1

I read in a paper that the word loved is a “pure” past participle:

“*He was very loved. (Because loved is a past participle, very cannot be used to modify a pure past participle. Very much should be used.) Cf. He was very much loved (by her).”

Can anybody explain the difference between a past participle and a “pure” one, please?

Piermo
  • 159
  • 2
    I don't think this is a standard grammatical term. Can you clarify in which paper you read it? – equin0x80 Nov 19 '22 at 09:44
  • 2
    By the way, a simple online search in Google Books will show you that "he was very loved" is a perfectly acceptable phrase, used quite frequently. – equin0x80 Nov 19 '22 at 09:46
  • Just a guess, but is the distinction between a past participle that is used only in the perfect, and one that is used as an adjective, like "broken" or "calculated" ("His strategy is very calculated")? – Stuart F Nov 19 '22 at 11:45
  • 'He was very much loved' is totally idiomatic. The 'past participle as verb form' ... 'adjective as converted past participle' continuum has grey areas. And one will have to search harder for a true terminal example. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 19 '22 at 13:12
  • 1
    “The Use of Participles and Gerunds Wenyuan Gu West Career&Technical Academy Las Vegas, Nevada July 3, 2020” page twenty. – Piermo Nov 19 '22 at 15:01
  • I agree with @StuartF — a past participle that doesn't play adjective. cf. The food was enjoyed. – Tinfoil Hat Nov 19 '22 at 16:13
  • 1
    Calling it "pure" is not a good thing for a scientist to do. It doesn't describe anything and it presupposes a hierarchical structure that doesn't exist. – John Lawler Nov 19 '22 at 17:39
  • I found the definition “pure” for a past participle in a paper. I thought it was peculiar, and that’s why I asked the question. – Piermo Nov 19 '22 at 19:08

0 Answers0