Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Past participles in English
Message-ID: <490@spar.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 03:09:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.490
Posted: Wed Aug 28 03:09:05 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 08:37:40 EDT
References: <521@mmintl.UUCP> <520@scc.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 132

>...One thing I have spent some time working on is a transformational
>explaination.  It is probably not the most favored course in this day and
>age, but there are compelling arguments.  Consider a special type of
>"adjective" those adjectives that are formed with the "-ing" form of a verb
>or the past participle.   I was sorting through words for another purpose
>when I noticed that the past participle form of intranstive verbs cannot be
>used as adjectives.
>
>	Transitive verbs: need, fry.
>
>	1) He needed the books.
>	2) The needed books are here.
>	3) He fried the fish.
>	4) The fried fish were delecious.
>
>	Intransitive verbs: "agree", "bark".
>
>	5) The dogs barked.
>	6) *The barked dogs . .
>	7) The doctors agreed.
>	8) *The agreed doctors . .
>...
>	Notice that with the "-ing" suffix intranstive verbs work fine:
>
>	11) The barking dogs . . .
>	12) the agreeing doctors . . .
>
> Don Steiny

    It is hard for an oldtimer like me (whose ideas derive more from 
    classical grammar than from Chomsky) to understand the utility
    of this approach.

    First, it seems clear that the participles in English are PRESENT ACTIVE
    (-ing) and PAST PASSIVE (-ed). Therefore, I am hardly surprised that
    present participles can be freely used as adjectives, unlike past
    participles, which logically ought to be useless for intransitive verbs
    outside of the HAVE + PAST-PARTICIPLE construction.

    Second, past participles are not necessarily identical with the preterit
    tense of the verb. If the transformation:

    X fried the fish 	     =>	       the fried fish

    ...is correct, why does it fail so badly as below:

    X broke the glass	     =>	       *the broke glass

    It would seem a wiser course to derive these through the normal
    passive voice, thereby selecting the correct form of the verb:

    the fish are fried	      =>	the fried fish
    the glass is broken	      =>	the broken glass

    ...just like ordinary adjectives and progressives:

    the frogs are green	       =>	 the green frogs
    the frogs are hopping      =>	 the hopping frogs

    Or do I misunderstand something here?

    This problem regards the issue, `what exactly are past participles of
    intransitive verbs'? As far as I can tell, usually, they can appear only
    in periphrastic perfects with `have'. However, certain verbs (of
    motion?) also seem to allow `be' with a slightly different time-sense --
    some verbs in this category even allow adjectival use of the past
    participle with an active force:

	they have barked			*barked dogs?
	they have gone / they are gone	      	(*)gone dogs?
	they have departed / they are departed	departed flights

    My guess is that the alternation between be/have with certain verbs is
    very old -- note that biblical language prefers `be' where we often use
    `have' -- and perhaps this is related to the German haben/sein variation
    in auxiliary usage.

    A second use for intransitive past participles occurs where the verb has
    a secondary (transitive) causative meaning, which is seems to be implied
    by the otherwise meaningless past passive partiple:    

    intransitive: I have walked
    causative:    I have walked the dog	=>	  the walked dog

    A third use involves a distinctly English phenomenon involving the 
    passive transformation of certain compounds formed by intransitive verb + 
    preposition:

    we have agreed upon this solution/the solution was agreed upon/
       the agreed upon solution

============================================================================

    Summary:

    Past participles as adjectives are almost invariably passive and are
    consequently limited to use with transitive verbs; certain intransitives
    exceptionally have active past participles, as in (3) below:

    1a: Passive of transitive verbs:

       he has stolen the book/the book was stolen/the stolen book

    1b: `Passive' of compounds with a transitive sense:

       we have agreed upon a solution/the solution was agreed upon/
       the agreed upon solution

    1c: Passive of the transitive meaning of a verb which has both
        transitive or intransitive senses:

       he has walked
       he has walked the dog/the dog was walked/the walked dog

       the cake has baked
       he has baked the cake/the cake was baked/the baked cake

    2: Intransitives whose past participles may neither be used
       in passives or adjectivally (except for compounds, as in 1b):

       the conflict has existed 
                 but not /*the conflict was existed/*the existed conflict
       the monster has looked
                 but not /*the monster was looked/*the looked monster

    3: Active of intransitives (typically allowing both have/be):

       the flight {has/is} departed/the departed flight

    Class 3 seems most illogical. 

-michael