Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Infinitive, Gerundive, Participle
View through CrossRef
Abstract
This chapter concludes the discussion of the spread of -ingfrom nominal to clausal categories. In Old English, infinitive (-an/-enne), PrP (-ende), noun (-ing,etc.), and (late) gerund (-ung) were distinct; there was no -ingger- undive. As discussed in previous chapters, the first change was generalization of -ingunder Scandinavian influence to replace the incipient gerund in -ung. This was a simple morphological generalization/restriction. Subsequent changes were driven syntactically. The question was whether there would be one morphological supercategory encompassing the PrP, infinitive, gerund, and gerundive, which overlapped in several functional domains and required checking in M °, or whether the feature differences would be manifested as morphologically distinct categories. Although -ingwas generalized from nominals to clauses, the gerundive was normally blocked by infinitives. If (any of) the competing infinitives and gerundials were to survive as separate entities, each had to have a syntactic domain. The Early Middle English split between toINF+ object and P+ gerund (no object) was syntactically arbitrary.
Title: Infinitive, Gerundive, Participle
Description:
Abstract
This chapter concludes the discussion of the spread of -ingfrom nominal to clausal categories.
In Old English, infinitive (-an/-enne), PrP (-ende), noun (-ing,etc.
), and (late) gerund (-ung) were distinct; there was no -ingger- undive.
As discussed in previous chapters, the first change was generalization of -ingunder Scandinavian influence to replace the incipient gerund in -ung.
This was a simple morphological generalization/restriction.
Subsequent changes were driven syntactically.
The question was whether there would be one morphological supercategory encompassing the PrP, infinitive, gerund, and gerundive, which overlapped in several functional domains and required checking in M °, or whether the feature differences would be manifested as morphologically distinct categories.
Although -ingwas generalized from nominals to clauses, the gerundive was normally blocked by infinitives.
If (any of) the competing infinitives and gerundials were to survive as separate entities, each had to have a syntactic domain.
The Early Middle English split between toINF+ object and P+ gerund (no object) was syntactically arbitrary.
Related Results
İNGİLİS DİLİNDƏ CERUNDUN FUNKSİYALARI
İNGİLİS DİLİNDƏ CERUNDUN FUNKSİYALARI
The article deals with the Gerund in English. All English grammars distinguish between finite and non-finite forms of the verb. The non-finite forms, which are also called the verb...
INFINITIVE STRUCTURES IN THE LANGUAGES OF CONTRAST
INFINITIVE STRUCTURES IN THE LANGUAGES OF CONTRAST
The article is devoted to a functional typology of infinitive structures in a number of European languages (English, German, Russian, Polish, Spanish and French), which is highly s...
Functional Convergence of Indo-Aryan Infinitives and Gerundives in the Middle Indo-Aryan
Functional Convergence of Indo-Aryan Infinitives and Gerundives in the Middle Indo-Aryan
The present study offers a comprehensive diachronic analysis of the functional-semantic and syntactic transformations of Indo-Aryan non-finite verbal forms, specifically the infini...
Summary and Outlook
Summary and Outlook
Abstract
In this chapter I first summarize the results of this book and then discuss some topics related to the history of the Romance languages.
The ...
THE STUDENTS’ ABILITY TO USE GERUND AND PRESENT PARTICIPLE
THE STUDENTS’ ABILITY TO USE GERUND AND PRESENT PARTICIPLE
This research presented analysing the students’ ability to use gerund and present participle at English Education Department of Sorong Muhammadiyah University and the factors affec...
Ing forms and the progressive puzzle: a construction-based approach to English progressives
Ing forms and the progressive puzzle: a construction-based approach to English progressives
This paper argues for a constructional approach to English progressives. On this view, progressivity is a construction-level property, rather than a lexical property of the ing for...
Aspect use in Slavic infinitives and corresponding da-constructions
Aspect use in Slavic infinitives and corresponding da-constructions
In the most comprehensive comparative account of aspect use in Slavic to date, Dickey [2000], ten Slavic languages are considered based on seven parameters of use, but two importan...
Auxiliar-Konstruktionen im llatí medieval katalanischer Urkunden (10.–13. Jh.) und in den Usatici Barchinonae / Usatges de Barcelona (12.–15. Jh.)
Auxiliar-Konstruktionen im llatí medieval katalanischer Urkunden (10.–13. Jh.) und in den Usatici Barchinonae / Usatges de Barcelona (12.–15. Jh.)
Abstract
The central object of the present research is the constituent order of head and modifier in auxiliary constructions, namely infinitive + finite auxiliary vs...

