- Posts: 986
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
- Location: Washington
You're defining (or appear to be defining) 'adjective' solely on the basis of morphological structure.
Actually, I'm not defining a syntactical category "adjective" or "adverb" solely by morphology
Yes, I hedged for that:
(or appear to be defining)
RandallButh wrote:but I am using the morphology of the verb to place specific verbal forms in the class-category of "adjective". Then proceeding to follow the adjectival referential ties mixed with the signaled verbal semantics (aorist, continuative; disposition, ktl). There is even room for nominals (nouns and adjectives) to be related to a clause in a diffuse, non-nominal way, aka "adverbial accusative". But this takes one away from the starting discussion about a nominative participle being co-referential with a subject.
My main concern is simply that even here there's no acknowledgement of the syntax. This is what I would say (as an "in a sentence" definition):
A participle is a non-finite verbal form that heads a subordinate clause that functions as an adjective.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist