+0
1. He is much loved.

2. He is much interesting.

3. Your thoughts were much appreciated.

4. This is a much needed development.

5. His face is much red.

6. It was a very stimulating discussion.

7. It was a much stimulating discussion.

If 1, 3, 4, 6, why not 2, 5, 7?

MrP
1 « 7 8  10 11 » 21
Comments  (Page 9) 
Hello MrPedantic

{quote=MrP} I wonder whether the polarity-sensitive aspect is semantic. 〖 ... Fair enough 〗

I've read about negative porality in Horn a bit (in which there was no mention of 'much'). In M. Israel's paper ┈ I've found just now quite short mention of 'much' as a negtive polarity item with such an example: 〖He didn't waste much time〗.

I think, if the negative-polarity-sensitive aspect could explain something, it could do so, only partially, restrictedly.
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈
As a kind of general background let me quote from Israel's paper, 'The Scalar Model of Polarity Sensitivity':
 In recent years theoretical studies of polarity sensitivity have grown increasingly sensitive to the fact that polarity items, both within and across languages, come in a rather bewildering variety of forms. (...) One may now wonder not just how we might explain the existence of these sensitivities, but whether indeed there can be any single explanation for such a diversity of forms. Van der Wouden and Rullmann are notably pessimistic in this regard, arguing that while polarity items as a class may share basic distributional sensitivities, the reason for these sensitivities may be quite various. In this paper I take a contrary view, suggesting that while polarity items come in a variety of forms, polarity sensitivity itself reflects a common conceptual schema which unites these forms as scalar operators.

I repeat {!!}
〖 polarity sensitivity itself reflects a common conceptual schema which unites these forms as scalar operators 〗

A typhoon is approaching now...
Hello paco!
〖 I'd rather continue talking with you 〗... ↖{*ᴥ*}↗

You are now one of the trusted members of this EF. You have a right of 'Private Message,' but I'm afraid if I use that I will annoy you...!

I'm looking forward to some occations! How I want to hear a lot more! Sure we have a lot occations, places!

More later, take care,
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Can someone summarize where we are with regard to the original questions: what we agree on, what we disagree on, and what we don't know? Emotion: storm
We have agreed on a much too little of 'much'.
We've gotten lost in a maze; we'd better try to go back to the entrance, before giving up all hopes of ever getting out and seeing our confortable home and friends again!
For starters, do we all agree that:

1. Adverbial very is a pure intensive (or intensifier). It never modifies verbs.

2. Adverbial very does modify:

---adjectives: His face was very red. The last problem is very difficult.

---adverbs: Everyone ran very quickly. The plan must be executed very precisely.

---many present participles: It was a very stimulating discussion. He is very interesting. The noise was very aggravating. The very disturbing news was received silently. (Those present participles that semantically have degrees of intensity and can be compared. Some that do not, for example, are printing, thinking, turning, drilling.)

---many past participles: He was very tired. After the sensor failed, the launch team was very discouraged. The Mars Rover Landing Team were very pleased with themselves. Floridians are very annoyed by hurricanes. After the fourth hurricane, the insurance companies were very concerned. (Again, it's those past participles that semantically have degrees of intensity and can be compared. Otherwise, modification by very does not make sense. But in addition, because very does not modify verbs, the past participle must have become more adjectival than verbal. Some that are still too verbal, for example, are loved, appreciated, needed, disliked, delayed, inconvenienced.)

(I hope someone else will take on the nature and applications of adverbial much.) Emotion: big smile
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
(A brief interlude, before we muchify.)

To my mind, these are the points that need defending, if my 'hypothesis' is to stand:

1. The idea that 'much' has at its core a quantitative 'feeling'.

2. The idea that 'quantity' (much-ness) is in some way suited to the past participle.

3. The idea that 'quality' (very-ness, or intensity) is in some way suited to the present participle.

4. The idea that the adjectival present participle is stative because it lacks an explicit object.

5. The idea that the past participle is non-adjectival because the object is usually explicit.

Now I'm not sure what would constitute disproof of these points. So perhaps the original 'hypothesis' is non-demonstrable.

Any suggestions?

MrP
Paco2004Hello MrP

Thank you for the reply. Now I understand I have been completely wrong in understanding the construct.



  • "She is not so much pretty as beautiful"



  • ="She is not pretty so much as beautiful"



  • ="She is beautiful rather than pretty".


  • Is this comprehension right?

    paco

    Yes, that's it!

    MrP
Paco2004Hello MrP again

I also studied etymological aspects of "very" and "much", though it was only through OED.

The predecessor of "much" was Old English "micel" or "mickle" (Scot "muckle"). Originally this was an adjective to mean "great" in dimension but used as an adverb after the Viking age (13 century). The source of "very" was Anglo-French "verrai" (French "vrai") to mean "true". This word came to be used as early as 13 century, but originally it was used as a noun modifier ("She is a very woman"). The use of "very" as an adjective qualifier began in the end of 14 century. "But for he was very repentant he was exiled for the fey (=faith?)" [1387]. "Full" or "fully" was likely to be the word most often used as an adverb in Anglo-Saxonic Old English. "Full wealy(=wealthy)"[888].

As for the issue of "The book is interesting", thank you for your opinion. I think your thought is quite reasonable from the standpoint of the current usage. I feel this problem may be related to how the adjectival usage of some present participles was established in English. As far as I have studied, adjectival present participles mostly began to be used after 17 century. The oldest use was for "pleasing" which started to be used in 14 century concurrently with "pleasant". I feel Latin/French grammar might have an influence on the usage.

paco

That supports RVW's point. So perhaps it's simply that 'very' came in as the adjectival use of the present participle became more common; and the two naturally hit it off.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
RoroHello MrPedantic {quote=MrP} I wonder whether the polarity-sensitive aspect is semantic. 〖 ... Fair enough 〗 I've read about negative porality in Horn a bit (in which there was no mention of 'much'). In M. Israel's paper ┈ I've found just now quite short mention of 'much' as a negtive polarity item with such an example: 〖He didn't waste much time〗. I think, if the negative-polarity-sensitive aspect could explain something, it could do so, only partially, restrictedly. ┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈ As a kind of general background let me quote from Israel's paper, 'The Scalar Model of Polarity Sensitivity':  In recent years theoretical studies of polarity sensitivity have grown increasingly sensitive to the fact that polarity items, both within and across languages, come in a rather bewildering variety of forms. (...) One may now wonder not just how we might explain the existence of these sensitivities, but whether indeed there can be any single explanation for such a diversity of forms. Van der Wouden and Rullmann are notably pessimistic in this regard, arguing that while polarity items as a class may share basic distributional sensitivities, the reason for these sensitivities may be quite various. In this paper I take a contrary view, suggesting that while polarity items come in a variety of forms, polarity sensitivity itself reflects a common conceptual schema which unites these forms as scalar operators. I repeat {!!} 〖 polarity sensitivity itself reflects a common conceptual schema which unites these forms as scalar operators 〗 A typhoon is approaching now...
Hello Roro

I think I'd better read up on polarity sensitivity...

MrP
Show more