3

Edit note:

This question with some good answers does not explain (or ask) why it is an adjective that's used as opposed to an adverb in this type of construction:

My Question:

Consider this sentence: "Garlic can be eaten raw or cooked".

In the dictionary, "raw" is an adjective only and is not an adverb. "Cooked" is also an adjective.

So, why can an adjective be placed after "eat" as in "Garlic can be eaten raw"?

tchrist
  • 134,759
Tom
  • 4,737
  • See also Why “ruled supreme” instead of “ruled supremely”? – Brian Donovan Oct 10 '15 at 12:42
  • The adjective raw means "you can eat garlic in raw state. "raw" does not describe the manner of eating. You can't eat rawly or cookedly. – rogermue Oct 10 '15 at 16:20
  • @EdwinAshworth So why is this not a reduced adverbial? – michael_timofeev Oct 10 '15 at 16:50
  • @michael_timofeev For the reason rogermue gives in his comment above. 'Raw' modifies 'garlic' rather than 'eaten'. Contrast "Sandwiches can be eaten quickly". – Edwin Ashworth Oct 10 '15 at 22:09
  • @EdwinAshworth quickly is an obvious example...this isn't so obvious. – michael_timofeev Oct 10 '15 at 23:42
  • @EdwinAshworth so what you guys are saying is the sentence, "I drink tea when it is hot," "when it is hot," is an adjective clause because the word tea is present? What about "I drink when it is hot." What does "when it is hot" modify? It? – michael_timofeev Oct 11 '15 at 00:01
  • @michael_timofeev Have you read the linked answers? Essentially, you have to ask if the modification is describing the process (eg drinking: quickly, happily, fortnightly ...) or something else (the state of the tea drunk). He callously shot the outlaw contains an adverb describing something about the action; He shot the outlaw dead contains an adjective describing the resulting state of the object referent. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 11 '15 at 14:15
  • @EdwinAshworth I see that now. What about my example sentence? Is that an adjective clause or adverbial clause? – michael_timofeev Oct 11 '15 at 14:59
  • 1
    'I drink tea when it is hot' uses an adverbial temporal clause to tell when (really, metaphorically, under what conditions) the action occurs. But you are correct in judging that the semantic difference between this sentence and 'I drink tea hot' is minimal. Notice that 'hot' is an adjective even in the adverbial. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 11 '15 at 15:38
  • @EdwinAshworth I don't think this is a dupe of that question for two reasons. Firstly this is depictive not resultative. Secondly, even though the example in the other Q is actually depictive not resultative, unlike this one it's not an Adjunct (Adverbial). It's a Complement. It's quite common to have Predicative Complements, but Predicative Adjuncts are much rarer and have less constraints. They are related though, agreed. (see my answer) – Araucaria - Him Oct 12 '15 at 09:32
  • @EdwinAshworth Lastly, it's common to have adjectives as Complements of the verb, but it's rarer to have adjectives as modifiers of the clause, as opposed to within an NP. – Araucaria - Him Oct 12 '15 at 09:35
  • It's certainly answered at 'When can verbal passives be used in secondary predicates?' I hope you looked up 'depictive + resultative' here? – Edwin Ashworth Oct 12 '15 at 10:00
  • @EdwinAshworth I read both (2 of?) your excellent posts about predicative constructions :) - but I didn't catch where they specifically mentioned why we should expect an adjective as opposed to an adverb, though ... (Btw, I thought your post at the linked to question would be even better if it mentioned that, yes, off-guard is indeed an object oriented Complement, but that the other types of depictive predicatives you mentioned probably aren't - because they are probably [EDIT] not Complements, but Adjuncts (Advebials) ...) – Araucaria - Him Oct 12 '15 at 13:30
  • @Araucaria I think that (1) the original question is the broader one (but not too broad for ELU); (2) its title needs adjusting to say 'What is/are the underlying grammatical structure/s for these adjectival-following-verb sentences?; (3) your answer here would be the best answer there. This probably means that (4) it would be sensible to combine these threads. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 13 '15 at 11:03
  • 1
    @Araucaria it's reopened – Mari-Lou A Oct 15 '15 at 07:50
  • possible duplicate? … eaten raw/cooked, shot dead, tickled pink, found dead, struck dumb, etc. past participle + adjective. where the adjective is a gerund or regular adjective (adjunct). english.stackexchange.com/questions/328758/ – Lambie Jun 23 '18 at 17:04

2 Answers2

5

Short answer

Raw here is a Predicative Adjunct. It is an adjective and not an adverb because it is describing the noun phrase, garlic. Predicative Adjuncts are very often adjectives. They're almost never adverbs.

Longer answer

Verbs set up slots for different types of phrase. The number of slots depends on the individual verb. All verbs set up a slot for a Subject phrase.

The verb BELIEVE, for example, can also set up a slot for an Object and a Predicative Complement:

  • We believed him innocent.

Here the Object is him and the Predicative Complement is the adjective phrase innocent. A Predicative Complement is just a Complement that describes the Subject or Object of a verb. In the clause above innocent describes the Object, him.

The Predicative Complement of the verb IMAGINE gives us a description of the Object . We call these Complements depictive. This contrasts with Predicative Complements that describe the Object after some kind of action or transformation. Consider the verb DRIVE:

  • Bob drives me crazy.

Here the Predicative Complement crazy describes me after the transformation described by drives. We call Predicative Complements like crazy in this example resultative.

A Predicative Adjunct is similar to a Predicative Complement, only it doesn't fill any special slot set up by the verb. According to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum 2002), optional, depictive predicative phrases are usually Adjuncts, not Complements. They don't appear to be licenced by the verb and they seem to freely be able to describe either the Subject or the Object of the verb.

In the Original Poster's example Garlic can be eaten raw, the adjective raw is optional. We can say Garlic can be eaten without any substantial change to the meaning of the verb EAT. The predicative phrase raw is also depictive and not resultative - because the rawness isn't a result of the eating action. Lastly, if we transform the clause into an active voice clause, then we will see that an adjective in this position can seem to apply just as easily to the Subject or Object of a clause using the verb EAT:

  • He ate the pizza naked.
  • He ate the pizza raw.

This data seems to show that raw is a Predicative Adjunct.

Araucaria - Him
  • 47,146
  • So, this kind of sentence is not the result of a reduction of "when it is" but is its own entity, so to speak. – michael_timofeev Oct 12 '15 at 00:25
  • Now that I think of it, these kinds of sentences are actually very common. – michael_timofeev Oct 12 '15 at 00:28
  • Notice that in my analysis (which I think is correct), even though "raw" is an adverb within the overall construction, it is still predicated of "garlic", just as a modifier would be. That is because the source is an adverbial clause "when it is raw" in which "raw" is the predicate and "it", the subject, refers to "garlic". – Greg Lee Oct 12 '15 at 00:32
  • 1
    Typo error "Bob drives my crazy."? "me"? – Tom Oct 12 '15 at 03:18
  • 1
    another typo: BELIEVE :) Why did you capitalise Garlic in "it is describing a noun phrase"? – Mari-Lou A Oct 12 '15 at 08:02
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA Thanks! Good question, erm that's just because it was citing the OP's example where it's capitalised because it's the first word in the sentence. I agree that it's distracting though. I'll change it. – Araucaria - Him Oct 12 '15 at 08:44
  • @michael_timofeev I think that's right, yes. But, well, it could be argued that deep in our brains this adjunct (read adverbial) started out as a clause, but it's difficult to make that case and support it with evidence. Huddleston & Pullum's description doesn't rely on any special invisible bits. If it is a reduced clause the question is What happened to the When bit of it?. H&P's analysis isn't necessarily at odds with GL's, apart from that, as the OP says, raw is definitely an adjective, not an adverb!! – Araucaria - Him Oct 12 '15 at 08:52
  • 1
    @Araucaria I thought of that--what happened to when-- when I posted my answer. Don't have an explanation. Anyway, I'm satisfied with your explanation. Thank you for helping me. – michael_timofeev Oct 12 '15 at 09:04
  • I think you need to add the definition CGEL uses for '[predicative] complement': I believe that as dropping 'innocent' from 'We believed him innocent' radically changes the verb's meaning (though does not, in this case, leave an ungrammatical residue) it is termed a complement (being 'obligatory') and not an adjunct. Not all grammarians use the term 'complement' this way (the usages of 'complement' constitute a minefield). – Edwin Ashworth Oct 13 '15 at 11:10
  • @EdwinAshworth Problem is H&P don't in fact regard something as not a Complement because it's optional. They regard it as a Complement if it is licensed by the verb. So resultative take PC's even though the PC is not obligatory, because the PC seems to be specifically licenced. On the other hand optional depictives don't seem to be. They mention obligatoriness because those depictives that are obligatory must be Complements by definition. It's not straightforward to explain - which is why I'm not doing a very good job of it! – Araucaria - Him Oct 13 '15 at 11:41
  • @EdwinAshworth So your probably right that I need to stick that in. I'll have a look a bit later when I have some time (and my H&P handy). – Araucaria - Him Oct 13 '15 at 11:44
  • @Araucaria you might find this interesting...http://english.stackexchange.com/q/281359/129806 – michael_timofeev Oct 20 '15 at 17:06
  • There is a pattern in English that is very common: eaten raw is like struck dumb, tickled pink, etc. A past participle plus an adjective (or adjunct in your PC grammar terminology), where the adjective can be a gerund or a regular one. It is not like: We believed him innocent. – Lambie Jun 23 '18 at 17:08
  • @Lambie That's quite right. That's why it has a different name. Such sentences are very different both in terms of meaning and in terms of structure - as you say. – Araucaria - Him Jun 23 '18 at 18:25
  • The examples you provided do not show this pattern. You go on about grammar without pointing out the pattern: eaten raw, *eaten cooked, tickled pink, shot dead, struck dumb, picked clean, drunk cold, frozen or hot.* etc. It is very specific. It is a typical structure and the two parts are inseparable. past participle plus adjective. Without the pattern, you can't generalize about the grammar. Everyone seems to overlook this. I mistakenly said gerund above, that was wrong. It is very different from your explanation goes into. – Lambie Jun 23 '18 at 18:38
  • @Lambie The examples given for contrast are there because otherwise it would not be clear what exactly a predicative adjunct was. Incidentally, your examples have nothing to do with the OP's. They are resultatives and the adjectives concerned ARE complements of the verb, not adjuncts. The pinkness. death, dumbness, cleanness portrayed are the results of the tickling, shooting, striking, picking etc.) Their grammar is completely different. – Araucaria - Him Jun 23 '18 at 19:25
  • No, the grammar is exactly the same: This food was eaten raw by them. This man was shot dead by a hijacker. The man was struck dumb by your words. The vodka was drunk cold by the girls. He was tickled pink by the story. The bones were picked clean by the birds. I think that they are materially the same. How you can say those differ beats me. – Lambie Jun 23 '18 at 19:32
  • @Lambie Well, ok let's try and give an example for you. With depictive adjuncts, the adjective could apply just as easily to the subject or the object. This is normally resolved by the pragmatics. But we can find examples which could go either way. So for instance, in He met the man naked in his office, naked could apply to either the subject or the object - we can't resolve this through the grammar. But in your active sentences the adjective can only apply to the object and describes it in the state it is as the result of the action represented by the verb. – Araucaria - Him Jun 23 '18 at 19:45
  • @Lambie ... In the passives it compulsorily describes the subjects. That help at all? – Araucaria - Him Jun 23 '18 at 19:47
  • My examples all cohere as material realizations of the exact same pattern. You give as an example: He met the man naked in the office. [which is also ambiguous, by the way]. *That is not like my pattern at all.* And your answer simply does not address what I have established as a pattern. Let's leave it, shall we? Kindly spare me the "Let's try" etc. It sounds like you are talking down to me. I have said this pattern is: past participle + adjective. So far, that is all I have said. So in answer to the OP: the adjective is not "placed" after eat: eaten raw is inseparable in this usage. – Lambie Jun 23 '18 at 20:03
  • @Lambie I think you need to read my comment a bit better. My comment is showing how the OP's structure is different from yours. Yours are RESULTATIVES. The OP's isn't. The OP's sentence is like He met the man naked. <--That's a depictive adjunct, not a rsultative. That help you yet? – Araucaria - Him Jun 23 '18 at 22:48
  • No, "The oysters are |eaten raw|." is not like "He met the man |naked|". The test is passivity: The oysters are eaten raw by us. The game is played naked. The solder is worked hot. There can be more than one category of "semantic trait" in a pattern. Those are not resultative at all and follow the pattern. – Lambie Jun 23 '18 at 23:16
  • @Lambie The oysters are eaten raw is exaclty like He met the man naked it's just that people are unlikely to be thought of as raw, that's all. Try The oysters are eaten naked, for comparison. And of course they're not resultatives. That is exactly what I said. It's your completely unrelated examples such as shot dead etc that are resultatives. This is getting a tad tedious. – Araucaria - Him Jun 23 '18 at 23:27
  • @Araucaria How funny you are. Just can't let it go, can you? I just gave examples that are n-o-t "resultative". The oysters are |eaten raw|. The solder is |worked hot|. The game is |played naked|. See? No results. So, one pattern, two realizations. You can't just mix-and-match them to arrive at meaning. And you can't be right all the time. But that seems to be most people's game. – Lambie Jun 23 '18 at 23:39
  • @Lambie What is it that your non-resulative examples are meant to show, exactly? – Araucaria - Him Jun 23 '18 at 23:42
1

What your example means is "Garlic can be eaten when it is raw". So maybe that is what happens -- we optionally delete "when it is".

Greg Lee
  • 17,406
  • What about "you can eat garlic raw"? – Tom Oct 10 '15 at 02:47
  • Means "You can eat garlic when it is raw." No problem. – Greg Lee Oct 10 '15 at 03:54
  • 3
    Perhaps I should note that "You can eat garlic naked" doesn't necessarily mean "You can eat garlic when it is naked". – Greg Lee Oct 10 '15 at 04:02
  • Yes, you could of course say You can eat raw garlic which employs the adjective conventionally. – WS2 Oct 10 '15 at 07:28
  • @GregLee You beat me to it with the eating pizza! – Araucaria - Him Oct 10 '15 at 11:21
  • @WS2 there is a different emphasis with your alternative. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 10 '15 at 12:19
  • @EdwinAshworth I agree. – WS2 Oct 10 '15 at 12:30
  • @Araucaria so why is the sentence not a reduced adverbial clause? This answer is hardly satisfying. – michael_timofeev Oct 10 '15 at 17:17
  • @michael_timofeev It's not my answer! Was that comment for Greg? – Araucaria - Him Oct 10 '15 at 19:09
  • @michael_timofeev, Araucaria, it is a reduced adverbial clause, according to what I wrote above. – Greg Lee Oct 10 '15 at 19:27
  • @GregLee well, according to the discussions above, it isn't and my answer that expanded on that was down voted twice. Can someone tell me what's going on around here? – michael_timofeev Oct 11 '15 at 00:07
  • @Araucaria I didn't say it was your answer...I wanted your help in explaining this to me. – michael_timofeev Oct 11 '15 at 00:07
  • @michael_timofeev, I think it would help to distinguish upstairs from downstairs syntactic functions. The downstairs function is what follows from the internal composition of a constituent; the upstairs function is what follows from the syntactic role of a constituent within the construction it occurs in. This came up in another discussion when I suggested that gerunds are downstairs verbs but upstairs nouns. Here, raw is a downstairs adjective, since it is composed of a lexical adjective. But it's an upstairs adverb, because it occurs in (when it is) raw, which is an adverbial clause. – Greg Lee Oct 11 '15 at 01:44
  • @GregLee Thank you. I think I understand your answer. So basically, this is a point of view matter. Some, will see this as an adverbial matter, whereas others will see this as an adjectival matter, and the people who downvoted me are in the adjectival camp. I've noticed that in my books, "when" can be used both adverbially and adjectivally. – michael_timofeev Oct 11 '15 at 02:44
  • @GregLee I've noticed that for many answers on stack exchange there comes a point when it's not about the rules but how one views the rules and their application in language, and that the "higher level" answerers answer in this way. The answers seem like they are answering but what they really are is opinions on how to view a situation that sometimes have "proof" in the form of a reference (that supports their opinion.) – michael_timofeev Oct 11 '15 at 02:49
  • @michael_timofeev I didn't downvote your answer, but here's a couple of things people might object to in it. Firstly you describe can be eaten as a future simple passive but there's not really anything "future" about it in terms of meaning or form. Secondly, you say "When the subject of an adverbial clause is the same as the subject in the independent clause, the subject and verb can be removed from the dependent clause". I don't think this is true as a generalisation. – Araucaria - Him Oct 11 '15 at 10:53
  • @Araucaria ok, thank you for the input. I deleted my answer...too many problems with it, and I'm not sure if the answer about it being a reduced adverbial phrase is accurate. I asked a similar question today about using "when" to help me understand this better. Hopefully, I can get some input. – michael_timofeev Oct 11 '15 at 10:57
  • @michael_timofeev Have added an answer for you. – Araucaria - Him Oct 11 '15 at 23:24