Dear MrPedantic, yulysess, and Roro,
We have opened several issues in this thread. I would like to go over
some of them and state what my thinking is about them now that we have
discussed them.
MrPedantic's original post asked why
very and
much cannot be used equally, interchangeably
when modifying regular adjectives, present participles, and past participles.
1. I would say that the adverbial use of
much, in the sense of
very, has simply evolved into what it is:
| usu. used with adjectival past participles "much
interested", "much pleased by the compliment", "much gratified" and in
negative constructions "not much good at all". |
|
---
Webster's Third New International Dictionary. MrPedantic's argument does not answer its use in negative constructions:
She did not study much. For a more detailed explanation, go back 800 years and trace its use. (Note that adverbial
much by itself has very limited use, while
very can
be applied to: regular adjectives, adverbs, adjectival present
participles, and adjectival past participles. Perhaps adverbial
much evolved as just a fill-in in those applications where
very cannot be used.)
2. As yulysess noted, we do not use
very to modify verbs.
Very has been used as a pure intensive since Middle English. The use of
very becomes debatable with verbals, which have a dual character of verbs and modifiers. In the long article I quoted from
Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, it is argued that premodificaton by
very is a characteristic, explicit indication, test of
adjectives, not participles. Then the question is not whether
very should
modify a participle, but is the participle an adjective. Quirk
gives four tests for determining if a participle is an adjective, but
"...for all practical purposes you are going to have to trust your
ear." Participles tend to become acceptably adjectival over time.
In this vein, I would like to quote from
Understanding Grammar, by Paul Roberts:
The peculiar characteristic of the participle is that it is at
once part modifier and part verb. We see its modifying nature in
its ability to fulfill all the functions of the adjective; it is
verblike in its ability to express tense and voice and to be attended
by subjects and objects. Some theorists attempt to distinguish
participles with adjectival force and participles with verb
force. They would find adjectival force in sitting in "a sitting duck," because the participle describes the duck, but verb force in sitting in
"The duck, sitting quietly in the water, observed the scenery," because
the participle tells what the duck was doing. But the distinction
is tenuous; most participles are adjectival and verbal at the same
time. In both examples, sitting may be said to describe the duck by telling what the duck is doing.
To be sure, one force or the other may predominate. The
adjective force is stronger when the participle occurs in the
attributive or predicate postion, in which we cannot use the compound
forms and in which the participle cannot occur with subject or
object. The verb force is likely to be stronger in the other
positions, where the participle with its subject or object is often the
equivalent of a modifying clause.... |
|
3. I partially disagree with yulysess' statement "However, we use (
very)
much but not
very before a past participle which is part of passive: The new by-pass was (
very)
much needed." Again, if to your ear the participle is an adjective,
very by itself is acceptable.
He was very discouraged.
4. My ear disagrees with yulysess' prohibition of
very much before adjectival participles.
She was very much disturbed to hear the news does not especially jar my senses. Maybe I'm just well-adusted to participles as adjectives.
PS
I'm on page 80, Roro.