Discussion Groups / English Usage / March 2010

[...]

Um, because you say so?  Or because of the grammatical structure of the
sentence?  One works, the other doesn't: guess which is which.

What is so opaque here?  As I noted somewhere else, there are many tens
of thousands of quotations available showing that people with some degree
of learning think that the phrase "operates independent" has a real,
definite meaning.  It is very simple: does the modifier speak to the
character of the actor or of the act?  In many cases, it can be either,
and the choice of adjective or adverb allows a nice distinction:

 The men stood silently, honoring their fallen comrades.

 The men stood silent, honoring their fallen comrades.

Which is "correct"?  Both.  But they have different senses--here, only
subtly different.  If one parses mechanically, preferring "silently"
because it "qualifies the verb", one is faced--if one is not a moron--
with the question of how one might "stand" noisily.  If there is not an
obvious answer to that question, as I submit there is not (contrived,
contorted answers are, of course, always available), then "silent" would
seem the better form of expressing the inherent thought of men being
silent (not silently) as an honor to their comrades.

Um, "dangling" is in the ear of the beholder.  That is certainly a most
infelicitous casting--no argument there.  But is it actually,
demonstrably bad grammar?  Why cannot one say "The division operates"?  
The ball bounces, the enemy flees, the presentation impresses, the
division (despite difficulties) operates.  The problem being . . . ?

Try me.  "Many" lacks the trailing "tens of thousands".

Bottom line: till you can produce an argument demonstrating that "The men
stood silent in honor of their fallen comrades" is bad English, you are
just wasting everyone's time, including your own.

[I'm snipping a lot, so attributions may be hazy; sorry.]

You are, it seems to me, cutting and fitting your definition of the verb
"operate" to rather narrow needs.  Can a factory that is financially
dependent on its parent company really be said to "operate"
independent/ly of that parent?  To say so is not chopping logic, its food-
processing it.

These contortions lead one--at least this one--to the view that you have
begun with a conclusion and are now working back from it, furiously
trying to manipulate the premises so as to justify that preordained
conclusion.

And what is it called by others?  The Indian elephant?  No, that's taken.

An objective predicate is an adjective that modifies an object, as
opposed to a subject as is the case with an ordinary predicate adjective.

 He is sick.   "sick" is a predicate adjective modifying the nominative
               "he".

 I found him sick.  "sick" is an objective predicate adjective modifying
                    the accusative "him".

The absence of a copulative verb does not affect the status of the
modifier as an adjective.

Can we run the tape back?  Where does considering that the "is" in "he is
tall" states a form of equality between the subject and the predicate get
turned into an assertion that all people who are tall are to be
considered precisely equal in all ways?  Do you suggest that the
"equality" was intended as a dead exact, literal meaning?  I really doubt
it.  You are trying to turn a simple illustration or analogy into some
devastating fallacy by contorting it in a way obviously never intended.

No, sir, because most--or, likely, all--grammar resources you might care
to look into will explain what a predicate adjective is and what it
does.  This is not grammatical rocket science; the differences between--

  The men stood silent in honor of their fallen comrades.

--and--

  The men stood silently in honor of their fallen comrades.

--are well enough known and understood by virtually all.  Neither form is
more or less grammatical or "correct" than the other, but they say
different things.  But we've already seen this part of the film.

If, as you say--

--then why the apparent grave difficulties with "does the modifier speak
to the qualities of the actor or the act?"  That is the sole distinction
between the copulative and non-copulative interpretations of a verb.

 It operates separate from . . . .

 It operates distinct from . . . .

 It operates apart from . . . .

 It runs independent of . . . .

 It functions independent of . . . .

 It acts independent of . . . .

And, as the King of Siam supposedly said, et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera.  None of those is as felicitous for expressing the idea of
independence as, um, "independent", nor that of operating as "operates",
but they suffice as illustrations.

I do.  Mind, I now see some of your problem: you encounter occasional
adjectives where they are manifestly incorrect, and so project from that
the proposition that any adjective where you yourself would ordinarily
put an adverb is ipso facto a wrong use.

Let me try to make this simple.  Verbs can be either copulative or non-
copulative.  A copulative verb acts in a merely formal way to connect the
predicate to the subject, and thus if the predicate is a modifier it must
be adjectival, modifying the subject.  Some verbs can be either
copulative or non-copulative, depending on the use:

  The soldier fell in battle.
  The well pump ran for five minutes.

  The soldier fell heir to a fortune.
  The well ran dry in five minutes.

Some are always copulative (notably "be"), some are commonly copulative
(most or all verbs of seeming), and I imagine there are quite a few that
are rarely or never copulative.

If the verb is copulative, the modifier following must be adjectival,
modulating the sense of the noun; if it is not, the modifier must be
adverbial, modulating the sense of the verb.

So far, so good?

A given verb in a given sentence may or may not be sensed as, or intended
as, copulative.  If what follows it is manifestly, by form, an adjective,
then the speaker or writer either intends it to apply to the subject or
has made an error of judgement in assigning a quality of the action to
the actor.  But, likewise, if what follows the verb is manifestly
adverbial in form, then the speaker or writer either intends it to apply
to the verb or has made an error of judgement in assigning a quality of
the actor to the action.

Both possibilities need to be considered in examining any given
sentence.  As noted earlier, in some cases both interpretations are
plausible, and we have to take it as it is given and assume the
originator meant what we have.  At other times, we can question the
correctness--but solely on the ground of whether the quality *obviously
and inescapably* inheres in the form other than as used.

"The motor was running hotly" is clearly wrong, because the hotness is
obviously and inescapably a quality of the motor, not of the manner in
which it turns over.  Likewise, "He spoke interminable" is silly because
obviously and inescapably it is the speaking that lacks termination, not
the speaker.

All I am saying is that the scope of qualities that are unconsciously
felt to inhere in the actor rather than the action is slowly expanding.  
In part, I suspect, that is because many qualities commonly expressed
adverbially are, when one thinks it through, hard to actually perceive in
the action; compare:

 He captured the criminals single-handedly.

 He captured the criminals single-handed.

The first is far more likely to be encountered than the second, though
both are grammatically sound.  Yet how does one perform the act of
capturing in a single-handed manner?  What _is_ a single-handed manner?  
Does the question even make sense?  But acting alone is a simple, clear
concept.  There is no difficulty envisioning being alone--single-handed.

 He captured the criminals all by himself.

 He captured the criminals in the manner of a man all by himself.

Which seems natural and sensible, and which looney-tune?

Anyway, whatever the cause, it should be clear enough that the thing is
happening.