This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I don't understand the removal of puisse from the article. According to the log summary, "puisse is a regular subjunctive form frequently used to express wishes, equivalent to "may" in that regard, and not a good example." This doesn't make sense, for two reasons:
At any rate, I've reverted the removal, because I think it's important to include puisse, for exactly the reason it seems to have been removed: puisse might seem like the imperative of pouvoir, until you think about it for a moment. Simply writing that there's no imperative peux leads the reader to think, "Hey, wait a sec! What about puisse? . . . Oh, wait, never mind."
If my reversion bothers anyone, please reply here.
Ruakh 14:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have a new model for explaining the behaviour of those modal auxiliaries that circumvents the whole defective verb definition. It is not fit for any article on wikipedia since it is just something I figured out while riding my bike. But I thought some one involved in this page might be interested.
I don't think can, should, will, could, would, might... are defective verbs in the present tense. I think they are all moods and tenses of the only verb in english that is not defective, 'do'. Although 'do' has no meaning, it is very uselful due to its lack of meaning and lack of defectiveness. 'eat' has no conditional tense. But the conditional of 'do' is 'would'. So in order to form the conditional of 'eat', we have to use the relegate 'eat' to the position of infinitive, so that the conjugated verb can be one with a conditional form. 'will' is the future form of 'do'.
Since 'do' is the only verb that has most of these forms, there is no reason to think that in this tense, an 's' is required in the third person.
In current use, 'do' is also one of 3 verbs that accepts inversion and 'not'. The other two are 'be' and 'have', although inversion, and negation of 'have' are limited to certain circumstances in the new world, while they are completely free in England. "I haven't any money"
What do you think guys? I don't know what the history of those modals is. But I think that this model offers a much cleaner explanation of their behaviour than to call them defective. To repeat myself, it is all the other verbs that are defective.
Jackie
Thanks. I was actually curious where this came from, and I was curious since I was a kid if there was a relationship between the two kinds of will. But I am not sure if a gramatical model has to be consistent with history, or just as simplest model you can come up with that predicts common usage.
The term "Preterite Present" is commonly and redundantly used to describe the past subjunctive use of the preterite verbs "might", "could", "should", "must", and "ought." However, these verbs are not and have never been anything other than the preterite forms of defective "may", "can", "shall", "mote(rarely used save in "so mote it be")", and regular "owe(through an older spelling)" respectively. Therefor, it is unnecesary and confusing to include these so called "Preterite Presents" in the discussion of defective verbs. Furthermore, as "Preterite Presents" are infact preterites, it is completely absurd to suggest that the lack of forms such as "have musted", "he oughts", "to must", or "to could" makes them any different from regular verbs. For example, observe how the nondefective verb "think" fails to form "have thoughted", "he thoughts", or "to thought".-- Jr mints 17:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Beware is not truly a verb but instead a clause constructed by synthesis of the verb "be" and the adjective "ware." Its present participle is then "being ware", and likewise its past participle is "been ware." The use of "beware" as a verb is limited only by the fact that "be" itself is a defective verb that augments its deficiencies with forms of "am" and "is." Therefor I am taking "beware" out of the list of examples.-- Jr mints 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Beware has both a transative and an intransitive form. Perhaps in the intransative sense it springs from "vb. be + adj. ware" and in the transative from "prefix be- + vb. ware". In Old English, "waer" was an adjective meaning "wary, watchful" and "bewerian" was a weak transative verb derived from the same source meaning "guard, watch". In Middle English, "be ware" was used by Wyclif to mean "be wary" and "beware" to mean "watch". In Modern English, Shakespear used "beware" in both senses but sometimes with a mixed meaning. In Henry VI he writes "Priest, beware your beard, I mean to tug it and to cuff you soundly" clearly meaning "watch, guard", and in the heretofor much quoted Julius Ceasar he writes "Caesar, beware of Brutus" meaning "be wary", however, he also writes "Beware the Ides of March" which seems to mean "watch warily, guard against". If the transative form of "beware" is indeed related to "bewerian" then a complete conjugation is as easy as that of "befriend". However, the akwardness with which forms like "bewared" and "bewaring" come to us show that most people think of "beware" in the intransative meaning of "be wary". Additionally, notice the change in pronounciation between the intransative "bE•wAre" and the transative "be•wAre".-- Jr mints 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are some more samples of "beware" in historical and contemporary contexts:
-In wyclif's Middle English translation of Mathew 10:17, "But be ye war of men, for thei shulen take you in counseilis, and thei shulen bete you in her synagogis", the meaning "be ware" is evident, but in the Authorized Translation of 1611 the verse is rendered, "But beware of men...".
-In the Authorized Translation, Timothy 4:15 reads, "Of whom bee thou ware also, for he hath greatly withstood our words[or, our preachings]". The New Scofield Reference Edition of the Authorized Version renders the same verse "Of whom do thou beware also...".
-Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote in his poem "Pelleas and Effarre", contained in Idylls of the King, "He woke, and being ware of someone nigh, / Sent hands upon him, as to tear him...".
-Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary lists "beware" as an intransative verb but provides the usage note "This word though here admitted as a verb, from the Saxon,is rarely used as a verb in fact; or if a verb, is now never used except in the imperative mode It is a compound of be and the Old Eng. ware, now wary. Be wary of danger. Hence it cannot be used with did, like a regular verb, nor with be, in any of its inflections, he is beware; for this would be to use the substantive verb twice before ware and wary, is and be. Ben Jonson however has used the word in the third person. He bewares to act. But it has no past tense or participle, and therefore, if admitted as a verb, it is defective,and used only in the imperative mode, or after an auxiliary."
-Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) contains, "Ware, n.[AS. waru caution.] The state of being ware or aware; heed." as well as "Ware, v.t.[AS. warian] To make ware; to warn; to take heed of; to beware of; to guard against."
-Thomas Lovell Beddoe's 1822 play "The Bride's Tragedy" contains "But be you 'ware of compliment akin / to falsehood...".
-In 2000, pop-punk band Ace Troubleshooter released the song "Don't Trust that Girl" on Don't Stop a Rockin' which contains "Hey fellas, be you ware / Don't want to end up like me..."
It is also interesting to google forms such as "beware", "be ware", "being ware", "been ware", "bewaring", "bewared", and "bewares" to see how internet users currently deal with conjugating the verb.-- Jr mints 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
"I used to do heroin." The verb "use" in this sense is never used in present. Spanish speakers often try to use it in the present:
(to mean "I work monday to friday, nine to five.") That tense is awkward in enlgish because the 'd' doesn't really make a sound before the 't' anyhow.
So I guess that that is a defective verb right?
Did it use to be allowed in all tenses, and the present tense fall out of use? Or did it start to develop by abreviating some other construction (like "I am used") and never fully develop?
Here is the list of problems and how I hoped to adress them with my earlier edit of the "Defective verbs in English" segment:
1. The first sentence is inspecific in describing English to have "few" defective verbs. At the very least, this is a weak starting sentence. I re-worded it to show that "few" is in reference to older languages which were allowed to change more before becoming literarily standardised.
2. The second sentence implies that modal auxiliary verbs are defective e.g. "can, may, will, must, and so on." Modal auxiliary verbs are not defective. Only the preterite-present auxiliaries and "will" are defective. I detailed which auxiliaries were defective and why.
3. Sentences 3 and 4 state that "in Standard English" the listed verbs lack "infinitives, participles, imperatives, or present subjunctives." The first problem with this is that, according to the Wikipedia article " Standard English", "There are no set rules or vocabulary for 'Standard English' because, unlike languages such as French, Spanish or Dutch, English does not have a governing body ... to establish usage." And so I removed the Pedagogal and independantly-researched proscription of "Standard English." The second problem is that, while it might be argued those forms are lacking, it is equally likely that such forms are "missing" not because they are impossible but merely for "semantic reasons"(see "Impersonal verbs in English" segment). I re-wrote the sentences to explain that, because of their use as auxiliary verbs, they were not likely to appear in certain forms but that their true defect was apparent in the lack of a third-person conjugation.
4. Sentence 6 is non-tangential to defective verbs and is implied in the fact that the verbs are defective only in the third person. I removed it.
5. Sentences 7 and 8 present themselves as self-supporting facts while making the patently subjective pronouncement that "must" may not refer to future time. These sentences, if tangential, do not add much helpful information about English defective verbs. They were removed.
6. The second paragraph is entirely subjective and independant research. It was removed
7. The segment does not adress the defective verbs in English which have necessitated suppletion, "be" and "go". These verbs have no past tenses of their own and instead draw upon the past tense of an unrelated verb. Sentences were added to adress "be" and "go", and "was" and "went".-- 66.191.239.22 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
As a native speaker of "English as it is today", I find your claim that I have trouble distinguishing my language from that of other centuries or millenia absurd and non-constructive. It is a patronizing way of saying that my understanding is misguided without presenting and defending your own logically. Please don't.
As for "go", how has the adoption of another verb's preterite made it any less defective? "Went" is no more a conjugation of "go" than "traveled" is. The same is true of "be" and "was".
Lastly, my objection to "Standard English" is that it is anything but. Everyone who talks about it has their own subjective measure. In reality English has always been as rich with diversity in vocabulary and expression as there are numbers of individual speakers. The only facts in English are the linguistic developments recorded in the past. All else is subjective, depending on the surveyor's point of view as a current speaker. Therefor, if no precedent for a rule can be found, it is not a rule but an opinion just like the preposition-stranding "rule". My edit covered only historicly observable and explainable facts without venturing into the realm of unprecidented opinions.
By the way, "wills", as the third-person indicative of "will", is no more a word than "goed" as the preterite of "go". Websters lists "will" as the "1st & 3rd sing. pres. indic." with no reference to "wills". "He will it so" is indeed the correct form but again only serves to illustrate "will"s defectiveness in the third person.-- 66.191.239.22 04:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You're going to have to explain your disagreement with my claims if you want me to respond.-- 66.191.239.22 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
While we continue to discuss the suppletive verbs and third person endings, for the sake of productivity, let's turn to the rest of my edit. You mentioned earlier that you approved some of my points. Specificly, what parts of the edit are you OK with?-- 66.191.239.22 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, a new defective verb that is quickly developing in english, especially in the new world, is 'got'. It was the past tense of 'get'. But it is changing into a defective sinonym of 'have'.
I don't got any money. (bare infinitive exists) I got money. (first person use consistent with old definition) He s got money. (reanalize... For some reason the third person 's' comes before this verb instead of after!!!!) He gots money. (hip people move 's' to the other side of the verb in an attempt to make it less defective.)
Of course, none of this applies in England, where I live currently.
Jackie
No. It is not standard english. But that is why we are fortunate enough to see a defective verb in the making. About the 'I gots', that did actually cross my mind, that there are dialects that add the 's' universally (newfoundland). But I also here it from people trying to sound cool. In any case, "I don't got" is the phrase that is most common, and can be used by all classes and colours of North Americans without making too many people thing that you are "trying too hard". And like I said, "He's got", is now used more like "He sgot", where "got" is a special verb that adds the third person 's' to the front side instead of the back side
I know
you know
he knows (normal everyday third person s)
I got
you got
he sgot (s on the wrong side)
I have
you have
he has (s deletes v)
I am
you are
he is (totally different, but still gets s in there)
It says in the article that "måste" does not have an infinitive. What about "att måsta"?
— Daniel Brockman ( talk) 06:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
In the cited paper, Pullum claims that the constructions; "he tries and gets the paper", "I tried and got the paper", "Trying and getting the paper the is not my job", and "he has tried and gotten the paper"; are ungrammatical. However he also states in note 5 that they are grammatical when the verbs are thought of as independant actions, which way of thinking is always possible. While he does claim that equivalence fails betwene "try and get" and "try to get", he supplies no reason for this theory. Above all, Pullum's opinions are no more grammatical rules than mine or yours and are not intended to dictate grammatical propriety. The most that may be said is that "Try and . . ." is thought by some to be defective. That however, I think, is beyond the simple scope of this article.-- 24.151.175.5 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The paper may be viewed at < http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/publications/osu_wpl/files/osu_wpl_39.pdf>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.175.5 ( talk) 16:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I take no sides in the above discussion of defectiveness, but on the subject of grammatical correctness:
Isn't it true that "Try and..." is only correct when the trying is successful and is immediately followed by the actual doing? That is, "He'll try and log in" means this: "He'll try. He'll succeed. He certainly will have logged in, we know without doubt."
Thus, if "he'll try to log in" but there's either a possibility or a certainty that he won't be able to log in, then in this case isn't it ungrammatical to describe this "trying" with "and", when the outcome is either uncertain or certainly a failure? Instead isn't it only correct to say "he'll try to log in"?
"I tried and failed it" has a completely different meaning that "I tried to fail it". Does "try and" have a different grammatical meaning than "try to", or not? Isn't it an absurdity to state something like "I'll try and do it, but I might fail it"? (I'll try, and [I'll] do it, but I might fail it)
Also, the sentence
is so incorrect grammatically that it speaks for itself.
The reason I'm asking is that the "try and" examples in the article are presented as defective examples. Disregarding that the examples appear to me to be uncited, and therefore synthesis at best and OR at worst, I (and Pullum) argue that the examples are simply incorrect grammatically. They would belong in the Disputed English article, and this article (being about defectives, after all) would need the "try and" example to be removed.
The reason the negative examples indicate the dis-utility of certain forms of "try and" is not that there's any defectiveness, but that the entire construction is either nonsensical and incorrect ("she tries and do it" is not defective but improperly conjugated), or conveys a meaning other than what's intended ("she tries and does it" is not incorrect, nor defective, but indicates that she succeeds, rather than that she simply tries, with the speaker not intending any indication of success or failure).
In the case of the positive example given: "I try and do it every week" would be correct only when the speaker actually means "I do it every week, never failing in the trying and never skipping any week". In such case the speaker ought only say "I do it every week". This example not bearing any issue of defectiveness, if the speaker means that one tries every week, one should correctly say not "try and" but "try to", if it's true that any weeks one fails.
What are the opinions of others here? What's gramatically correct? And, after all, on the subject of defectiveness, are these examples good or bad, accurate or inaccurate, effective or ineffective, helpful or unhelpful? Can anyone cite analysis of "try and" in the context of defectiveness? I mean, Pullum isn't helping there one way or the other, and neither is anonny's statement that "The most that may be said is that "Try and..." is thought by some to be defective", without citation. What most certainly can be cited is that "'Try and...' is thought by some [Pullum, not least] to be incorrect", and, as such, isn't the subject of this article. Thanks for opinions, -- Beanluc ( talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for responding. Let me be more clear: I'm not confusing those constructions. What I have done is highlight that one construction is unequivocally valid yet is unrelated to the subject of this article, while the other construction, that which has been illustrated in this article, is demonstrably disputed and certainly is regarded as incorrect and ungrammatical by at least some authorities. As such, I am questioning whether it is a good example to be used in this article, especially when defectiveness can be effectively demonstrated without resorting to questionable grammar. Let me put it to you this way: If it were in the Disputed English article, would you support using it as an example of defectiveness? -- Beanluc ( talk) 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, AJD, I completely agree with you that "'some [or even all] commentators regard[ing] it as non-standard' should [not] be considered a reason to exclude a construction from being discussed in this article." Forgive me, I'm not sure I've been completely explicit.
If it actually were simply "nonstandard" according to authorities in agreement, I wouldn't even be speaking up. That's not the same as "incorrect and ungrammatical". A nonstandard construction isn't an ungrammatical one, and a grammatically disputed one isn't argued by the various parties to be standard or nonstandard but correct or incorrect.
"Confusion" on the part of readers isn't any part of my concern, but encyclopedic treatment on the part of contributors is.
By the way, where does the quote "some commentators regard it as non-standard" come from? I couldn't find it in earlier parts of this discussion or any of the related articles. Is it your own paraphrasing of the argument? -- Beanluc ( talk) 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh.
OK, first of all, that's what I thought, about the quote that wasn't a quote. I grant that it's a true statement (certainly that is the regard of some commentators), but it's not an accurate characterization of the point of discussion here. Such is the danger of appearing to attribute, when merely paraphrasing.
But, "There's no claim that it's ungrammatical in the technical sense?" I feel unheard (pout, p-p-p-Pout!).
Please, look at the first post in this topic, which I referred to. It says "In the cited paper, Pullum claims that the constructions; 'he tries and gets the paper', 'I tried and got the paper', 'Trying and getting the paper the is not my job', and 'he has tried and gotten the paper'; are ungrammatical." The paper is no longer available at the link provided, so I can't read it in context, but the original poster makes clear that Pullum's positions are as follows:
Since the discussion of Pullum was either unclear, unpersuasive, or just skipped over, more references follow.
This author says in [1], "some grammarians consider this heniadys ungrammatical", which fact he explicitly says he will disregard for the purpose of his paper. Now, this author is not a language authority, rather a philosophy professor, and who knows who are meant by "grammarians" (linguists? English authorities? Common unqualified pedants? I actually do think the first, given Matthews' background, but you decide). At any rate, why would he make explicit this disregard, when the thesis is "On not being said to do two things"? "Try and..." is to say to do two things, that's why, and he feels obliged to defend his effort against the dissident "grammarians". Clearly, this fellow is qualified to cover the language beat. His paper appeared in Analysis, a journal of analytic philosophy. I don't think it would be controversial to say that he would be rather predisposed to take a descriptivist angle, and I think we can take his allegation of controversy literally and seriously.
Moving on, how about The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage by Burchfield (1998), which introduces the subject with:
In the above passage, I left out some elements indicating support of the construction (incl. Fowler himself, 1923) but only to starkly highlight that the contrary merited Burchfield's attention.
And Usage and abusage. A guide to good English, Partridge & Greet, 1947, London: H. Hamilton, had:
The answer to "Does 'try and' have a different grammatical meaning than 'try to', or not?" is: It does, and we avoid ambiguity (Will he try? And do we know in advance that he will have logged in? Or is it in fact the case that he will try to log in, with uncertain outcome?). This ambiguity when one uses "Try and..." for one action (not two) inspires the "dissidents". OK, maybe they're prescriptivist. Whatever - their arguments are neither imaginary, nor undocumented, nor amateur, nor ignored by authorities.
Evidence for a dispute, and for claims of ungrammaticality, has been provided. Evidence that pedantic complainers are regarded as uninformed, unqualified or wrong by authorities has not. In cases like the "dangling preposition" and the "split infinitive", the dissent has been debunked. But in this case, I'm not sure that it has. Help?
And, really, we can just nevermind all of the above if there's any help for my main thing. If this article is to illustrate that "Certain other verbs are defective only in specific constructions", then let's do one of the following two things:
Of course, if convincing documentation that "there's literally no case to be made that it's 'ungrammatical' in general[...] it's [well-recognized as merely] non-standard. There's no claim that it's ungrammatical in the technical sense" can be shown, the third option is to use such information to supplement the first one I present. -- Beanluc ( talk) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I am already convinced that this is spoken and written by many. So are "ain't", singular "y'all", "might could", failures of complements, unnecessary doubled copulae, et bleeding cetera, with the Google Books results to prove their currency if not their grammaticality. So, no, I don't disagree with any of what you said. Not even the really thoughtful part about what it means. What's the problem, you ask? I am sorry, have I actually failed to form proper questions and present specific proposals? My goodness, how did that happen? Well, firstly, on a philosophical level, even though we both agree to all of that, we couldn't defend having it in a Wikipedia article without citations. But moving on to the specific points of this conversation here on Talk:, I honestly have a hard time with you asking me what "the problem" is. It doesn't look that hard to me to gather, and instead of finding here a spirit of cooperation, I feel like I'm making a problem. Nevertheless since I have to actually state what it is (again), it boils down to this: Clearly the grammatical correctness of "try and as heniadys" has been questioned, and not by mere crackpots, yokels, Americans and Google Books hitcounts, either. As such, the part of this article where "try and..." is used should be improved. There are a variety of possible ways, depending on what can actually be cited. So far, nobody has offered one citation at all that the heniadic usage of "try and" represents not incorrectness but defectiveness, much less "verbs [that] are defective only in specific constructions". That would be a start. My opinion is that a different verb altogether would be the best improvement, but if there's no support for that, then let's at least leave opinion at the door and stick to Wikipedia common practices (to say nothing of policies), regarding the content we do have. -- Beanluc ( talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
-- 78.143.222.57 ( talk) 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The verb "кушать" has first person singular form, but it's rarely used. Another verb, "есть" (same meaning), has wider use in everyday speech. The verb "кушать" is very polite and formal, while "есть" (first person singular - "ем") is neutral. That's all the difference. I'm a native Russian speaker, so I can answer some questions. Sorry for bad English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqetz ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been told that the negative form of 知っています/shitteimasu is not 知っていません/shitteimasen, rather, you would say 知りません/shirimasen. Is this a case of a defective verb or rather nothing more than the usual usage of a verb which is not really defective? I mean, is 知っていません correct but seldom used, or is it plain incorrect? Sabbut ( talk) 07:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "login" is such a good example. I use and see expressions like "he logs in every day" quite frequently, and don't see anything wrong with them. It seems like just another phrasal verb. DopefishJustin 23:25, 29 March 2004 (UTC)
I split the first paragraph of this section into several to seperate the Standard English features from the dialectal/archaic, and to mention the non-defective counterparts to the defective verbs. Used star+italics for all ungrammatical phrases, as the bottom of the page already has. I put the impersonal verbs discussion in a separate section but did not change it.
I left "subjunctive" in the list of missing forms, although I'm not sure that's correct. The past form doubles as the past subjunctive, as is the case with almost all other English verbs. The present, well, maybe "He can" is a subjunctive and that's why it's missing the -s.
sluggoster 03:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with mentioning that "can", "shall" etc don't take the third person "s", since this isn't a defect - it's not the reason why they're defective, and on its own, it doesn't make a verb defective. Also, the use of "should" as the past tense of "shall" is not archaic. If I say, "Am I?" then afterwards I can say, "I asked whether I was", casting both verbs into the past tense; similarly, if I say, "Shall I go?" then afterwards I can say, "I asked whether I should go," again putting both verbs into the past. - 86.133.48.161 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
In the construction "We have been to Paris several times", "to Paris" looks to be a prepositional phrase similer to "in Paris" or "at Paris" showing a state of being. It is possible to frame this construction in the present as in "We are to port of the leading yacht", however, in the case of Paris, Modern English speakers would probably choose "in" because "to" is less descriptive. -- Jr mints 18:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This article says
Likewise, the role of must, which like can/could has only a present and a past tense (which is also must)
Must does not function as a past tense, am I wrong? The only way to convey that is "had to". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.52 ( talk) 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I don't understand the removal of puisse from the article. According to the log summary, "puisse is a regular subjunctive form frequently used to express wishes, equivalent to "may" in that regard, and not a good example." This doesn't make sense, for two reasons:
At any rate, I've reverted the removal, because I think it's important to include puisse, for exactly the reason it seems to have been removed: puisse might seem like the imperative of pouvoir, until you think about it for a moment. Simply writing that there's no imperative peux leads the reader to think, "Hey, wait a sec! What about puisse? . . . Oh, wait, never mind."
If my reversion bothers anyone, please reply here.
Ruakh 14:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have a new model for explaining the behaviour of those modal auxiliaries that circumvents the whole defective verb definition. It is not fit for any article on wikipedia since it is just something I figured out while riding my bike. But I thought some one involved in this page might be interested.
I don't think can, should, will, could, would, might... are defective verbs in the present tense. I think they are all moods and tenses of the only verb in english that is not defective, 'do'. Although 'do' has no meaning, it is very uselful due to its lack of meaning and lack of defectiveness. 'eat' has no conditional tense. But the conditional of 'do' is 'would'. So in order to form the conditional of 'eat', we have to use the relegate 'eat' to the position of infinitive, so that the conjugated verb can be one with a conditional form. 'will' is the future form of 'do'.
Since 'do' is the only verb that has most of these forms, there is no reason to think that in this tense, an 's' is required in the third person.
In current use, 'do' is also one of 3 verbs that accepts inversion and 'not'. The other two are 'be' and 'have', although inversion, and negation of 'have' are limited to certain circumstances in the new world, while they are completely free in England. "I haven't any money"
What do you think guys? I don't know what the history of those modals is. But I think that this model offers a much cleaner explanation of their behaviour than to call them defective. To repeat myself, it is all the other verbs that are defective.
Jackie
Thanks. I was actually curious where this came from, and I was curious since I was a kid if there was a relationship between the two kinds of will. But I am not sure if a gramatical model has to be consistent with history, or just as simplest model you can come up with that predicts common usage.
The term "Preterite Present" is commonly and redundantly used to describe the past subjunctive use of the preterite verbs "might", "could", "should", "must", and "ought." However, these verbs are not and have never been anything other than the preterite forms of defective "may", "can", "shall", "mote(rarely used save in "so mote it be")", and regular "owe(through an older spelling)" respectively. Therefor, it is unnecesary and confusing to include these so called "Preterite Presents" in the discussion of defective verbs. Furthermore, as "Preterite Presents" are infact preterites, it is completely absurd to suggest that the lack of forms such as "have musted", "he oughts", "to must", or "to could" makes them any different from regular verbs. For example, observe how the nondefective verb "think" fails to form "have thoughted", "he thoughts", or "to thought".-- Jr mints 17:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Beware is not truly a verb but instead a clause constructed by synthesis of the verb "be" and the adjective "ware." Its present participle is then "being ware", and likewise its past participle is "been ware." The use of "beware" as a verb is limited only by the fact that "be" itself is a defective verb that augments its deficiencies with forms of "am" and "is." Therefor I am taking "beware" out of the list of examples.-- Jr mints 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Beware has both a transative and an intransitive form. Perhaps in the intransative sense it springs from "vb. be + adj. ware" and in the transative from "prefix be- + vb. ware". In Old English, "waer" was an adjective meaning "wary, watchful" and "bewerian" was a weak transative verb derived from the same source meaning "guard, watch". In Middle English, "be ware" was used by Wyclif to mean "be wary" and "beware" to mean "watch". In Modern English, Shakespear used "beware" in both senses but sometimes with a mixed meaning. In Henry VI he writes "Priest, beware your beard, I mean to tug it and to cuff you soundly" clearly meaning "watch, guard", and in the heretofor much quoted Julius Ceasar he writes "Caesar, beware of Brutus" meaning "be wary", however, he also writes "Beware the Ides of March" which seems to mean "watch warily, guard against". If the transative form of "beware" is indeed related to "bewerian" then a complete conjugation is as easy as that of "befriend". However, the akwardness with which forms like "bewared" and "bewaring" come to us show that most people think of "beware" in the intransative meaning of "be wary". Additionally, notice the change in pronounciation between the intransative "bE•wAre" and the transative "be•wAre".-- Jr mints 06:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are some more samples of "beware" in historical and contemporary contexts:
-In wyclif's Middle English translation of Mathew 10:17, "But be ye war of men, for thei shulen take you in counseilis, and thei shulen bete you in her synagogis", the meaning "be ware" is evident, but in the Authorized Translation of 1611 the verse is rendered, "But beware of men...".
-In the Authorized Translation, Timothy 4:15 reads, "Of whom bee thou ware also, for he hath greatly withstood our words[or, our preachings]". The New Scofield Reference Edition of the Authorized Version renders the same verse "Of whom do thou beware also...".
-Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote in his poem "Pelleas and Effarre", contained in Idylls of the King, "He woke, and being ware of someone nigh, / Sent hands upon him, as to tear him...".
-Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary lists "beware" as an intransative verb but provides the usage note "This word though here admitted as a verb, from the Saxon,is rarely used as a verb in fact; or if a verb, is now never used except in the imperative mode It is a compound of be and the Old Eng. ware, now wary. Be wary of danger. Hence it cannot be used with did, like a regular verb, nor with be, in any of its inflections, he is beware; for this would be to use the substantive verb twice before ware and wary, is and be. Ben Jonson however has used the word in the third person. He bewares to act. But it has no past tense or participle, and therefore, if admitted as a verb, it is defective,and used only in the imperative mode, or after an auxiliary."
-Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) contains, "Ware, n.[AS. waru caution.] The state of being ware or aware; heed." as well as "Ware, v.t.[AS. warian] To make ware; to warn; to take heed of; to beware of; to guard against."
-Thomas Lovell Beddoe's 1822 play "The Bride's Tragedy" contains "But be you 'ware of compliment akin / to falsehood...".
-In 2000, pop-punk band Ace Troubleshooter released the song "Don't Trust that Girl" on Don't Stop a Rockin' which contains "Hey fellas, be you ware / Don't want to end up like me..."
It is also interesting to google forms such as "beware", "be ware", "being ware", "been ware", "bewaring", "bewared", and "bewares" to see how internet users currently deal with conjugating the verb.-- Jr mints 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
"I used to do heroin." The verb "use" in this sense is never used in present. Spanish speakers often try to use it in the present:
(to mean "I work monday to friday, nine to five.") That tense is awkward in enlgish because the 'd' doesn't really make a sound before the 't' anyhow.
So I guess that that is a defective verb right?
Did it use to be allowed in all tenses, and the present tense fall out of use? Or did it start to develop by abreviating some other construction (like "I am used") and never fully develop?
Here is the list of problems and how I hoped to adress them with my earlier edit of the "Defective verbs in English" segment:
1. The first sentence is inspecific in describing English to have "few" defective verbs. At the very least, this is a weak starting sentence. I re-worded it to show that "few" is in reference to older languages which were allowed to change more before becoming literarily standardised.
2. The second sentence implies that modal auxiliary verbs are defective e.g. "can, may, will, must, and so on." Modal auxiliary verbs are not defective. Only the preterite-present auxiliaries and "will" are defective. I detailed which auxiliaries were defective and why.
3. Sentences 3 and 4 state that "in Standard English" the listed verbs lack "infinitives, participles, imperatives, or present subjunctives." The first problem with this is that, according to the Wikipedia article " Standard English", "There are no set rules or vocabulary for 'Standard English' because, unlike languages such as French, Spanish or Dutch, English does not have a governing body ... to establish usage." And so I removed the Pedagogal and independantly-researched proscription of "Standard English." The second problem is that, while it might be argued those forms are lacking, it is equally likely that such forms are "missing" not because they are impossible but merely for "semantic reasons"(see "Impersonal verbs in English" segment). I re-wrote the sentences to explain that, because of their use as auxiliary verbs, they were not likely to appear in certain forms but that their true defect was apparent in the lack of a third-person conjugation.
4. Sentence 6 is non-tangential to defective verbs and is implied in the fact that the verbs are defective only in the third person. I removed it.
5. Sentences 7 and 8 present themselves as self-supporting facts while making the patently subjective pronouncement that "must" may not refer to future time. These sentences, if tangential, do not add much helpful information about English defective verbs. They were removed.
6. The second paragraph is entirely subjective and independant research. It was removed
7. The segment does not adress the defective verbs in English which have necessitated suppletion, "be" and "go". These verbs have no past tenses of their own and instead draw upon the past tense of an unrelated verb. Sentences were added to adress "be" and "go", and "was" and "went".-- 66.191.239.22 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
As a native speaker of "English as it is today", I find your claim that I have trouble distinguishing my language from that of other centuries or millenia absurd and non-constructive. It is a patronizing way of saying that my understanding is misguided without presenting and defending your own logically. Please don't.
As for "go", how has the adoption of another verb's preterite made it any less defective? "Went" is no more a conjugation of "go" than "traveled" is. The same is true of "be" and "was".
Lastly, my objection to "Standard English" is that it is anything but. Everyone who talks about it has their own subjective measure. In reality English has always been as rich with diversity in vocabulary and expression as there are numbers of individual speakers. The only facts in English are the linguistic developments recorded in the past. All else is subjective, depending on the surveyor's point of view as a current speaker. Therefor, if no precedent for a rule can be found, it is not a rule but an opinion just like the preposition-stranding "rule". My edit covered only historicly observable and explainable facts without venturing into the realm of unprecidented opinions.
By the way, "wills", as the third-person indicative of "will", is no more a word than "goed" as the preterite of "go". Websters lists "will" as the "1st & 3rd sing. pres. indic." with no reference to "wills". "He will it so" is indeed the correct form but again only serves to illustrate "will"s defectiveness in the third person.-- 66.191.239.22 04:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You're going to have to explain your disagreement with my claims if you want me to respond.-- 66.191.239.22 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
While we continue to discuss the suppletive verbs and third person endings, for the sake of productivity, let's turn to the rest of my edit. You mentioned earlier that you approved some of my points. Specificly, what parts of the edit are you OK with?-- 66.191.239.22 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, a new defective verb that is quickly developing in english, especially in the new world, is 'got'. It was the past tense of 'get'. But it is changing into a defective sinonym of 'have'.
I don't got any money. (bare infinitive exists) I got money. (first person use consistent with old definition) He s got money. (reanalize... For some reason the third person 's' comes before this verb instead of after!!!!) He gots money. (hip people move 's' to the other side of the verb in an attempt to make it less defective.)
Of course, none of this applies in England, where I live currently.
Jackie
No. It is not standard english. But that is why we are fortunate enough to see a defective verb in the making. About the 'I gots', that did actually cross my mind, that there are dialects that add the 's' universally (newfoundland). But I also here it from people trying to sound cool. In any case, "I don't got" is the phrase that is most common, and can be used by all classes and colours of North Americans without making too many people thing that you are "trying too hard". And like I said, "He's got", is now used more like "He sgot", where "got" is a special verb that adds the third person 's' to the front side instead of the back side
I know
you know
he knows (normal everyday third person s)
I got
you got
he sgot (s on the wrong side)
I have
you have
he has (s deletes v)
I am
you are
he is (totally different, but still gets s in there)
It says in the article that "måste" does not have an infinitive. What about "att måsta"?
— Daniel Brockman ( talk) 06:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
In the cited paper, Pullum claims that the constructions; "he tries and gets the paper", "I tried and got the paper", "Trying and getting the paper the is not my job", and "he has tried and gotten the paper"; are ungrammatical. However he also states in note 5 that they are grammatical when the verbs are thought of as independant actions, which way of thinking is always possible. While he does claim that equivalence fails betwene "try and get" and "try to get", he supplies no reason for this theory. Above all, Pullum's opinions are no more grammatical rules than mine or yours and are not intended to dictate grammatical propriety. The most that may be said is that "Try and . . ." is thought by some to be defective. That however, I think, is beyond the simple scope of this article.-- 24.151.175.5 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The paper may be viewed at < http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/publications/osu_wpl/files/osu_wpl_39.pdf>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.175.5 ( talk) 16:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
I take no sides in the above discussion of defectiveness, but on the subject of grammatical correctness:
Isn't it true that "Try and..." is only correct when the trying is successful and is immediately followed by the actual doing? That is, "He'll try and log in" means this: "He'll try. He'll succeed. He certainly will have logged in, we know without doubt."
Thus, if "he'll try to log in" but there's either a possibility or a certainty that he won't be able to log in, then in this case isn't it ungrammatical to describe this "trying" with "and", when the outcome is either uncertain or certainly a failure? Instead isn't it only correct to say "he'll try to log in"?
"I tried and failed it" has a completely different meaning that "I tried to fail it". Does "try and" have a different grammatical meaning than "try to", or not? Isn't it an absurdity to state something like "I'll try and do it, but I might fail it"? (I'll try, and [I'll] do it, but I might fail it)
Also, the sentence
is so incorrect grammatically that it speaks for itself.
The reason I'm asking is that the "try and" examples in the article are presented as defective examples. Disregarding that the examples appear to me to be uncited, and therefore synthesis at best and OR at worst, I (and Pullum) argue that the examples are simply incorrect grammatically. They would belong in the Disputed English article, and this article (being about defectives, after all) would need the "try and" example to be removed.
The reason the negative examples indicate the dis-utility of certain forms of "try and" is not that there's any defectiveness, but that the entire construction is either nonsensical and incorrect ("she tries and do it" is not defective but improperly conjugated), or conveys a meaning other than what's intended ("she tries and does it" is not incorrect, nor defective, but indicates that she succeeds, rather than that she simply tries, with the speaker not intending any indication of success or failure).
In the case of the positive example given: "I try and do it every week" would be correct only when the speaker actually means "I do it every week, never failing in the trying and never skipping any week". In such case the speaker ought only say "I do it every week". This example not bearing any issue of defectiveness, if the speaker means that one tries every week, one should correctly say not "try and" but "try to", if it's true that any weeks one fails.
What are the opinions of others here? What's gramatically correct? And, after all, on the subject of defectiveness, are these examples good or bad, accurate or inaccurate, effective or ineffective, helpful or unhelpful? Can anyone cite analysis of "try and" in the context of defectiveness? I mean, Pullum isn't helping there one way or the other, and neither is anonny's statement that "The most that may be said is that "Try and..." is thought by some to be defective", without citation. What most certainly can be cited is that "'Try and...' is thought by some [Pullum, not least] to be incorrect", and, as such, isn't the subject of this article. Thanks for opinions, -- Beanluc ( talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for responding. Let me be more clear: I'm not confusing those constructions. What I have done is highlight that one construction is unequivocally valid yet is unrelated to the subject of this article, while the other construction, that which has been illustrated in this article, is demonstrably disputed and certainly is regarded as incorrect and ungrammatical by at least some authorities. As such, I am questioning whether it is a good example to be used in this article, especially when defectiveness can be effectively demonstrated without resorting to questionable grammar. Let me put it to you this way: If it were in the Disputed English article, would you support using it as an example of defectiveness? -- Beanluc ( talk) 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, AJD, I completely agree with you that "'some [or even all] commentators regard[ing] it as non-standard' should [not] be considered a reason to exclude a construction from being discussed in this article." Forgive me, I'm not sure I've been completely explicit.
If it actually were simply "nonstandard" according to authorities in agreement, I wouldn't even be speaking up. That's not the same as "incorrect and ungrammatical". A nonstandard construction isn't an ungrammatical one, and a grammatically disputed one isn't argued by the various parties to be standard or nonstandard but correct or incorrect.
"Confusion" on the part of readers isn't any part of my concern, but encyclopedic treatment on the part of contributors is.
By the way, where does the quote "some commentators regard it as non-standard" come from? I couldn't find it in earlier parts of this discussion or any of the related articles. Is it your own paraphrasing of the argument? -- Beanluc ( talk) 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sigh.
OK, first of all, that's what I thought, about the quote that wasn't a quote. I grant that it's a true statement (certainly that is the regard of some commentators), but it's not an accurate characterization of the point of discussion here. Such is the danger of appearing to attribute, when merely paraphrasing.
But, "There's no claim that it's ungrammatical in the technical sense?" I feel unheard (pout, p-p-p-Pout!).
Please, look at the first post in this topic, which I referred to. It says "In the cited paper, Pullum claims that the constructions; 'he tries and gets the paper', 'I tried and got the paper', 'Trying and getting the paper the is not my job', and 'he has tried and gotten the paper'; are ungrammatical." The paper is no longer available at the link provided, so I can't read it in context, but the original poster makes clear that Pullum's positions are as follows:
Since the discussion of Pullum was either unclear, unpersuasive, or just skipped over, more references follow.
This author says in [1], "some grammarians consider this heniadys ungrammatical", which fact he explicitly says he will disregard for the purpose of his paper. Now, this author is not a language authority, rather a philosophy professor, and who knows who are meant by "grammarians" (linguists? English authorities? Common unqualified pedants? I actually do think the first, given Matthews' background, but you decide). At any rate, why would he make explicit this disregard, when the thesis is "On not being said to do two things"? "Try and..." is to say to do two things, that's why, and he feels obliged to defend his effort against the dissident "grammarians". Clearly, this fellow is qualified to cover the language beat. His paper appeared in Analysis, a journal of analytic philosophy. I don't think it would be controversial to say that he would be rather predisposed to take a descriptivist angle, and I think we can take his allegation of controversy literally and seriously.
Moving on, how about The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage by Burchfield (1998), which introduces the subject with:
In the above passage, I left out some elements indicating support of the construction (incl. Fowler himself, 1923) but only to starkly highlight that the contrary merited Burchfield's attention.
And Usage and abusage. A guide to good English, Partridge & Greet, 1947, London: H. Hamilton, had:
The answer to "Does 'try and' have a different grammatical meaning than 'try to', or not?" is: It does, and we avoid ambiguity (Will he try? And do we know in advance that he will have logged in? Or is it in fact the case that he will try to log in, with uncertain outcome?). This ambiguity when one uses "Try and..." for one action (not two) inspires the "dissidents". OK, maybe they're prescriptivist. Whatever - their arguments are neither imaginary, nor undocumented, nor amateur, nor ignored by authorities.
Evidence for a dispute, and for claims of ungrammaticality, has been provided. Evidence that pedantic complainers are regarded as uninformed, unqualified or wrong by authorities has not. In cases like the "dangling preposition" and the "split infinitive", the dissent has been debunked. But in this case, I'm not sure that it has. Help?
And, really, we can just nevermind all of the above if there's any help for my main thing. If this article is to illustrate that "Certain other verbs are defective only in specific constructions", then let's do one of the following two things:
Of course, if convincing documentation that "there's literally no case to be made that it's 'ungrammatical' in general[...] it's [well-recognized as merely] non-standard. There's no claim that it's ungrammatical in the technical sense" can be shown, the third option is to use such information to supplement the first one I present. -- Beanluc ( talk) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I am already convinced that this is spoken and written by many. So are "ain't", singular "y'all", "might could", failures of complements, unnecessary doubled copulae, et bleeding cetera, with the Google Books results to prove their currency if not their grammaticality. So, no, I don't disagree with any of what you said. Not even the really thoughtful part about what it means. What's the problem, you ask? I am sorry, have I actually failed to form proper questions and present specific proposals? My goodness, how did that happen? Well, firstly, on a philosophical level, even though we both agree to all of that, we couldn't defend having it in a Wikipedia article without citations. But moving on to the specific points of this conversation here on Talk:, I honestly have a hard time with you asking me what "the problem" is. It doesn't look that hard to me to gather, and instead of finding here a spirit of cooperation, I feel like I'm making a problem. Nevertheless since I have to actually state what it is (again), it boils down to this: Clearly the grammatical correctness of "try and as heniadys" has been questioned, and not by mere crackpots, yokels, Americans and Google Books hitcounts, either. As such, the part of this article where "try and..." is used should be improved. There are a variety of possible ways, depending on what can actually be cited. So far, nobody has offered one citation at all that the heniadic usage of "try and" represents not incorrectness but defectiveness, much less "verbs [that] are defective only in specific constructions". That would be a start. My opinion is that a different verb altogether would be the best improvement, but if there's no support for that, then let's at least leave opinion at the door and stick to Wikipedia common practices (to say nothing of policies), regarding the content we do have. -- Beanluc ( talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
-- 78.143.222.57 ( talk) 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The verb "кушать" has first person singular form, but it's rarely used. Another verb, "есть" (same meaning), has wider use in everyday speech. The verb "кушать" is very polite and formal, while "есть" (first person singular - "ем") is neutral. That's all the difference. I'm a native Russian speaker, so I can answer some questions. Sorry for bad English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqetz ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been told that the negative form of 知っています/shitteimasu is not 知っていません/shitteimasen, rather, you would say 知りません/shirimasen. Is this a case of a defective verb or rather nothing more than the usual usage of a verb which is not really defective? I mean, is 知っていません correct but seldom used, or is it plain incorrect? Sabbut ( talk) 07:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "login" is such a good example. I use and see expressions like "he logs in every day" quite frequently, and don't see anything wrong with them. It seems like just another phrasal verb. DopefishJustin 23:25, 29 March 2004 (UTC)
I split the first paragraph of this section into several to seperate the Standard English features from the dialectal/archaic, and to mention the non-defective counterparts to the defective verbs. Used star+italics for all ungrammatical phrases, as the bottom of the page already has. I put the impersonal verbs discussion in a separate section but did not change it.
I left "subjunctive" in the list of missing forms, although I'm not sure that's correct. The past form doubles as the past subjunctive, as is the case with almost all other English verbs. The present, well, maybe "He can" is a subjunctive and that's why it's missing the -s.
sluggoster 03:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with mentioning that "can", "shall" etc don't take the third person "s", since this isn't a defect - it's not the reason why they're defective, and on its own, it doesn't make a verb defective. Also, the use of "should" as the past tense of "shall" is not archaic. If I say, "Am I?" then afterwards I can say, "I asked whether I was", casting both verbs into the past tense; similarly, if I say, "Shall I go?" then afterwards I can say, "I asked whether I should go," again putting both verbs into the past. - 86.133.48.161 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
In the construction "We have been to Paris several times", "to Paris" looks to be a prepositional phrase similer to "in Paris" or "at Paris" showing a state of being. It is possible to frame this construction in the present as in "We are to port of the leading yacht", however, in the case of Paris, Modern English speakers would probably choose "in" because "to" is less descriptive. -- Jr mints 18:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This article says
Likewise, the role of must, which like can/could has only a present and a past tense (which is also must)
Must does not function as a past tense, am I wrong? The only way to convey that is "had to". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.140.52 ( talk) 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)