Re: USAGE: Implied prepositions in English

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Alex Fink wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:08:45 -0800, Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
>
> >Random observation:
> >
> >When the two objects of a verb are reversed, a preposition is inserted in
> front of the second object, as in "I gave you money. => I gave money TO you."
> [...]
> >Going the other way, I haven't yet figured out why some forms forbid the
> preposition:
> >
> >John drove Mary crazy. => *John drove crazy TO Mary.
> >John called the dog Spot. => *John called Spot TO the dog.
>
> Others can probably elucidate better than I can -- in particular why this is
> a good distinction grounded in solid facts of English and not just a bunch
> of theorising -- but the short answer is that "crazy" and "Spot" in these
> sentences aren't any sort of object: instead they're _predicatives_.
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicative_(adjectival_or_nominal)
> So you wouldn't expect them to partake of processes proper to objects any
> more than, say, the intransitive predicatives in
>   Mary seems crazy.
>   Spot is a dog.
> can be promoted to subject by passivisation, giving
>  *Crazy is seemed by Mary.
>  *A dog is been by Spot.
>
> Alex
Let me just observe here that it is perfectly good
Indian (subcontinental) English to declare that:
   "Spot is being a dog".

In the present, use of the continuous aspect (if
that's the right term) seems to indicate an ongoing,
habitual or intrinsic state (cf Spanish "ser"),
rather than an instantaneous state (cf Spanish
"estar").  And it's rather rare in IndE to hear (the
perhaps to our ears more "natural"):
   "Spot is a dog".

But no, I agree with you: even in IndE, I don't
recall ever hearing:
   *"A dog is being Spot"!


Regards,
Yahya
  _____

Yahya Abdal-Aziz
  _____

Reply