![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Sir/Madam, Whatever has been said about Verb Phrase is thoroughly wrong. The writer is not well acquainted with what he has written. Verb Phrase means merely the verb element of a clause. It comprises merely the main verb and the auxiliary that may be up-to four in number at most. The main verb is the obligatory element of the verb phrase and auxiliary is it's optional element. She could have been being taught English then. Here "could have been being taught" is the verb phrase. Ref. : Geoffery Leech: English Grammar for Today.
Birbal Kumawat ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
→ Problematic, perhaps, but "thoroughly" wrong? See hyperbole. Kent Dominic 02:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
→ "Ref. : Geoffery Leech: English Grammar for Today 1982." (Date added for emphasis.) Theories change. Older ones are especially subject to being emended, superseded, or supplanted. Kent Dominic 02:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
→ A readily comprehensible explanation of what is meant by "main verb" would be appreciated. Kent Dominic 02:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic ( talk • contribs)
Here Verb Phrase is surely being misled. A grammar that does not give a clear-cut essence of a content is not worth following. Definitely a Verb Phrase consists a main verb compulsorily and one to four auxiliaries optionally. It has been best clarified by Geoffery Leech etc. in their prestigious work 'English Grammar for Today' published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2010. Why isn't this Grammar is being followed? If a verb phrase has object, complement, adverbial, why not subject then? Birbal Kumawat ( talk) 17:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Kent Dominic 04:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm asking from an axiomatic set theory angle as this article indicates that a verb phrase is not to be confused with phrasal verb. Fundamentally speaking, I believe misguided attempts at pedantics generally demonstrate a disregard for semantics, or, in this case, the neglect of practical linguistic entailments. Kent Dominic 05:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic ( talk • contribs)
I'm loathe to offer negative criticisms without proffering at least one prospective solution. Accordingly, I think the Verb phrase article contains some shortcomings that can be remedied under an approach that deviates from the article's definitional premise. In my book ( figuratively speaking and literally speaking with regard to my soon-to-be-published compendium of English grammar terms), the notions that underlie a term such as verb phrase are too vast to properly explain within the purview of a single sense of the term. As it currently stands, I think this article's introductory paragraph is overly ambitious in its attempt to capture the various senses of what a verb phrase entails. The paragraph cobbles numerous ideas gleaned from divergent linguistic theories and aggregates them into an introductory sentence whose "but not always" caveat is defensible from a linguistic perspective but likely unhelpful to readers who are unfamiliar with distinctions between dependency grammars, phrase structure grammars, and the old school grammatical notion of predicate.
In my preferred approach to phraseology, each word in a phrase should have one or more sets of axiomatic meanings so that a combination of words into a phrase is limited to the exact set of senses that the combination entails. Thus, various senses of the word, verb, correspond uniquely to their sets of given meanings; various senses of the word phrase corresponds to their own sets of given meanings; verb phrase can have no other meaning than the aggregate meanings implied by the union of sets that respectively comprise the verb set and phrase set. My own paradigmatic approach includes fundamental terms such as noun, verb, preposition, phrase, etc. and collocations such as noun phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase, etc. My definition for verb phrase entails my one and only sense given for verb and one of eight senses given for phrase. The resulting meaning is:
In short, when I read an article like Verb phrase, I credit everyone's attempts to synopsize the term, I sympathize with readers who don't recognize the undependability of definitions that are unwittingly rooted on a naive set theory basis, and I shake my head at Talkers who are quick to criticize the flaws in articles such as these but neither invest nor endure the time and effort required to improve them or to rationally refute whatever ails them. Kent Dominic 16:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic ( talk • contribs)
This article doesn't suffice to explain how the subject of so-called content clause is embedded within the verb phrase of an independent clause, e.g., in "He told her (that) she was smart," she is the subject of the "she was smart" content clause which, in its entirety, is the object of the verb phrase, told her (that) she was smart (i.e., where "told" is part of the he told her independent clause). Traditional grammar terms have limitations for which modern terms provide mere band-aid remedies. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Sir/Madam, Whatever has been said about Verb Phrase is thoroughly wrong. The writer is not well acquainted with what he has written. Verb Phrase means merely the verb element of a clause. It comprises merely the main verb and the auxiliary that may be up-to four in number at most. The main verb is the obligatory element of the verb phrase and auxiliary is it's optional element. She could have been being taught English then. Here "could have been being taught" is the verb phrase. Ref. : Geoffery Leech: English Grammar for Today.
Birbal Kumawat ( talk) 04:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
→ Problematic, perhaps, but "thoroughly" wrong? See hyperbole. Kent Dominic 02:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
→ "Ref. : Geoffery Leech: English Grammar for Today 1982." (Date added for emphasis.) Theories change. Older ones are especially subject to being emended, superseded, or supplanted. Kent Dominic 02:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
→ A readily comprehensible explanation of what is meant by "main verb" would be appreciated. Kent Dominic 02:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic ( talk • contribs)
Here Verb Phrase is surely being misled. A grammar that does not give a clear-cut essence of a content is not worth following. Definitely a Verb Phrase consists a main verb compulsorily and one to four auxiliaries optionally. It has been best clarified by Geoffery Leech etc. in their prestigious work 'English Grammar for Today' published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2010. Why isn't this Grammar is being followed? If a verb phrase has object, complement, adverbial, why not subject then? Birbal Kumawat ( talk) 17:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Kent Dominic 04:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm asking from an axiomatic set theory angle as this article indicates that a verb phrase is not to be confused with phrasal verb. Fundamentally speaking, I believe misguided attempts at pedantics generally demonstrate a disregard for semantics, or, in this case, the neglect of practical linguistic entailments. Kent Dominic 05:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic ( talk • contribs)
I'm loathe to offer negative criticisms without proffering at least one prospective solution. Accordingly, I think the Verb phrase article contains some shortcomings that can be remedied under an approach that deviates from the article's definitional premise. In my book ( figuratively speaking and literally speaking with regard to my soon-to-be-published compendium of English grammar terms), the notions that underlie a term such as verb phrase are too vast to properly explain within the purview of a single sense of the term. As it currently stands, I think this article's introductory paragraph is overly ambitious in its attempt to capture the various senses of what a verb phrase entails. The paragraph cobbles numerous ideas gleaned from divergent linguistic theories and aggregates them into an introductory sentence whose "but not always" caveat is defensible from a linguistic perspective but likely unhelpful to readers who are unfamiliar with distinctions between dependency grammars, phrase structure grammars, and the old school grammatical notion of predicate.
In my preferred approach to phraseology, each word in a phrase should have one or more sets of axiomatic meanings so that a combination of words into a phrase is limited to the exact set of senses that the combination entails. Thus, various senses of the word, verb, correspond uniquely to their sets of given meanings; various senses of the word phrase corresponds to their own sets of given meanings; verb phrase can have no other meaning than the aggregate meanings implied by the union of sets that respectively comprise the verb set and phrase set. My own paradigmatic approach includes fundamental terms such as noun, verb, preposition, phrase, etc. and collocations such as noun phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase, etc. My definition for verb phrase entails my one and only sense given for verb and one of eight senses given for phrase. The resulting meaning is:
In short, when I read an article like Verb phrase, I credit everyone's attempts to synopsize the term, I sympathize with readers who don't recognize the undependability of definitions that are unwittingly rooted on a naive set theory basis, and I shake my head at Talkers who are quick to criticize the flaws in articles such as these but neither invest nor endure the time and effort required to improve them or to rationally refute whatever ails them. Kent Dominic 16:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Dominic ( talk • contribs)
This article doesn't suffice to explain how the subject of so-called content clause is embedded within the verb phrase of an independent clause, e.g., in "He told her (that) she was smart," she is the subject of the "she was smart" content clause which, in its entirety, is the object of the verb phrase, told her (that) she was smart (i.e., where "told" is part of the he told her independent clause). Traditional grammar terms have limitations for which modern terms provide mere band-aid remedies. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)