Search results for 'tag:Grammar tag:Accusative' matching tags 'Grammar' and 'Accusative'

Re: the middle voice option

MrPedantic — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:49:37 GMT

Hello Dawnstorm,

Dawnstorm

In most of these sentences you could make a case for elided objects, that are taken care off by context (rather than considered irrelevant, as in "I am eating."):

e.g. Yes, I saw X. X = anaphoric; referring to "Did you see X!" or "Omg, X!"

"You push X and I'll lift X." : X is exophoric; determined by a present or imagined contex (e.g. they're standing in front of X).

Yes, I agree; such cases could presumably be classified as "common ambitransitives" (see ex. 4a in my earlier post); or perhaps as "ambiguous ambitransitives" (see ex. 6); thus:

1. You push (it) and I'll lift (it)

But:

2. It lifted quite easily

Dawnstorm

"What should we do when we punish X?" This one's actually more like the "considering irrelevant" I mentioned above, the assumption being that there is one set of answers for all X, so that X doesn't have to be mentioned. (Similarly, "I am eating X," the point I'm making holds for all X.) Note that the listener might enquire, here, "punish who?" or "eat what?"

"Please give X generously.": Here, X usually means "money", but context probably takes care of this (it might mean used clothes, household appliances etc. for flood victims). Here X is not so much irrelevant as implied.

Again, agreed. Presumably therefore "common ambitransitives".

Dawnstorm

I've heard that cognitive linguists often work with an implied object for many "intranstives". So: "I am reading" and "I am eating" always have a hint of "I am reading X" and "I am eating X", which is not expressed. A lot of this has to do with "theta roles"; what parts the verb's arguments are playing.

I am eating (X): Subject = agent

I am dying: Subject = experiencer

***

Yes, agreed. "Eat" is presumably unergative (ex. 4); "die", unaccusative (ex. 2).

I also agree with your inverted commas ("intransitives"), for verbs such as "eat" and "read". In non-metaphorical usage, the objects of "eat" tend to belong to a particular class ("food"), and are therefore to some extent always cognate with "eat"; whereas the objects of e.g. "hit" are not.

Thus "He eats well" does not need a context, for us to understand what the implied object is; but "He hits well" does.

Dawnstorm

Notice, for example, the semantic equivalence, but syntactic difference between:

- The sign reads, "Beware of the dog!"

- The sign says, "Beware of the dog!"

I agree that there's a syntactic difference: the first can't be presented as indirect speech, for example. "Reads" has almost a copulative sense here.

But I find a semantic difference too: the first presents the sign from the point of view of the reader, and the second, from the point of view of the writer.

Dawnstorm

This is the gordian knot that tangles up syntax, semantics and pragmatics. There are a lot of problems:
- The mirror is breaking.
I am dying.

vs.

- Don't break the mirror!
- Don't kill me.

See the problem? It's not only a syntactic but also a lexical problem. Break (intr.):Die (intr.) = Break (tr.):Kill (tr.). Does it make sense to claim that "break" is ergative/unaccusative (I'm still confused by the difference) and "die" isn't, because "die" selects a different lexical item for the transitive?

No, it doesn't make sense; and precisely because of that distinction, I would call "break" here ergative (ex. 5) , and "die" unaccusative (ex. 2).

Dawnstorm

But, again, syntax is not the same as semantics. Take this construction, for example:

"He died a cruel death."

While this assigns subject and object along the formal transitive model, semantically the "agent/patient" distinction breaks down; or rather, the fact that dying is not an action that affects death posits a problem to the "agent/patient" distinction within "voice".

The object here is a cognate object (it is implied in the verb itself) and thus belongs to a slightly different model. (I would say that it only exists to provide an adverbial opportunity: "he died a cruel death" = "he died in a cruel way".)

Dawnstorm

I'm not surprised people run from "ergativity"/"accusativity"; it's a tangle. I don't think that conventional morphological/syntactic analysis can solve the tangle adequately. It's a gordian knot, and all the syntanctician has is Alexander's sword. I'd look for solution in cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, frame semantics etc. These approaches could then help patch holes in syntax.

The terminology is not happy, admittedly; "middle voice" and "ergative" belong to other linguistic contexts, as has been mentioned; but I think it can be disentangled.

It may be the case that "ergative" usage was once much more common in English. Before the rise of the passive present progressive, for instance, an active present progressive often expressed the same meaning. Thus:

3. The house is building (pre-19th century) =
4. The house is being built

Also, although the same few verbs tend to recur as examples in these discussions, actual usage is more imaginative. For instance, last week I heard a sports commentator say:

5. The pitch doesn't look very pretty; but as long as it plays well, that's all that matters.

Best wishes,

MrP

Re: the middle voice option

Dawnstorm — Wed, 21 May 2008 18:05:09 GMT

MrPedantic
1. Yes, I saw.
2. You push and I'll lift.
3. What should we do when we punish?
4. Please give generously.

The problem I see here is a muddle of syntax, pragmatics and semantics.

In most of these sentences you could make a case for elided objects, that are taken care off by context (rather than considered irrelevant, as in "I am eating."):

e.g. Yes, I saw X. X = anaphoric; referring to "Did you see X!" or "Omg, X!"

"You push X and I'll lift X." : X is exophoric; determined by a present or imagined contex (e.g. they're standing in front of X).

"What should we do when we punish X?" This one's actually more like the "considering irrelevant" I mentioned above, the assumption being that there is one set of answers for all X, so that X doesn't have to be mentioned. (Similarly, "I am eating X," the point I'm making holds for all X.) Note that the listener might enquire, here, "punish who?" or "eat what?"

"Please give X generously.": Here, X usually means "money", but context probably takes care of this (it might mean used clothes, household appliances etc. for flood victims). Here X is not so much irrelevant as implied.

I've heard that cognitive linguists often work with an implied object for many "intranstives". So: "I am reading" and "I am eating" always have a hint of "I am reading X" and "I am eating X", which is not expressed. A lot of this has to do with "theta roles"; what parts the verb's arguments are playing.

I am eating (X): Subject = agent

I am dying: Subject = experiencer

***

I read the sign: Subject = agent; Object = patient.

The sign is read: Subject = patient;

The sign reads, "Beware of the Dog!": Subject = ? It's not, strictly speaking, a patient, as the sign isn't affected by the mental act of reading. (This is different from "The food cooks on the oven," as the food undergoes a physical change - so that the "food" can be said to be an experiencer.) Actually, what we have here is an "attribute" of the book.

Notice, for example, the semantic equivalence, but syntactic difference between:

- The sign reads, "Beware of the dog!"

- The sign says, "Beware of the dog!"

This is the gordian knot that tangles up syntax, semantics and pragmatics. There are a lot of problems:

- The mirror is breaking.

- I am dying.

vs.

- Don't break the mirror!

- Don't kill me.

See the problem? It's not only a syntactic but also a lexical problem. Break (intr.):Die (intr.) = Break (tr.):Kill (tr.). Does it make sense to claim that "break" is ergative/unaccusative (I'm still confused by the difference) and "die" isn't, because "die" selects a different lexical item for the transitive? Or should we, perhaps, split the lexical item "break" in two?

Personally, I find comparing "break" (intr.) with "break" (tr.) but not "die" (intr.) with "kill" (tr.) to be imprecise.

But, again, syntax is not the same as semantics. Take this construction, for example:

"He died a cruel death."

While this assigns subject and object along the formal transitive model, semantically the "agent/patient" distinction breaks down; or rather, the fact that dying is not an action that affects death posits a problem to the "agent/patient" distinction within "voice".

I'm not surprised people run from "ergativity"/"accusativity"; it's a tangle. I don't think that conventional morphological/syntactic analysis can solve the tangle adequately. It's a gordian knot, and all the syntanctician has is Alexander's sword. I'd look for solution in cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, frame semantics etc. These approaches could then help patch holes in syntax.

Re: Why is "me" but not "I"?

Wanwo — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:13:04 GMT

'The Prince and Me' - Gramatically it's not correct but it's a movie title. Liberties can be taken with grammar for art's sake.

Likewise, 'silly me' is an expression that is not correct grammatically. It would be grammatically correct to say 'I am silly.' but 'silly me' is a lot more common.

You might have heard 'Fool me' from the expression 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.' But what this is really saying is 'If you fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me twice, shame on me.' It's grammatically correct to say 'You fooled me.' The 'me' here is taking the accusative and therefore cannot be 'I'.

Re: Which way would you sway?

MrPedantic — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:08:15 GMT

Milky wrote:

<I would be interested to see quotations from the early English grammarians that presented spoken English as somehow inferior, or that demonstrated an imposition of inappropriate rules from Latin. >

Do you doubt that was the case?

"Doubt" is too strong a word. I would be interested to see the quotations.

If so, I guess you disagree with this:

"If they have studied "English Grammar", this is probably an encumbrance which they might well put aside for the present, since it is based on a more or less imitative recapitulation of Classical Latin Grammar, which is totally non-applicable to the English language as it now stands.

I would disagree that Classical Latin Grammar is "totally non-applicable" to the English language (or vice versa). It would be truer to say that many aspects of Latin grammar are non-applicable to English.

I would also disagree with the notion that the study of English grammar for any given person is bound to have been based on Latin grammar; though no doubt the statement is true for some people.

[Lowth] condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language"¹).

Sounds sensible.

His most famous (or infamous) contribution to the study of grammar was his prescription that sentences ending with a prepositionâsuch as "what did you ask for?"âare inappropriate in formal writing.

Sounds doubtful. Though Lowth doesn't appear to mention Latin in his reasoning:

"This is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the Preposition before the Relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style."

And he seems to limit his prescription to the "solemn and elevated Style", which is a relatively rare form of English.

Thus Lowth condemns Addison's sentence "Who should I meet the other night, but my old friend?" on the grounds that the thing acted upon should be in the "Objective Case" (corresponding, as he says earlier, to an oblique case in Latin), rather than taking this example and others as evidence from noted writers that "who" can refer to direct objects.

I would not agree with Lowth about Addison's sentence; but nothing here suggests that his justification lay in Latin grammar.

"Objective case" doesn't seem a particularly pernicious phrase; "whom" is undeniably an example; and what remains of the objective case in English "corresponds" in some of its functions to the accusative case in Latin.

I know that some popular sources repeat the notion that early English grammarians attempted to impose Latin grammar on English; but I've yet to see any primary evidence.

MrP

Help with nominative-accusative case.

M. Caliban — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:59:05 GMT

Although I'm a native English speaker, I've often struggled to understand English grammar, especially its morphosyntatical elements. I've done some reading on nominative-accusative as well as ergative-absolutive cases and I just don't get it.

Can someone who's better at linguistics explain this to me?

I understand that a sentence has a Subject, a Verb, and an Object. (John sees fish) I understand that a verb can be transitive, in that it demands both subject and object, or intransitive, in that it won't accept an object.

For example, 'to see' is transitive in that John (the subject) has to see something (the direct object), he can't 'just see.' On the other hand, 'to sleep' is intransitive in that John can 'just sleep' but he can't sleep a direct object.

1a: John sees fish.

1b: John sees.

2a: John sleeps fish

2b: John sleeps.

Therefore, 1a and 2b are right. 2a is never right and 1b is only right if you want to interpret it as actually saying, "John does see."

As I understand it, nominative-accusative case is when a language 'marks' the direct object of a transitive verb. So, if my mark was '-do' then I could say:

1. John sees fish.

2. John fish-do sees.

3. Fish-do sees John.

4. Sees fish-do John.

And all of them would mean the same thing. Word order doesn't matter now as no matter where I scatter the word fish the -do tells me what its function in the sentence is.

My problem (took me long enough, didn't it?) is that English is described as having a vestigial normative-accusative case in its use of pronouns and passive voice but I don't see it. Can someone explain how normative-accusative applies to the English language?

Re: It's them

CalifJim — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:14:53 GMT

The noun after the verb is to be in nominative case and not in accusative.

I think you mean this to be true in the case of a pronoun after a linking verb only. Taking your "rule" literally, we must have

They invited we.

because the pronoun is after the verb, the conditions under which you say the pronoun must be nominative.

That aside, this "rule" is only a rule for those who persist in thinking of English as a language which must obey the rules of Latin.

In English, the rule is that pronouns are in the accusative whenever they are not the subject of a finite clause. Those who wish to speak Latin, coded into English words, will use the nominative pronouns after a linking verb. But why speak English with Latin grammar -- unless we wish to sound like idiots?

CJ

phrasal verbs decoded. The placement of the object.

Kvinchuca — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 02:04:16 GMT

The various forms of phrasal verbs

Phrasal verbs can be transitive or intransitive, separable or inseparable.
The object or accusative can in the cases of separable phrasal verbs be placed before or after the particle.
With inseparable phrases, the object/accusative is fixed and its position either before or after the particle cannot be changed by the speaker.
Our analysis has shown that the position of the object/accusative assigns an importance, diminished importance, or a complete lack of importance from the speakers point of view.
If the particle is followed by the object/accusative then the importance is clearly shown.
If the object/accusative precedes the particle it has a diminished or lack of importance.
If the object/accusative can go before or after the particle, as is the case in separable phrases, then the importance assigned to it is decided by position the speaker places it.
The separable phrases are commonly described as having the same meaning, no matter where the object/accusative is placed, either before or after the particle and in general this may be true, however there is a difference, so small as to be unnoticed.
There nevertheless occasions when the object/accusative sounds to be misplaced to the ears of a native speaker.
There are in many phrases a word order that is generally accepted to be the norm, and a diversion from this order would immediately be noticed by a native speaker and not necessarily by a non-native.
For example, the colours of the Union Jack (the British national flag), are red, white and blue. If somebody described them as blue red and white, they are technically correct, but the native speaker would sense an uncomfortable feeling that the speaker was not quite right, or had spoken incorrectly.

There are many example of this: bacon and eggs (correct) eggs and bacon (uncomfortable). Black and white films (correct) white and black films (uncomfortable). Cup and saucer (correct) saucer and cup (uncomfortable).
There is nothing in English grammar that rules the order of these words and to a non-native speaker the fact that all the information is there, is all that matters, but the uncomfortable sensation felt by the native demonstrates that something very subtle is going on.
The same applies to the separable phrasal verbs. In most instances the subtle difference is unnoticed even by the native, yet in speaking the word order used demonstrates a particular importance or diminished importance that has subconsciously been attached by the speaker.
For example. âthat man is chatting my girl-friend upâ, in this phrase, I have given a diminished importance to my âgirl-friendâ and there is a subtle sense of indifference to the situation. Whereas âthat man is chatting up my girl-friendâ, in this phrase âmy girl-friendâ is after the particle and is subtly stressed. âMy girl-friendâ is shown to have more importance in this phrase and there is an implied sense of indignation as opposed to indifference.

When we use a pronoun instead of naming the object/accusative, the pronoun always goes before the particle. The reason being that once the object has been named the attached importance to the person or thing is slightly diminished, but the importance can be restated by the repetition of the name.
For example, âIs your girl-friend called Sarah?â âYes why?â âWell, that man is chatting her up â. âBloody hell, youâre right, heâs chatting up my Sarahâ.
Here the indignation is obvious because of the naming of the girl a second time. If the phrase was âyes heâs chatting her upâ the indignation felt by the speaker and heard by the listener would depend on the inflection of the voice, whereas in âmy Sarahâ, there is no doubt how the speaker feels.

Re: years my younger

paco2004 — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:31:17 GMT

Hello GG

I feel the English expression "superior to me" comes from a Latin phrase "me superiorem (elder than me)" where "me" is the ablative case of the pronoun for the first person singular but incidentally the same in form as the accusative "me". On the other hand "my superior" might have its root in the translation of the Greek expression "mou presbyterion (elder than me)" where "mou" is genitive.

paco, another grammar geek

Re: Middle voice

Anonymous — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:51:03 GMT

Mr Pedantic,

Truly you deserve the epithet by which you identify yourself. I sensed you were going to put me on the spot this way. Worse still, I know there is every chance that the examples I could furnish (from Gonda or not) wonât convince you. In fact, in a way some of them donât convince me. Take âoregesthaiâ in Il. 4, 307; 16, 834; 23, 99; etc. Apart from the fact that this verb isnât âmedium tantumâ, many of its uses imply a distinctly âpoiein pros tiâ transitivity that the middle voice isnât supposed to have. âMachesthaiâ (Il. passim) poses a similar difficulty - or rather non-difficulty: most of the time it doesnât appear different from our pronominal âreciprocalâ. Similar comments can be made about the âsenseâ of other verbs and their inflections in texts by Sophocles or Pindar or whoever.

What this suggests is that our grammatical categories and terms of reference are not always inadequate when we analyse ancient languages. But sometimes they are, and in particular, I maintain, when it comes to defining the certain âdiathesesâ of the verb that are hidden behind the infinitives and participles with the suffixes â-sthaiâ and â-menosâ and the inflected formes ending in â-mai, men, â¦ etc.â.
In other words, there is a class of verbs and marked uses of the verb that refer to an intransitive, âinchoativeâ self-affectedness quite distinct from the reflexives or reciprocals we normally associate the middle voice with. Verbs expressing what earlier commentators referred to as âpoiein ou pros tiâ or âapolytos energeiaâ or âmetabole en autou he autoâ or âpoiesis apo tou automatouâ, etc. Verbs related to the notions of birth, growth, decline, death and to spontaneous alterations of emotion or thought (you choose the example you like, preferably after youâve reread the first chapter of Dodds, 1958).
Why do we (I say that out of courtesy of course) have so much difficulty in typologically isolating this variety of the middle? Because the grammarians didnât distinguish it from the better known, canonic examples of the middle. Why? Because they didnât want ergativity lurking around the verb or any other category of language. Why? Why did they go nominative-accusative? Why did they consider the use of verbs unattached to the category of person (prosopon) âun interdit grammatical purâ? What explains the canonicity of the active transitive diathesis even where it concerns the middle? â¦
I think I have answers to these questions and others like them. I found them while rummaging around in the domain grammar evolved out of. But that takes back out of out of linguistics, doesnât it?

Re: Where is the direct object...

Randy_Tam — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:37:02 GMT

.... -0-

ok, let's put it this way: GB is nothing more than a module in the generative grammar, to be put on a par with such other modules of the theory as X', Case theory or the Theta Theory, although it has been quite incorrectly treated as though it were the whole of the Grammar (Chomsky, 1995b, p.30).

The sentence I believe can be interpreted this way:

1. There is an x such that x is subject to the action of 'training' such that x is intended to carry out the action of 'killing'.

Where X = the agents

According to the generative grammar, this clause involves, as usual, quite complicated and interwoven elements in action: 1. ECM 2. Move A (Alpha...) 3. Passive morphology (EST)

(i) The agents are (for the sake of simplicity, I omit the irrelevant Past tense here) trained to kill

can be interpreted as having the underlying structure of:

(ii) e train [Passive+, Present, Agr pl+] TP[DP SPEC [the agents] T'[T[to] VP[V[kill]]]]

As passive morphology makes the Verb assign no theta role to the Subject, such a sentence as:

* The Agency are trained the agents to kill.

is ungrammatical. However, on the other hand, as the Projection Principle mandates that every Agr P must have a Subject, a construction like:

* e are trained the agents to kill.

is impossible as well. Therefore, Experiencer NP 'the agents' moves to fill the Subject role (note that expletives are used as a last resort ---> in its ordinary sense, bringing no syntactic import: if there is any candidate eligible for filling the Subject A position, then that candidate will be used instead of expletives, such that *there / it are trained the agents to kill is ungrammatical)

There's still the TP left to discussion: as there's no Agr present, the TP does not assign Case to its SPEC. It is the Verb 'train', which governs the TP, that assigns Accusative to that DP. (as governor governs SPEC of the branch as well)