Re: Venn Diagram of the English Catenatives

Thank you for replying. I am working on the technical problems. I‘d like to
repeat that I‘ve posted a smaller (but still uncompressed file at:

http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/catenatives.jpeg

Which you might find easier to download. Try using a capital “C” in
catenatives if that doesn’t work.

I am aware of the book you mentioned.

I‘m glad you started with “Dare say”,  “Let go” and “Make do” and “Help”
because “Dare”, “Let”, “Make” and “Need” have caused me the most problems
in creating the diagram.

I would hate to see “help” go from the list because as you see without it
the link with the modal verbs would be broken. [But you can’t be
sentimental here.]

I have chosen to define “catenative” as a verb that is logically capable of
doing it’s action to another verb. Conventionally, the modal verbs are not
included in the catenatives. I have never really seen a satisfactory
definition of “modality” but I suspect that the logical ability to do
action to another verb is what underlies modality. Note that ALL the
catenatives have deontic and epistemic meaning (the traditional definition
of modality) not just the modal verbs.

Going back to “Dare”, you will see that “Dare” is in the semi-modal
grouping. This is because it can act like a normal verb or a modal verb
although it has to be said that it has fewer modal uses than the other
modal verbs. “Dare say” is also what links the modals to the subjunctive
for which I have another table, but this is enough complexity for now. In
statements with “Dare say” “dare is clearly doing it’s action to “say” but
it is then followed by the subject for example:

I dare say she might come.

The catenatives do their action to another verb or to an object which is of
course an extension of the idea of transitivity. (In the future I’d like to
figure out any links to transitive and ditransitive verbs)

You mentioned that “Let go” is problematic in that you have to let go of
something. The introduction of “of” is a problem that I hadn’t thought of
before. This is a pragmatic problem. When we “Let go” the fact that sth is
let go is assumed. Clearly “Let” means “allow” here and something is
allowed to go. Perhaps then this is a semi-metaphorical meaning. I
think “Let” is doing at least some of it’s action to the verb “go” but if
it isn’t doing all it’s action to the verb what is it doing the rest of
it’s action to?

“make do” is problematic because it isn’t instantly clear what is being
made.

I like this verb because many languages have only one word for “make”
and “do” and here we have the two of them together. “Make” still has the
sense of “facilitate” and if we think of “make do” as “facilitating doing”,
then “make” is doing it’s action to “do” and the expression sounds less
idiomatic, although it does seem to retain idiomatic flavour.

I’ve only touched on your comments and I intend to read them in more detail
later.

Thanks,

Andy.