|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
BelM's thread about how you tell where you're from got me to wondering. We normally divide verbs into transitive and intransitive verbs, but the transitive verbs really come in two different types: those that take merely a direct object and those that take both a direct and an indirect object. Is there a grammatical term that distinguishes between those two types?
Edit:
Dr. Bill suggested I give an example of the two types of transitive verbs: I can read a book, but I can't just give a book, I have to give someone a book. Even in my opening sentence in the edit there was an understood y'all between give and an example.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
I don't have the answer to your question, Faldage, but what about the use of the verb give in this ex.?
Q: What did you donate to the charity auction?
A: I gave a book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Q: What did you donate to the charity auction?
A: I gave a book.
I gave a book (to the charity).
You could, for example, just bust out and say "I gave a book to the charity," but if you just said "I gave a book" people would be wondering to what or whom you gave it. In your example the "charity" is understood from the context.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
I was thinking maybe BelM's first language is French, in which language there may not be the same distinction between "tell" and "say" as there is in English.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
if you just said "I gave a book" people would be wondering to what or whom you gave it. Wa-ah...you never let me have any fun!  Hey! Faldage, if I can't give a book, can I give a damn? there may not be the same distinction between "tell" and "say" [yobbity-yobbity]...ah! One eez transitive, the other eez not. I wish my French weren't so rusty; bel, where are you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1 |
They're usually called ditransitive verbs. Or verbs with a valency of three.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditransitive_verb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Wow. Nice work, Fil! I've never heard the term, nor have I heard valence ascribed to verbs before. Thanks!!!!!
And welcome to the madhouse.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Welcome, film, and thanks for that pointer. It seems useful stuff mostly, but I take exception to the one-line summary:
> Most of these rules are arbitrary and are learnt only with experience by native speakers.
What a pile of manure this description is - something is either a rule or it's arbitrary. This imho is the ultimate absurdity of the prescriptivist pretence. This sentence actually suggests these things:
1. Native speakers are privileged by some sort of magic ear
2. This allows them to discern required differences in speech patterns despite the apparent random qualities observed in practice
3. This superior performance allows their speech to fit the rules
Balls. Surely what is actually going on is that the accretion of patterns of usage is indeed pretty arbitrary in its variations, and it's only custom that privileges the apparent euphony of one form over another. To attempt to draw a 'rule' given the observable discrepencies is simply perverse. The most that can usefully be said is that certain forms tend to be mostly found doing this job (with notable exceptions) whilst the alternate form is mostly found doing a slightly different job (again, with some notable exceptions). In other words, you can describe what is, but you cannot usefully ascribe the resultant language as the product of some rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724 |
Hi. I am learning grammar, and I have a question. I am sorry if this creates a cross thread.
One can diagram a sentence, or map a sentence as a phrase tree structure. Are they both different ways of parsing a sentence, or are they both used for different purposes? When would one diagram a sentence, and when would one draw the phrase tree structure of the sentence?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Thanks, film. Just what I was looking for. Stick around, please do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 724 |
Faldage or ted, could you, please, help me with the questions I posted above, on diagramming and phrase tree structure? Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Avy:
Thre have been discussions about diagramming here before, but I've never heard of a phrase tree structure, which is why I didn;t answer. Diagramming can make sense of the most complex sentence you can write, and leads one to a better understanding of grammar.
I will look up the phase tree stuff later today and give you my opinion on it. I suspect I know what it is, but until I'm certain I prefer to remain silent. Better to remain silent and make them wonder if I'm a dunce than to open my mouth and remove all doubt.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Diagramming can make sense of the most complex sentence you can write, and leads one to a better understanding of grammar.
Or either that or get you so confused you'll wonder how you managed to come up with a sentence like that without you had some kind degree in diagramology from some fancy schmancy liberal arts shool all covered over with ivy, one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Avy, OK, I did some research but I'm not certain I understand phrase tree structure (PTS) very well. It's about linguistics, something that has never interested me very much. Here's a paper that gives a pretty good nuts and bolts description of PTS. http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~uffmann/psr-tree.pdfYou have to get past the use of two for to in the first sentence, though. I had to grit my teeth because I always have a tendency to dismiss anything that follows so egregious an error. In this case I gave allowance for the fact that someone may have translated this into English or else the person has English as a secondary language. Notwithstanding, a few paragraphs down there is a PTS of a relatively simple sentence, with some explanation. It shows the inter-relationships among the words in the sentence. It does NOT reflect or teach grammar. And that's what diagramming or parsing a sentence does. The PTS is concerned with highly technical linguistics, principally the relationships between pairs of words or phrases, while diagramming teaches one how to build a good understandable sentence. Diagramming concerns the entire sentence as a structure. Gosh I hope I said that correctly. Eleventy seven people may now step forward to correct me on this, which is fine by me since if I have misstated the technical nature of PTS I expect to be questioned.
TEd
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
854
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
