2 of 2
2
places
Posted: 02 December 2017 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  747
Joined  2013-10-14

Are you quoting a scholarly source, or talking off the top of your head?  If the latter, I think I’ll take the word of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language over your speculation, thanks.

I’m just saying that a sentence that is slightly idiomatic can be interpreted either way. What does The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language specifically say?  I’m just saying it could be a locative noun. I just don’t think there’s a definitive hypothesis.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2017 03:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1510
Joined  2007-02-14
Dave Wilton - 02 December 2017 06:32 AM

I still think bush is a noun in this sentence, a noun in the dative case.

Present Day English doesn’t have a dative case.

Certainly not if you define case as a form of the noun.  There are constructions in English that have nouns or pronouns in a way that used to require the dative form back when we did have case by that definition.  When that was the case we could still have go with an argument (if I might call it that) that did not require a preposition.  Some modern examples might be ‘Is it just me or ...’ ‘Toys-Я-Us’ or, dare I say it, ‘He went bush.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2017 06:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6323
Joined  2007-01-03
Faldage - 03 December 2017 03:33 AM

Certainly not if you define case as a form of the noun. 

But that’s exactly what case is. It’s an inflection that modifies the form of the noun (or pronoun or adjective) depending on it’s grammatical role.

There are constructions in English that have nouns or pronouns in a way that used to require the dative form back when we did have case by that definition.  When that was the case we could still have go with an argument (if I might call it that) that did not require a preposition.  Some modern examples might be ‘Is it just me or ...’ ‘Toys-Я-Us’ or, dare I say it, ‘He went bush.’

That would be true for idiomatic expressions that date to Old English, when we did have a complete case system, but to go places or go bush are modern inventions, late 19th century for the former and, I believe, 20th century for the latter. It’s not like we have a vestigial memory of what the language was like a thousand years ago and can recall that to form new expressions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2017 02:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3986
Joined  2007-02-26
Faldage - 02 December 2017 03:30 AM

Can an adverb answer the question ‘you went where?’

Well yes. A lot of them do that, including up, north, home, in.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2017 10:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1173
Joined  2007-03-01

Also, the question ‘you went when?’ can be answered by (e.g.) often, weekly, Wednesday evenings, late.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 02:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1510
Joined  2007-02-14
Dave Wilton - 03 December 2017 06:01 AM

But that’s exactly what case is. It’s an inflection that modifies the form of the noun (or pronoun or adjective) depending on it’s grammatical role.

Then what is the thing that case points to?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 04:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6323
Joined  2007-01-03

Then what is the thing that case points to?

I’m not sure what you mean by “points to.” Do you mean what is it’s grammatical role (or grammatical relation)? That would be indirect object. Or, in the case of noun phrases, you could be talking about the semantic role. In the case of to go places, that would be the direction or goal. In PDE, directions are typically indicated by prepositions. (Semantic role has a relationship to case, but they’re not the same thing. Case relates to grammar, and semantic role, obviously, to semantics.)

But I’m pretty confident in classifying this as a phrasal verb, in which case none of this is relevant.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 08:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2007-03-21

But I’m pretty confident in classifying this as a phrasal verb, in which case none of this is relevant.

I’m with you on this one, Dave. I guessed as much in my first post in this thread. “To go places” is the infinitive form of a phrasal verb, it seems to me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  747
Joined  2013-10-14
Oecolampadius - 04 December 2017 08:08 AM

But I’m pretty confident in classifying this as a phrasal verb, in which case none of this is relevant.

I’m with you on this one, Dave. I guessed as much in my first post in this thread. “To go places” is the infinitive form of a phrasal verb, it seems to me.

You might be correct, but what I’m inferring from Dave’s comment and yours it that it’s still hypothetical. The OP refers to the one word, places. Is it an adverb?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4514
Joined  2007-01-29

It is a word.  Whether you classify it as an adverb or something else is a matter of convenience; God didn’t create it as an adverb, a preposition, or a beast of the field.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3986
Joined  2007-02-26
Dave Wilton - 04 December 2017 04:37 AM

But I’m pretty confident in classifying this as a phrasal verb

Fair enough but note that what we are talking about, then, is several phrasal verbs with significant currency, including (but not restricted to):
to go places
to be places
to travel places
to stay places
to walk places
to drive places
to sleep places
to fly places

It’s somewhat arbitrary but the option of treating places as an adverb appeals to me on the criterion of parsimony.

languagehat - 04 December 2017 10:16 AM

It is a word.  Whether you classify it as an adverb or something else is a matter of convenience; God didn’t create it as an adverb, a preposition, or a beast of the field.

Fair point, and the reification of categories is a major trap. I’m reminded of discussions on science fora about whether or not a virus, for instance, is “alive”. People can argue that up and down, but the notion of something being alive is strictly a human invention and the universe doesn’t give a shit about whether or not its critters fall into this category or that, so resolving the issue won’t tell you anything at all about viruses.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 11:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1173
Joined  2007-03-01

This may be a red herring, but it seems to me that the identical construction, whatever we may call it, is present in to work nights, which in turn my Old English teacher at UCL used to explain to us the construction his unthances, ‘against his will’, when we encountered it in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. So it has been around for a very long time, however we analyse it.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ levidrome      mike/mic ››