Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2(pesnta.1.2) 9/5/84; site scc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!lsuc!pesnta!scc!steiny
From: steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Past participles in English
Message-ID: <546@scc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 7-Sep-85 22:36:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: scc.546
Posted: Sat Sep  7 22:36:30 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 05:06:47 EDT
References: <521@mmintl.UUCP> <520@scc.UUCP> <490@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Don Steiny Software
Lines: 185

> >
> >...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
> 
>     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

	The original question was about adjective order.

	I agree that the past participles are derived from passives in 
that situation.  I left out the transformational steps because 
the article was too long as it was.    There are several other steps 
I left out.  My point was that NP's like:

	1) The needed money

	came from

	2) The money was needed by X.

and several transformations got to "The needed money"  I said that there
would have to be a rule that switched the verb and noun.   I was
having a hard time translating an argument I have worked out as
trees on paper into a netnews article.

	I believe that your discussion presupposes that the NP is
derived from the underlying S.   NP's like:

	3) The running man

come from 

	4) The man is running

(according to my theory).


	I am saying that those are past participles being used as
past participles and not past participles being used as ajectives.

	I suggeted that perhaps all NP's that appear as:

	DET ___ NOUN

are really generated in deep structure as 

	NOUN "be" ____

Of course, in some cases, passive must have first applied to get this
string.  

	Remember, the original question was about adjective ordering.
You seem to agree that the NP's are derived from an underlying S.
I proposed that, as a hypothesis, we do away with the PS rule:

	I) NP => (DET) ADJ[0] N

and instead say that the string (DET) ADJ[0] N is derived from an
underlying S.

	Notice that the blank above, so far, must be a verb, either
the -ing form or the past participle.   With just those, it is
easy to explain their order in the NP because of the semantics
of the underlying S.   This seems to be a great advantage to
the idea that such NP's are reduced relative clauses.  It simplifies
the lexicon.  There do not need to be two words "chosen", one 
a past participle and the other an adjective.

	I proposed that the blank could also be an adjective.

	There needs to be a transformation that converts the string

	5) The book is red

	To the:

	6) The book that is red

	so that the "The book" can be modified recursively:

	7) The book that is red is big.

	which is transformed to:

	8) The big red book.

	9) The barn that is red that is old that is big.

	Transforms to:

	10) The big old red barn

	I was speculating that there were more natural orders
to the way we modify objects based on our knowledge of the
world that would prefer  #10 to:

	11) The barn that is big that is old is red.

I have not found a convincing string that does not also use
past participle, but, in the absence of any other explaination
of adjective order, I think it is worth persuing.   It simplifies
the lexicon, it eliminates a PS rule, and it might provide
an explaination of adjective ordering.

BTW:  

	If anyone really makes it this far, are you familiar with
"Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar?"   I just got a book on
it, but it is obviously not one I can read on breaks and I am going
to have to spend a serious few weekends ploughing through it.

ihnp4!pesnta!scc!steiny
Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 
109 Torrey Pine Terrace
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
(408) 425-0382
	(also: hplabs!hpda!steiny)