 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009Confusion over adverbs
On television a few moments ago was a sentence that I thought interesting enough to bring to the group. "This will enable us to see ourselves closer and know ourselves better." Funny, I thought. "Closer" and "better" are adjectives. But what the sentence needs are adverbs. So, on the face of it, "closer" is wrong. What they should've said was "more closely." But "better" not only sounds correct, I can't even imagine what to replace it with, if it's wrong. What say you? > On television a few moments ago was a sentence that I thought > interesting enough to bring to the group. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What say you? ~ 'See ourselves closer' seems poor English to me - 'know ourselves more intimately' would be better, IMHO, and would obviate the latter phrase. I suspect that 'closer' and 'more closely' are both correct, though. Nick from England > On television a few moments ago was a sentence that I thought > interesting enough to bring to the group. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But "better" not only sounds correct, I can't even imagine what to > replace it with, if it's wrong. "Better" is a perfectly good adverb, the comparative of "well", so no problem there. (It's an adjective as well, of course, but that doesn't affect the question.) I share your doubts about "closer". I don't think I'd use it as an adverb myself, but I wouldn't fall off my chair in surprise and horror if I heard it so used.  Signatureathel >> On television a few moments ago was a sentence that I thought >> interesting enough to bring to the group. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > adverb myself, but I wouldn't fall off my chair in surprise and horror > if I heard it so used. If you're close when you see yourself, why can't you get a bit closer? SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com >>> On television a few moments ago was a sentence that I thought >>> interesting enough to bring to the group. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > If you're close when you see yourself, why can't you get a bit closer? What is your point? Signatureathel >>>> On television a few moments ago was a sentence that I thought >>>> interesting enough to bring to the group. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > What is your point? That an adjective might be appropriate. It might not be the *action of seeing* that is done more closely, but rather the *one who sees* who is closer. SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com > On television a few moments ago was a sentence that I thought > interesting enough to bring to the group. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What say you? I am unable to find any authority expressly acknowledging "closer" as an adverb, and it sounds at least ungainly, if not outright ugly, in that use. The difficulty, of course, is the break in parallelism; probably the best choice would have been to also use the analytic form of comparison on the second adverb, something like "This will enable us to see ourselves more closely and know ourselves more satisfactorily" (or "more fully" or the like). Or strike the prolixity and just say "This will enable us to better know ourselves," or something of that sort. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > > On television a few moments ago was a sentence that I thought > > interesting enough to bring to the group. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > adverb, and it sounds at least ungainly, if not outright ugly, in that > use. Perhaps you do not consider Merriam-Webster an authority. Or the Cambridge Advanced Learner's. Or the COD. All are online, and all report "close" as an adverb. Okay, they don't separately report its comparative "closer," but why bother? Here's one example of "closer" as adverb: "I want you to sit closer to me." Of course, "close" works just as well. Ah, you may say, but is it proper to use "close" as an adverb with "see"? Why not? "With my new teleseope, I can see the moon closer than ever." No wonder I had trouble understanding why anyone would question the original sentence. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich Looking closer than ever [...] >> I am unable to find any authority expressly acknowledging "closer" as >> an adverb, and it sounds at least ungainly, if not outright ugly, in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > adverb: "I want you to sit closer to me." Of course, "close" works just > as well. Oh, I agree that "close" itself is commonly an adverb. It was the exact form "closer" as an adverb for which I could not find an express mention. I also disagree about the status of "closer" there: the closeness is the end product of the sitting, not a description of how the sitting is done. Mind, this gets into the whole issue of whether certain adjectival words are also adverbs (despite the existence of a separate adverbial form) or whether the verbs in question are being sensed as copulative; I believe that the latter is more commonly the case than is generally perceived. One can stand quickly--a description of the actual standing process the verb describes--or one can stand proud. Because we are, in my opinion, in a transition time as to copulative verbs, one can also still say without actual error "He stood proudly", even though logically it is hard to decide how one moves from sitting to standing in a proud manner, as opposed to how one can be proud (adjective) while standing. But that's probably more of a sidebar in the instant matter. > Ah, you may say, but is it proper to use "close" as an adverb with > "see"? Why not? "With my new telescope, I can see the moon closer than > ever." Actually, you can't: you can see it seeming closer than ever. You can't see it closer unless you travel into space (or at least climb a mountain). And even then, you aren't seeing it closer, you're only seeing it _from_ closer up (whatever that form might be). The Moon may, in your new telescope, _seem_ closer--where "closer" is an adjective describing the Moon (and "seem" is definitely copulative, most verbs of "seeming" being so, as in "it looms large")--but you can't really see it closer. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ [ ... ] > > Ah, you may say, but is it proper to use "close" as an adverb with > > "see"? Why not? "With my new telescope, I can see the moon closer than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Moon (and "seem" is definitely copulative, most verbs of "seeming" being > so, as in "it looms large")--but you can't really see it closer. Good point. Please allow me to change the example sentence to "The Apollo 11 astronauts saw the moon closer than anyone before them." SignatureBob Lieblich And weave > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Good point. Please allow me to change the example sentence to "The > Apollo 11 astronauts saw the moon closer than anyone before them." To simplify, the essence can equivalently be rendered as "They saw the moon closer." If I am not grossly in error, "closer" is there still an adjective modifying "Moon", describing its status with respect to the astronauts. Compare "The moon was closer." As I have said many times over the years, it is my opinion that English is undergoing a significant if subtle change leading to ever greater numbers of verbs being perceived as copulative. I of course do not mean by that that the average English user thinks in such terms when casting sentences: only that what constitutes easy and natural use is trending toward the usage. Verbs of "seeming" have long been treated by the tongue as copulative, but even some verbs of a less passive nature have long been so seen (as in "he _fell_ heir to a fortune", "the well _ran_ dry"). The logical crux is whether the modifier is perceived as modulating the nature of an action or as modulating the nature of a condition or state. Whether the heroic aviator landed the damaged plane single-handedly or single-handed depends on whether we see the modifier (meaning "alone", "without other hands to help") as describing the nature of the piloting or the status of the pilot; my assertion is that there is an ever- increasing trend, in like cases, to see the modifier as modulating the status. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House, still bobbing http://owlcroft.com/english/ >To simplify, the essence can equivalently be rendered as "They saw the >moon closer." If I am not grossly in error, "closer" is there still an >adjective modifying "Moon", describing its status with respect to the >astronauts. Compare "The moon was closer." Surely "closer" modifies "saw" and "was", so it is an adverb? SignatureIan [...] >>To simplify, the essence can equivalently be rendered as "They saw the >>moon closer." If I am not grossly in error, "closer" is there still an >>adjective modifying "Moon", describing its status with respect to the >>astronauts. Compare "The moon was closer." >> > Surely "closer" modifies "saw" and "was", so it is an adverb? "Be" is always and ever copulative, and thus cannot be modified by adverbs. "See", like many verbs of "seeming", is often copulative, as I submit it plainly is in the subject example; like any copulative verb, it cannot be modified by an adverb. For those not well familiar with copulative verbs (aka "linking" verbs): a sentence comprises a subject and a predicate, which predicates something about the subject; the predicate may, at times, be a finite form of a verb of incomplete predication in connection with a predicate complement--that is, a predicate noun, adjective, participle, etc., the verb then assuming in a mere formal way the _function_ of predication, the complement serving as the true predicate. If that is too complicated, consider that the various forms of "be" function, roughly speaking, as an verbal "equals sign": "He is tall" is essentially "He = tall", where the copulative verb "be" (here "is") serves in a merely formal way to connect the predicate complement adjective "tall" with the subject. A verb is copulative whenever it serves as what one might call a "shaded" version of "be": that is, when its main job to assign a sort of equality between the predicate complement and the subject--the "shading" referred to above meaning that it shades the base quality of equivalence with some modulation more exactly qualifying the approximate equivalence. Classically, verbs of "seeming"--which, obviously, are not far from the basic "be"--have been sensed as copulative. Examples in which the verb clearly is stating a sort of equivalence of subject and predicate adjective, with the exact verb shading the exact nature of the equivalence, include: She seems happy; I felt depressed; It ranks high; The fruit tasted sour; He grew angry; and so on. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ [...,] > "Be" is always and ever copulative, and thus cannot be modified by > adverbs. " "He is in London most days. In fact, he is there now". How is one to describe "in London", "there","most days" and "now"? Is "be" sometimes existential rather than copulative? Alan Jones > [...,] >> "Be" is always and ever copulative, and thus cannot be modified by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > describe "in London", "there","most days" and "now"? Is "be" sometimes > existential rather than copulative? No. A copulative verb frequently connects the subject noun to a predicate adjective, but copulative predication is not thus limited: linking verbs can be used "when the thing predicated of the subject is an adjective, noun, or prepositional phrase" (Curme, _English Grammar_, 16.C). But if what is being predicated is a noun or prepositional phrase, its function with respect to the subject--which is necessarily a noun--is adjectival. Regarding "In London", Curme elsewhere notes, "After the copula _be_ the prepositional phrase is an adjective element with the force of a predicate adjective . . . ." And "most days" is an adverbial phrase modifying that adjectival prepositional phrase. Regarding "there", though it is frequently adverbial, it also has a noun function, (OED III.11 under "there"), signifying "that place; the (or a) place yonder." In the subject usage, it is a noun functioning with adjectival force (as the usually substantive "Chevrolet" is in "Chevrolet Suburban"), and is modified by the adverbial "now". SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> [...,] >>> "Be" is always and ever copulative, and thus cannot be modified by [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > can be used "when the thing predicated of the subject is an adjective, > noun, or prepositional phrase"... As in "She sure smelled in the mood to me!" Or is it "surely"? SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com [...] >> A copulative verb frequently connects the subject noun to a predicate >> adjective, but copulative predication is not thus limited: linking >> verbs can be used "when the thing predicated of the subject is an >> adjective, noun, or prepositional phrase"... > > As in "She sure smelled in the mood to me!" Or is it "surely"? The form [subject] sure [verbed] . . . ." is always at best colloquial: "sure" is an adjective, and only informally used as an intensifier, whether of verbs or of other adjectives ("He was sure angry!"). As a so-called "sentence adverb" (an ill calling), "surely" (like "assuredly") can modify an entire clause; such uses are typically marked by the "sentence adverb" not directly (or as directly as possible) following the verb of predication. In "She surely smelled in the mood to me!" "surely" is such a "sentence adverb" (I prefer the term "adclausal") modifying the clause "she smelled good to me", in which "smelled"--like virtually all verbs of "seeming"--is copulative. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] >>> A copulative verb frequently connects the subject noun to a predicate [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > modifying the clause "she smelled good to me", in which "smelled"--like > virtually all verbs of "seeming"--is copulative. Can I concur with both paragraphs with an adclausal "Right on"? SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com > [...,] >> "Be" is always and ever copulative, and thus cannot be modified by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > describe "in London", "there","most days" and "now"? Is "be" sometimes > existential rather than copulative? No. A copulative verb frequently connects the subject noun to a predicate adjective, but copulative predication is not thus limited: linking verbs can be used "when the thing predicated of the subject is an adjective, noun, or prepositional phrase" (Curme, _English Grammar_, 16.C). But if what is being predicated is a noun or prepositional phrase, its function with respect to the subject--which is necessarily a noun--is adjectival. Regarding "In London", Curme elsewhere notes, "After the copula _be_ the prepositional phrase is an adjective element with the force of a predicate adjective . . . ." And "most days" is an adverbial phrase modifying that adjectival prepositional phrase. Regarding "there", though it is frequently adverbial, it also has a noun function, (OED III.11 under "there"), signifying "that place; the (or a) place yonder." In the subject usage, it is a noun functioning with adjectival force (as the usually substantive "Chevrolet" is in "Chevrolet Suburban"), and is modified by the adverbial "now". SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > verb then assuming in a mere formal way the _function_ of predication, > the complement serving as the true predicate. Yeah. Wariner's called it a predicate nominative, but we didn't cover copulation in that class. Not most kids. SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com >> To simplify, the essence can equivalently be rendered as "They saw the >> moon closer." If I am not grossly in error, "closer" is there still an >> adjective modifying "Moon", describing its status with respect to the >> astronauts. Compare "The moon was closer." >> > Surely "closer" modifies "saw" and "was", so it is an adverb? "Cuddle up a little closer, Baby." Don't tell me you don't understand that! SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.