Re: Most common irregular verbs?

Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> writes:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:45:08 -0500, Henrik Theiling
>><theiling@...>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The dictionary entries cited above quite obviously use quite a
>>>different view on adjectives as I do here.  I'd like to know what the
>>>system is behind their classification.  Do they define the terms?  Can
>>>anyone help?  Is the above common-sense or English intuition?  Why?
>>
>>The pan-linguistic definition of an adjective pretty much seems to be
>>"anything that is not clearly any other part of speech". I think I
>>recall  Comrie giving that definition in _Language Universals and
>>Linguistic  Typology_, but I may be wrong.
>
>
> Aha, so quite plainly matching the Lat. translation of 'adjicere':
> 'ad' + 'jacere'?  'to throw at'? :-)  To throw the word in question at
> just about anything?
>
> Unsatisfied, I understand. :-)
Actually, I thought that was what "adverbs" were, whereas adjectives
must modify noun phrases.

e.g.
  Can I have some more, please? "Please" is an adverb.
  The ducks headed bush. "Bush" is an adverb. {*}
  This is not the sort of thing that I'll put up with. "up" and "with"
are adverbs.

This is seems "obvious" if the VP is basically the entire sentence
except the subject, because then if you have something undefinable
undefinably modifying the sentence, it's probably modifying the VP, so
it must be an adverb. Something like that.

{*} "The ducks headed bush" is mostly non-standard. Apparently it exists
in Australian speech, but it sounds awfully odd to me. It means, of
course, they went to the bush, where "the bush" is the Australian bush,
not a shrub. I think I saw it somewhere on Australian English
grammatical oddities described as a new adverb.

--
Tristan.

Replies