too. But what would be the point?
> For example, if someone were to be having sex with someone else
> and said, "I am loving you", the person would be referring to the
> action of making love and not the stative meaning of 'love'.
More simply, the action has a beginning, a duration, and an end in the
mind of the speaker ... and he uses the progressive tense to convey
this. The verb doesn't matter.
liliana...@gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.society.liberalism/qjcAKAqfBtI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.society.liberalism/uw0qE_5DBRY
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.society.liberalism/SqD42SGNowQ
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.society.liberalism/ELCW5L44Q_o
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.women/bimvoT4ujok
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.women/Vi1etPY0Dwc
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.women/fapcB0YWtYk