# I'm on my way home. (Home: adverb?)



## JungKim

_I'm on my way home._
In this sentence, the word _home_ is classified as an "adverb" in the dictionaries I've consulted and the threads I've looked at.
But how can that be?
I think _home_ here post-modifies the noun _way_.
If so, how can something that post-modifies a noun be classified an adverb?


----------



## srk

It is an adverb in "I was headed home."  If you equate "headed" with "on my way," it makes sense.


----------



## JungKim

Thanks, srk.
Are you saying that my analysis in the OP is wrong, i.e., _home_ doesn't post-modify _way_ but the verb _am_?


----------



## srk

I'd say it modifies the phrasal verb "am on my way."


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> _I'm on my way home._
> In this sentence, the word _home_ is classified as an "adverb" in the dictionaries I've consulted and the threads I've looked at.
> But how can that be?
> I think _home_ here post-modifies the noun _way_.
> If so, how can something that post-modifies a noun be classified an adverb?



The noun "home" starts as part of a prepositional phrase, which functions adverbially (it tells where I'm going):
_I'm on my way to my home_
The prepositional phrase is then reduced to its "locative" element, the noun home, and that's how the noun "home" functions like an adverb. 
_I'm on my way home_


----------



## JungKim

srk said:


> I'd say it modifies the phrasal verb "am on my way."





SevenDays said:


> The noun "home" starts as part of a prepositional phrase, which functions adverbially (it tells where I'm going)


If _home_ doesn't post-modify _way_ but _am on my way_, how is it that you can say this?
_I can find my way home._

Here, I think there's no denying that _my way home_ is a single noun phrase.
Or can you still say _home_ here is an adverb?
If not, should we somehow treat _home_ differently here than in the OP?


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> If _home_ doesn't post-modify _way_ but _am on my way_, how is it that you can say this?
> _I can find my way home._
> 
> Here, I think there's no denying that _my way home_ is a single noun phrase.
> Or can you still say _home_ here is an adverb?
> If not, should we somehow treat _home_ differently here than in the OP?



The same principle applies; you start with a preposition phrase ("to my home"), which is reduced to "home" ("to" and "my" are eliminated because they are not need): _I can find my way (to my) home. _"Home"* is not *an "adverb;" it functions like an adverb because "home" is what's left of the original prepositional/adverbial phrase.


----------



## JulianStuart

From a non-technical grammar perspective, I am quite happy with the dictionaries: Random House and Collins have _identical_ entries (a rarity) and are telling me (if not you technicians) that home can take the place of "to home", "toward home" or "at home".
I want to go home.  Honey, I'm home.  I'm on my way home. etc.  And it does so just as if it were an adverb. So actually calling it an adverb (location or dorection) makes sense to me


> adv.
> 
> to, toward, or at _home_:I want to go home.


You may now resume your technical discussions (which I find more confusing than helpful, but that's just me )


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> The same principle applies; you start with a preposition phrase ("to my home"), which is reduced to "home" ("to" and "my" are eliminated because they are not need): _I can find my way (to my) home. _"Home"* is not *an "adverb;" it functions like an adverb because "home" is what's left of the original prepositional/adverbial phrase.



But in the example _I can find my way to my home_, the original prepositional phrase _to my home_ doesn't function as an adverbial phrase but as an adjectival phrase, does it?
As far as I know, a prepositional phrase can function adjectivally as well as adverbially, depending on context.


----------



## Andygc

JulianStuart said:


> And it does so just as if it were an adverb


I share JungKim's doubts.
I'm on my bike. I'm on my way. I'm on {noun phrase}
I'm on my red bike. I'm on my homeward way. I'm on {ditto, adjective modifying noun}
I'm on my homeward way. = I'm on my way home. "Homeward" and "home" modify way. So how is "home" functioning as an adverb?

The way home is long. How can an adverb modify the noun which is the subject of a sentence?


----------



## SevenDays

JulianStuart said:


> From a non-technical grammar perspective, I am quite happy with the dictionaries: Random House and Collins have _identical_ entries (a rarity) and are telling me (if not you technicians) that home can take the place of "to home", "toward home" or "at home".
> I want to go home.  Honey, I'm home.  I'm on my way home. etc.  And it does so just as if it were an adverb. So actually calling it an adverb (location or dorection) makes sense to me
> 
> You may now resume your technical discussions (which I find more confusing than helpful, but that's just me )



_Reduction_, that's what's going on here; it's how we get "home" from "to my home." Yes, it's technical stuff (point taken), but it does show where this "home" come from, and why it functions adverbially (again, because we've extracted "home" from a prepositional phrase that itself functioned adverbially). In other words, if we had "I'm on my way to my home," how would you analyze the function of "to my home"?


----------



## Andygc

Can you explain how an adverb modifies a noun?

According to the etymology in the OED it has never been reduced in English.  





> *Origin: *Apparently a word inherited from Germanic.


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> _Reduction_, that's what's going on here; it's how we get "home" from "to my home." Yes, it's technical stuff (point taken), but it does show where this "home" come from, and why it functions adverbially (again, because we've extracted "home" from a prepositional phrase that itself functioned adverbially). In other words, if we had "I'm on my way to my home," how would you analyze the function of "to my home"?


If reduction is the answer, you should be able to say _home_ in _I can find my way home_ is an adjective, because it's reduced from _to my home_, an adjectival prepositional phrase. But would you call it an adjective? As far as I know, no dictionary in the world classifies _home _in_ I can find my way to my home _as an adjective either.


----------



## SevenDays

The functions of "to my home" and "home" below are the same
_I'm on my way to my home
I'm on my way home_
If the prepositional phrase "to my home" behaves adverbially (as it does, the equivalent of "I'm going to my home"), then "home" behaves adverbially too, because "home" is what's left after the original prepositional phrase "to my home" has been stripped of "to my" (_reduction_ at work).


----------



## Andygc

I have no problem with "home" in  "I'm going home" being described as an adverb - it modifies "going". But that is not the topic in this thread.

You still have not explained how "to my home" in "way to my home" functions adverbially. "Way" is a noun. "To my home" modifies "way". How can an adverbial phrase modify a noun? I speak English as my native language. I'm well-educated. And I'm as mystified as JungKim by a phrase that functions as an adjective being described as an adverbial.

EDIT
Just to point out, this is a genuine question, not an argument.


----------



## JulianStuart

SevenDays said:


> The functions of "to my home" and "home" below are the same
> _I'm on my way to my home
> I'm on my way home_
> If the prepositional phrase "to my home" behaves adverbially (as it does, the equivalent of "I'm going to my home"), then "home" behaves adverbially too, because "home" is what's left after the original prepositional phrase "to my home" has been stripped of "to my" (_reduction_ at work).


As the dictionary entries try to convey. I see them as similar to: I'm on my way there.  I'm on my way back.


----------



## Loob

Andygc said:


> "To my home" modifies "way".


It doesn't,  to me - not in the sentence _I'm on the way to my home._
If I had to split the sentence, I'd split it as
_I'm on the way ... to my home. _
rather than
_I'm on ... the way to my home._


----------



## Andygc

I don't understand. Do you mean that you see there to be a range of phrasal verbs* based on "I'm on the ..." which can be modified by an adverb?

I'm on the way _home_.
I'm on the way _to Exeter_.
I'm on the road _home_.
I'm on the road _to Brighton_.
I'm on the path _to my home_.
I'm on the path _to salvation_.
I'm on the route _to Bagshot_.
I'm on the motorway _to Bristol._

If "home" is an adverb so are all the others. 

*Which don't meet the normal definition of a phrasal verb since their meaning is the normal meaning of the words used.


----------



## entangledbank

There's no problem with a noun having a prepositional phrase modifying it; it can be a simple locative ('the man behind the curtain') or it can be a goal ('the road to hell'), among other things, and the whole phrase can be subject, so it's clearly one phrase and not two side by side ('the road to hell is paved with good intentions').

Plenty of other intransitive prepositions (traditionally: adverbs) can also mark the goal ('the way forward, back, through, in').


----------



## Andygc

I don't have a problem with a noun being modified by a prepositional phrase. My problem is saying that the prepositional phrase "behaves adverbially" (post #14) when it is modifying a noun. I really am mystified by this.

Perhaps the problem is that the terminology being used is inadequate.


----------



## karlalou

Loob said:


> I'm on the way ... to my home.


This is the strongest argument here. I can see the natural feel, how natives feel here.  Dictionaries support it. They don't have a usage for 'home' to modify a noun from the behind of it. The style of usage is described as an adverb. At least when it comes to 'home'.


> home adjective [only before noun] (Oxford Learner's Dictionary | home)


----------



## siares

JungKim said:


> _I'm on my way home. _In this sentence, the word _home_ is classified as an "adverb" in the dictionaries I've consulted and the threads I've looked at.
> But how can that be?
> I think _home_ here post-modifies the noun _way_.
> If so, how can something that post-modifies a noun be classified an adverb?


This discussion is convoluted originally, but worth reading till the end: ready for your test 'tomorrow' [adjective or adverb?]


----------



## Andygc

Loob said:


> _I'm on the way ... to my home._
> rather than
> _I'm on ... the way to my home._



This thread has been niggling away in my mind. I don't think the thread siares linked to helps here. 

I now realise that I've been concentrating on the relationship between "way" and "home", as have most of the contributors, when I should have been asking "What's the verb?" And Loob gave me the answer, but I didn't see it at the time. "I'm on the way" is the verb and is equivalent to "I'm going", so that's how and why "home" is an adverb and that answers JungKim's question for this specific example. 

Mind you, it doesn't help much with another sentence which comes to mind "This is the way home". Which leaves us back where we started.


JungKim said:


> how can something that post-modifies a noun be classified an adverb?


----------



## JungKim

siares said:


> This discussion is convoluted originally, but worth reading till the end: ready for your test 'tomorrow' [adjective or adverb?]


Thanks for the link. I have read the entire thread.
The thread's question is whether _tomorrow_ in _Are you ready for your test tomorrow?_ is an adverb (as dictionaries say) or an adjective (since the OP believes that it modifies _test_). And the conclusion of the long thread is, I think, that _tomorrow_ is an adverb, but that it's not clear what it modifies.
The thread is closed, so I can't really post anything there.
Instead, I'm going to comment on that thread since it's closely related to the current thread and Andy's post #23.

The conclusion reached in the earlier thread, as Loob pointed out, is largely due to e2efour's post #36:


> Adverbs can modify nouns to indicate time or place.
> *ADVERBS MODIFYING NOUNS*
> EG: The concert tomorrow
> EG: The room upstairs
> Adverbs - UsingEnglish.com



And the rest of the thread is basically comparing "tomorrow" and "on Friday":


> *Are you ready for the test on Friday?*
> ...
> If "on Friday" is an adverb, then "tomorrow" is an adverb too. The reason why we do not need to say "test on tomorrow" is because tomorrow is an adverb already so we don't need to "adverbise" it with on.
> 
> *Conclusion: It's an adverb *


With all due respect, I believe that the logic leading to this conclusion of "tomorrow" being an adverb is seriously flawed.

In "Are you ready for the test on Friday?", "on Friday" is not an adverb or more precisely an adverbial phrase.
As I have clearly said in post #9, a prepositional phrase like "on Friday" can function as an adjectival phrase as well as an adverbial phrase.


JungKim said:


> But in the example _I can find my way to my home_, the original prepositional phrase _to my home_ doesn't function as an adverbial phrase but as an adjectival phrase, does it?
> As far as I know, a prepositional phrase can function adjectivally as well as adverbially, depending on context.



So, the earlier thread based its conclusion of "tomorrow" being an adverb upon the assumption that the prepositional phrase "on Friday" must be an adverbial phrase, or an adverb. And the assumption is wrong, so the conclusion is wrong.

In fact, in "Are you ready for the test on Friday?", the prepositional phrase "on Friday" belongs to the noun phrase "the test on Friday", which shows that "on Friday" is an adjectival prepositional phrase. Now, the same logic would dictate that "tomorrow" is an adjective because "on Friday" is an adjective.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> I now realise that I've been concentrating on the relationship between "way" and "home", as have most of the contributors, when I should have been asking "What's the verb?" And Loob gave me the answer, but I didn't see it at the time. "I'm on the way" is the verb and is equivalent to "I'm going", so that's how and why "home" is an adverb and that answers JungKim's question for this specific example.


I don't think I agree with you on this, Andy.
Just because "I'm on my way" can be taken to mean "I'm going" doesn't mean that they are equivalent in syntax as well. When you try to determine the syntactic function of "home" -- i.e., whether it's being used as an adverb or an adjective or something else -- I think that you need to look at the given text ("I'm on my way") rather than some other text with different syntax ("I'm going").



Andygc said:


> Mind you, it doesn't help much with another sentence which comes to mind "This is the way home". Which leaves us back where we started.
> 
> 
> JungKim said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can something that post-modifies a noun be classified an adverb?
Click to expand...

I think that "This is the way home" just goes to show that you cannot simply explain away "I'm on my way home" by erroneously saying that "home" modifies "am on my way" as a whole.


----------



## SevenDays

_Reduction_; it's a linguistic principle, which gets rid of elements that aren't necessary for the basic meaning that's conveyed:
_I can find my way to my home = I can find my way home
I am going to my home = I am going home_
"home" is what remains of the original prepositional/adverbial clause, and "home" assumes adverbial meaning (it answers the question "where:" _I can find my way, where?_ "home.")
_Are you ready for the test, which is tomorrow? = Are your ready for the test tomorrow?_
"tomorrow" is what's left after the relative clause has been stripped of "which" and "is." Relative clauses are adjective in nature, so it follows that this "tomorrow" also functions adjectivally. (It answers the question _which test?_, The test "tomorrow")

All of this assumes that there's a linguistic correlation between sentence structure and parts of speech, and that's not the case. Parts of speech are simply labels; syntax doesn't care what you call "home" and "tomorrow," as long as they work in sentence sentence structure (and they do).


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> _Reduction_; it's a linguistic principle, which gets rid of elements that aren't necessary for the basic meaning that's conveyed:
> _I can find my way to my home = I can find my way home
> I am going to my home = I am going home_
> "home" is what remains of the original prepositional/adverbial clause, and "home" assumes adverbial meaning (it answers the question "where:" _I can find my way, where?_ "home.")
> _Are you ready for the test, which is tomorrow? = Are your ready for the test tomorrow?_
> "tomorrow" is what's left after the relative clause has been stripped of "which" and "is." Relative clauses are adjective in nature, so it follows that this "tomorrow" also functions adjectivally. (It answers the question _which test?_, The test "tomorrow")


I don't know why you're treating "home" (in "I can find my way home") and "tomorrow" (in "Are you ready for test tomorrow?") differently.
The original prepositional phrase "to my home" (in "I can find my way to my home") is attached to "my way", not to "find".
That's why you can't say: _To my home, I can find my way_. Or at least that's not the same thing as _I can find my way to my home_. So "to my home" is not an adverbial clause but an adjectival clause. (I think I've told you this several times already.)
The same applies to _Are you ready for the test, which is tomorrow?_ You can't say: _Which is tomorrow, are you ready for the test?_
Because _which is tomorrow_ is not an adverbial clause but an adjectival clause.


SevenDays said:


> All of this assumes that there's a linguistic correlation between sentence structure and parts of speech, and that's not the case. Parts of speech are simply labels; syntax doesn't care what you call "home" and "tomorrow," as long as they work in sentence sentence structure (and they do).


If that's what you believe in, then you should also object to dictionaries classifying "home" as an adverb, shouldn't you?
Or do you?


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> I don't know why you're treating "home" (in "I can find my way home") and "tomorrow" (in "Are you ready for test tomorrow?") differently.
> The original prepositional phrase "to my home" (in "I can find my way to my home") is attached to "my way", not to "find".
> That's why you can't say: _To my home, I can find my way_. Or at least that's not the same thing as _I can find my way to my home_. So "to my home" is not an adverbial clause but an adjectival clause. (I think I've told you this several times already.)
> The same applies to _Are you ready for the test, which is tomorrow?_ You can't say: _Which is tomorrow, are you ready for the test?_
> Because _which is tomorrow_ is not an adverbial clause but an adjectival clause.
> 
> If that's what you believe in, then you should also object to dictionaries classifying "home" as an adverb, shouldn't you?
> Or do you?



I treat "home" and "tomorrow" differently because, to me, they appear in different structures. If I follow you correctly, you are using _movement _as a test to determine if "to my home" is an adverb or not; that is, if "to my home" can't be moved to the front, then it can't be an adverb (clause). But why should _movement_ matter? True, a characteristic of adverbs if that they move ("float"), but not all adverbs move, and some are fixed in end-position. I can say _Did you kiss her yet? _but not _Yet did you kiss her? _even though "yet" is an adverb. In fact, "yet" behaves just like "home;" they can't move to the front of the sentence. Here's an adverb test: if I can replace "home" (being used as an adverb) with another adverb (_I am on my way *there*_) then that's a pretty good indication that "home" is indeed functioning like and adverb.

_Parts of speech_ is a feature of traditional grammar, but thinking in terms of "adverbs" and "adjectives" and what they "modify" has its limits in terms of sentence structure, and ultimately such labels are not all that useful. What exactly does "home" _modif_y in "I'm on my way home." Actually, "home" doesn't modify anything. More to the point, syntactically, "home" is a *complement *in the predicate; it is a necessary element to _complete_ the meaning of the sentence, for simply saying "I'm on my way" doesn't tell us _where_ the speaker is going. By contrast, "tomorrow" in "Are you ready for the test tomorrow" is an *adjunct*, an element that can be dropped without any loss of meaning; both the speaker and the hearer understand exactly "when" the test is in a question such as _Are you ready for the test?_ 

Dictionaries are useful tools for information on words, but dictionaries don't tell me about constituents in sentence structure; for that, I need a grammar/linguistics book. As I said earlier, syntax doesn't care what we call "home" and "tomorrow," and we can all have different ways of looking at things (after all, terminology is in the eye of the beholder).


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> I treat "home" and "tomorrow" differently because, to me, they appear in different structures. If I follow you correctly, you are using _movement _as a test to determine if "to my home" is an adverb or not; that is, if "to my home" can't be moved to the front, then it can't be an adverb (clause). But why should _movement_ matter? True, a characteristic of adverbs if that they move ("float"), but not all adverbs move, and some are fixed in end-position. I can say _Did you kiss her yet? _but not _Yet did you kiss her? _even though "yet" is an adverb. In fact, "yet" behaves just like "home;" they can't move to the front of the sentence. Here's an adverb test: if I can replace "home" (being used as an adverb) with another adverb (_I am on my way *there*_) then that's a pretty good indication that "home" is indeed functioning like and adverb.


Granted, the movement test is not perfect, but neither are most so-called "tests" in grammar. And when you rely on a test, reasonable care must be taken. Before you object to the movement test itself, I think you should first appreciate why you conduct the test.

In post #27, the test was to determine whether "to my home" (in "I can find my way to my home") is attached to "my way" or to "find".
"To my home", being a prepositional phrase, can be placed freely, unless it disrupts the flow of the sentence.
(a) I (b) can (c) find (d) my (e) way (f).
The default position is (f).
And I put it in (a) in post #27, because that was the only other place to put it without disrupting the flow. You can see that (b)-(e) will disrupt the flow.

Now, putting it in (a) produces the untenable _To my home, I can find my way_. Considering that "to my home" is a prepositional phrase, the only reason that (a) doesn't work, I think, is because the PP is a complement of _my way_.

More important, it's almost unfair to compare "yet" with "to my home" to refute the movement test.
Unlike, "home", which can be a noun and thus can be reduced from "to my home", "yet" cannot be a noun in the first place. So, in essence, you're comparing apples and oranges, I think.


SevenDays said:


> _Parts of speech _is a feature of traditional grammar, but thinking in terms of "adverbs" and "adjectives" and what they "modify" has its limits in terms of sentence structure, and ultimately such labels are not all that useful. What exactly does "home" _modif_y in "I'm on my way home." Actually, "home" doesn't modify anything. More to the point, syntactically, "home" is a *complement *in the predicate; it is a necessary element to _complete_ the meaning of the sentence, for simply saying "I'm on my way" doesn't tell us _where_ the speaker is going. By contrast, "tomorrow" in "Are you ready for the test tomorrow" is an *adjunct*, an element that can be dropped without any loss of meaning; both the speaker and the hearer understand exactly "when" the test is in a question such as _Are you ready for the test?_


Not to say that "home" is an adjunct or that "tomorrow" is a complement, but the reasoning behind the distinction is hazy to me.
True, "I'm on my way" doesn't tell us where the speaker is going. But does "Are you ready for the test?" really tell us when the test is? In a context where the listener has a plurality of tests on different dates, "Are you read for the test?" doesn't tell us when the test is any more than "I'm on my way" tells us where the speaker is going.

You might ask why limit the context for "Are you ready for the test". But your conclusion that "I'm on my way" doesn't tell us where the speaker is going also assumes a context where the listener doesn't know the destination of the speaker. So, I guess it all depends on context whether "home"/"tomorrow" is a complement or an adjunct at least according to your reasoning, doesn't it? Or should it?



SevenDays said:


> Dictionaries are useful tools for information on words, but dictionaries don't tell me about constituents in sentence structure; for that, I need a grammar/linguistics book. As I said earlier, syntax doesn't care what we call "home" and "tomorrow," and we can all have different ways of looking at things (after all, terminology is in the eye of the beholder).


Agreed.
But I wonder why you have kept saying that "home" functions adverbially, which would only justify the dictionaries' classification of "home" as an adverb and never as an adjective.


----------



## AutumnOwl

"I'm on my way home" - to me it's the same as "I'm on my way toward home/homeward", in what direction was I going. The Swedish word I would use if I was to translate "home" is the word for "homeward".


----------



## Andygc

It doesn't really appear to matter what word is used. In this context "home" and "homeward" are synonyms. The debate has been about whether the word "home" modifies the noun "way". That would remain the case if the sentence used "homeward".

"I am going home/homeward" is clear. "Home" and "homeward" complete the meaning of the verb and so are traditionally described as adverbs. 

I'll leave it to JK and 7D to find a resolution to "home" in "I am on my way home".


----------



## srk

I've been mulling over "way," thinking of its relatives and how they can be *qualified*.

We walked outside.  The walk *outside* was invigorating.  The walk *home* was arduous.
We drove home.  The drive *home* took four hours.  The drive *uphill* used a lot of gas.
We flew east.  The flight *east* took off on time.

The trip *east* was begun in March.
From here, the way *west* is mountainous.
The path *downward* is slippery.
The voyage *home* should be pleasant.

The nouns are about movement or travel, and the qualifiers are adverbs.  I think that goes to your basic question.

In the OP and post #6, you asked about sentences containing idiomatic phrases used as verbs:

From AHD online:
*on (one's)/the* *way*
In the process of coming, going, or traveling: She is on her way out the door. Winter is on the way.

From M-W online:
*find one's way*
to look for and find where one needs to go in order to get somewhere I _found my way _home without any problems. She got lost trying to _find her way_ back to the hotel. —often used figuratively He's still _finding his way_ as an actor.

In defense of my answer in posts #2 and #4, it is correct to assign the adverb "home" to the phrasal verb.  I understand your objection (post #25) to blind substitution of one form for another. (Although I can say "He died of cancer, I can't say "He kicked the bucket of cancer.")  However, I don't think there are verbs that can't be modified by adverbs ("He kicked the bucket quietly") and to assign the adverb to "way" in the OP parses the sentence incorrectly.  It separates the idiom into constituent parts, destroying its meaning.  "I'm on my way home" does not mean that I am literally somewhere on the locus; it means that I am traveling. "I can find my way home" does not mean that I can locate the path, as though it is missing; it means that I can navigate the journey.


----------



## JungKim

srk said:


> ...to assign the adverb to "way" in the OP parses the sentence incorrectly.  It separates the idiom into constituent parts, destroying its meaning.


Okay. Then, let's not use those sentences including "idioms". 
I'd like to point out that this is not an attempt to give you a moving target. It's rather an attempt to see if you can parse "home" in sentences lacking idioms as functioning adverbially.

In post #10 and 23, Andy provided such sentences:
_The way home is long.
This is the way home._
In both these sentences, _the way home_ clearly acts as a noun phrase (NP).
There's no way other than "to assign _home_ to _way_" in these sentences.
And you still want to call _home_ an adverb or at least something functioning adverbially?

If you don't want to, why would you want to for the other examples in post #1 and 6?


----------



## karlalou

How about thinking it like you've omitted; "The way (going) home is long"?
It's not a usage on dictionaries, and the 'going' is not part of the adverb, 'home', but you have the freedom to do that.


----------



## srk

JungKim said:


> There's no way other than "to assign _home_ to _way_" in these sentences.  And you still want to call _home_ an adverb or at least something functioning adverbially?


Yes, and I said so in post #32, listing several such sentences with nouns qualified by adverbs:


srk said:


> We walked outside. The walk *outside* was invigorating. The walk *home* was arduous.
> We drove home. The drive *home* took four hours. The drive *uphill* used a lot of gas.
> We flew east. The flight *east* took off on time.
> 
> The trip *east* was begun in March.
> From here, the way *west* is mountainous.
> The path *downward* is slippery.
> The voyage *home* should be pleasant.
> 
> The nouns are about movement or travel, and the qualifiers are adverbs.


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> ...
> edit
> ...
> I wonder why you have kept saying that "home" functions adverbially, which would only justify the dictionaries' classification of "home" as an adverb and never as an adjective.



When used as an adverb, "home" belong to the so-called _locative adverbs_, a sub-class of adverbs which refer to "location" and "movement toward that location." Notice how several posts have made reference to "movement" and "direction." _Locative adverbs_ have a close relationship with prepositional phrases, and that's how we get _I'm on my way *home*_ from _I'm on my way *to home*_. Not _all _nouns can be used as a locative adverb; for example, we couldn't say "I'm on my way office;" instead, a prep. phrase must be used (_I'm on my way to the office_). Why this works with "home" but not with "office" escapes me, other than to say that "home" has historically developed such adverbial use (perhaps for the emotional attachment that the word "home" brings to the speaker's mind). Again, focusing on the category of "adverb" misses a bigger point: the use of "home" as a_ complement_ in what is the predicate ("on my way home") in sentence structure.


----------



## Andygc

SevenDays said:


> Why this works with "home" but not with "office" escapes me, other than to say that "home" has historically developed such adverbial use (perhaps for the emotional attachment that the word "home" brings to the speaker's mind).


As I mentioned earlier, the etymology in the OED tells us that the locative adverbial use came into English ready formed. It never was derived from "to home" in English. The entry in the OED is longer than I can post here, but here is the opening: 





> *Etymology: *Apparently cognate with or formed similarly to Old Saxon _hēm_ (only in _hēmbrung_ ‘act of bringing home’; Middle Low German _hēme_ , _hēm_ ), Old High German _heim_ (Middle High German _heim_ , German _heim_ ), Old Icelandic _heim_ , all in sense ‘to or towards one's home’, uses as adverb of the accusative singular of the respective cognates of home n.1





SevenDays said:


> Again, focusing on the category of "adverb" misses a bigger point:


As I said earlier:


Andygc said:


> Perhaps the problem is that the terminology being used is inadequate.


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> When used as an adverb, "home" belong to the so-called _locative adverbs_, a sub-class of adverbs which refer to "location" and "movement toward that location." Notice how several posts have made reference to "movement" and "direction." _Locative adverbs_ have a close relationship with prepositional phrases, and that's how we get _I'm on my way *home*_ from _I'm on my way *to home*_. Not _all _nouns can be used as a locative adverb; for example, we couldn't say "I'm on my way office;" instead, a prep. phrase must be used (_I'm on my way to the office_). Why this works with "home" but not with "office" escapes me, other than to say that "home" has historically developed such adverbial use (perhaps for the emotional attachment that the word "home" brings to the speaker's mind).


If "movement" and "direction" -- a pure semantic aspect of it excluding any syntactic element -- were all it takes to call a phrase or a word an adverbial phrase or an adverb, this thread and the earlier thread quoted in post #22 and many other threads in this and other forums would in their entirety have been a waste of precious time to those involved in all those threads. So, I hope that's not the case.



SevenDays said:


> Again, focusing on the category of "adverb" misses a bigger point: the use of "home" as a_ complement_ in what is the predicate ("on my way home") in sentence structure.


 You're essentially contradicting yourself. You jump to the conclusion, on one hand, that _home_ is an "locative adverb" even in _The way home is long_ or _This is the way home_ solely because _home_ in those and other sentences has the meaning of "movement" and "direction". Yet, on the other hand, you trivialize classifying it as an adverb, I guess, when you feel it's indefensible to base your conclusion solely on semantics.


----------



## karlalou

When we start talking beyond what dictionaries or grammar books say, it becomes just our opinions. Nothing wrong about it if you want, but you can't convince anyone in that way. 

Natives have the advantage of their innate sense of the language that they don't need to think or know the grammar while we learners have not much choice but have to follow what these reference books and natives say.


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> If "movement" and "direction" -- a pure semantic aspect of it excluding any syntactic element -- were all it takes to call a phrase or a word an adverbial phrase or an adverb, this thread and the earlier thread quoted in post #22 and many other threads in this and other forums would in their entirety have been a waste of precious time to those involved in all those threads. So, I hope that's not the case.
> 
> You're essentially contradicting yourself. You jump to the conclusion, on one hand, that _home_ is an "locative adverb" even in _The way home is long_ or _This is the way home_ solely because _home_ in those and other sentences has the meaning of "movement" and "direction". Yet, on the other hand, you trivialize classifying it as an adverb, I guess, when you feel it's indefensible to base your conclusion solely on semantics.



Trivialize? What an odd thing to say.
I've no problem with "home" being classified as an "adverb" based on its use in this thread, either by syntax (reduction), etymology (as Andygc points out; sorry I missed that), or semantics (its inherent meaning of "movement"), but I also understand that the term "adverb" doesn't really explain the use of "home" in our sentence. And if you are fixated on _traditional grammar_ (and its notion of what "adverbs" _are _and what they should "modify"), then it's no wonder that you can't accept "home" as an "adverb."  By the way, if you dismiss something saying it's just "semantics," then you also fail to understand the role that _semantics_ plays in language.
This thread has stopped being useful; it has become argumentative rather than informative.


----------



## Edinburgher

I think Loob had the right idea.  We should not think of "home" as post-modifying "way".
If anything, "on my way" pre-modifies "home".

I'm home. (_home_ is clearly adverb here)
I'm almost home. (still an adverb, pre-modified by another adverb)
I'm on my way home. (we can view "on my way" as playing a similar role to "almost"; we can also see it as "going" or "proceeding")


Andygc said:


> Mind you, it doesn't help much with another sentence which comes to mind "This is the way home". Which leaves us back where we started.


In that example, we could do worse than interpret this as elision/reduction:  "This is the way (_to get_, or _which leads_) home".  Either way, "home" is an adverb.

The OED entry for "home, adv." specifically includes the following as examples of _home_ being used as an adverb.

1.a. (1918) They are going to start demobilization about Monday, so that..I'll be *on my way home* in three weeks.
6.a. (1856) I..beg to enter a horse of mine..in order to discover whether Broth-of-a-boy can show him *the way home*.


----------



## SevenDays

The more that I think about this, couldn't "home" simply be an *idiom*, meaning that its usage is strictly based on meaning (of the word itself) _independent_ of its syntactic function? That way, the whole notion of what "home" modifies goes away; the word "home" is used that way because it's _always _been used that way. That would also explain why "I'm *home*," or "I'm on my way *home*" work, but "I'm office" or "I'm on my way gym" are distinctly wrong, even though "office" and "gym" are nouns, (just like "home") but they are not _idioms_.  And since they are not idioms, they need to be fully expressed: _I'm at the office; I'm on my way to the gym_.


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> In that example, we could do worse than interpret this as elision/reduction:  "This is the way (_to get_, or _which leads_) home".  Either way, "home" is an adverb.


_This is the way to get home. ==> This is the way home.
This is the way which leads home. ==> This is the way home.
_
In these sentences, _home_ clearly functions as an adverb.
In this thread, however, we're not talking about the _home_ within the underlined portion. We're talking about the _home_ that you suggest replaces the entire underlined portion. If the _home _replaces the entire underlined portion, then shouldn't it be considered to do the function of the entire underlined portion that it replaces? 

So it's a necessary step to ask ourselves what function the underlined portions do. They do the function of an adjective. Both _to get home_ and _which leads home_ modify the noun _way_. Therefore, isn't it logical to think that the _home_ does the same function?

When you say "home" is an adverb, I'm not sure which home you're referring to, _home_ or _home_?



Edinburgher said:


> The OED entry for "home, adv." specifically includes the following as examples of _home_ being used as an adverb.
> 
> 1.a. (1918) They are going to start demobilization about Monday, so that..I'll be *on my way home* in three weeks.
> 6.a. (1856) I..beg to enter a horse of mine..in order to discover whether Broth-of-a-boy can show him *the way home*.


This only goes to show that dictionaries, even OED, are not a reliable source for figuring out parts of speech.


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> When you say "home" is an adverb, I'm not sure which home you're referring to, _home_ or _home_?


I meant both.  My argument was that because the blue ones are clearly adverbial, the red ones are too.


> In this thread, however, we're not talking about the _home_ within the underlined portion. We're talking about the _home_ that you suggest replaces the entire underlined portion. If the _home _replaces the entire underlined portion, then shouldn't it be considered to do the function of the entire underlined portion that it replaces?


 I did not mean to say that the red _home_ replaces the entire underlined portion.  Rather, the non-blue part of the underlined portion has simply been elided (omitted), without _home_ (now red) having changed function.





> So it's a necessary step to ask ourselves what function the underlined portions do.  They do the function of an adjective.
> Both _to get home_ and _which leads home_ modify the noun _way_.


 Only one of them does.
_This is *the way* to get home._ I don't see this as modification of _way_.  Instead, I view "the way" as equivalent to "how":_ This is *how* to get home._
_This is the way which leads home._  OK, here the relative clause "which leads home" does modify "way", but it doesn't matter if you treat it as elision.  I see the blue _home_ as unchanged in grammatical function after it has become red.
I shouldn't even have said "become red", because that suggests it undergoes a transformation.  The colours serve only to identify the contexts in which the word appears.


----------



## Flaminius

I wonder if someone has referred to a definition of adverbs by which nouns can be modified by an adverb?

A page in the Cambridge Dictionary site says:


> We use adverbs to add more information about a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a clause or a whole sentence and, less commonly, about a noun phrase.


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> Only one of them does.
> _This is *the way* to get home._ I don't see this as modification of _way_.  Instead, I view "the way" as equivalent to "how":_ This is *how* to get home._


Just because _*the way*_ is equivalent to *how *in meaning doesn't mean their syntactic functions should be equivalent.
In fact, _*the way*_ is undeniably a noun phrase whereas _*how*_ can never be a noun phrase. Then, how syntactically different is _*how*_ from _*the way*_?
_
This is *the way* to get home. _==>  _This is *the way in which* to get home. _/ _This is *the way in which* we should get home.
This is *how* to get home. _==> _This is *how* we should get home._
Therefore, I'd say that _*how *_functions simply as an adjunct and is syntactically equivalent not to _*the way*_ but to _*the way in which*_.

No wonder _to get home_ doesn't modify _*how*_ in _This is *how* to get home_, which I don't think should be used to jump to the conclusion that _to get home_ doesn't modify _*the way*_ in _This is *the way* to get home. To get home _does modify _*the way*_ in _This is *the way* to get home._



Edinburgher said:


> _This is the way which leads home._  OK, here the relative clause "which leads home" does modify "way", but it doesn't matter if you treat it as elision.  I see the blue _home_ as unchanged in grammatical function after it has become red.
> I shouldn't even have said "become red", because that suggests it undergoes a transformation.  The colours serve only to identify the contexts in which the word appears.


In the underlined proposition, I take it that "the contexts" refers not to semantic contexts but to syntactic contexts.
_
This is the way which leads home. ==> This is the way home._
Now, you agree that _which leads home_ does modify _*the way*_. But you still claim that _home _doesn't modify *the way*.
If that's true, these two sentences may be the same in semantics, but they are different in syntax, because you essentially have this:
_This is the way _[adjectival component]_. ==> This is the way _[adverbial component].

If the above underline proposition is right, we are essentially comparing two syntactically different things in the first place, which means that we shouldn't be using _which leads home_ to try to explain _home_.

Also, since I have proved that the other one (_to get home_) also modifies _*the way*_, we can say the same thing about this one, too: We shouldn't be using _to get home_ to try to explain _home_.

EDIT: Unlike the elision of "in which" from "the way in which", which is widely accepted, the elision of "which leads" from "which leads home" or of "to get" from "to get home" is not accepted outside this particular case, I think. So I don't even know whether this type of elision is a valid one.


----------



## JungKim

Flaminius said:


> I wonder if someone has referred to a definition of adverbs by which nouns can be modified by an adverb?
> 
> 
> 
> We use adverbs to add more information about a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a clause or a whole sentence and, less commonly, about a noun phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> A page in the Cambridge Dictionary site says:
Click to expand...




JungKim said:


> In fact, _*the way*_ is undeniably a noun phrase whereas _*how*_ can never be a noun phrase.


Here's an example of an adverb "undeniably" modifying a noun phrase, which happens to be "a noun phrase". 
And I'm afraid this feature of an adverb doesn't have anything to do with this thread.


----------



## Flaminius

In your example just above, *JungKim*, _undeniably_ modifies the verb phrase _is a noun phrase_.  Or it modifies the whole sentence as in, "In fact, the way is a noun phrase, undeniably."

[I don't pretend to know much Korean but its equivalent to "more upwards" seems to me an example of a Korean adverb modifying a noun.]

OED (2011³) mentions a curious adverbial construction (s.v. home, _adv._) "[w]ith verb of motion understood, esp. after an auxiliary":


> 1715 J. Browne & W. Oldisworth _State Tracts_ II. 266 Thank you for your kind Advice, That I may home, and learn to be more wise.


I honestly don't know why this use is not classed as a verb but the examples listed under the entry (s.v. home, _v._) are comprised with inflected forms and a _to_-infinitive.  It seems then that OED takes cautions before they declare something to be really really a verb.  I take note that OED justifies the appearance of _home_ the adverb in "That I may home" by a verb of motion being understood.

In fact, ellipsis of verb is often cited as the force that made possible for prepositional phrases to modify nouns.  Even if intransitive prepositions (aka, adverbs) had to use the power of verb once, 'the way home' is evidence to how it is obviated in today's usage.


----------



## JungKim

Flaminius said:


> In your example just above, *JungKim*, _undeniably_ modifies the verb phrase _is a noun phrase_.  Or it modifies the whole sentence as in, "In fact, the way is a noun phrase, undeniably."


If you parse it to modify the verb phrase or the whole sentence in that example of mine, you'd have to distinguish that _undeniably_ from this one: _I'd call the way undeniably a noun phrase._
So you may be right about parsing it the way you did in that particular example, but I'd prefer to parse it as modifying the noun phrase, which I think leads to a more consistent approach to deal with an adverb appearing in front of a noun phrase. But again, let's not digress.


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> Just because _*the way*_ is equivalent to *how *in meaning doesn't mean their syntactic functions should be equivalent.


 Actually, I would say it does, at least in cases such as this. It's always good if the way a sentence is (or appears to be) constructed syntactically helps the reader understand its meaning.
There is of course always a problem if a sentence can be parsed in different ways, and in particular when the reader doesn't perceive the same structure as that intended by the writer.  This can sometimes lead to misunderstanding.





> In fact, _*the way*_ is undeniably a noun phrase whereas _*how*_ can never be a noun phrase. Then, how syntactically different is _*how*_ from _*the way*_?


Although "the way" is indeed undeniably a noun phrase, we need, for the purpose of syntactical analysis, to think about what role if fulfils in the sentence that contains it.  We can't entirely abandon semantics when doing this.
I suggest that in this case, the noun phrase "the way" is functionally equivalent to "how".  That's assuming, of course, that the word "way" in the sentence "This is the way to get home" means "manner", and not a physical piece of road.
In other words, the sentence "This is the way to get home" answers the question "How do we get home?".
If we did mean a physical piece of road, we would not say "This is the road to get home", we would say "This is the road home", which would be short for something like "This is the road which will get us home".


JungKim said:


> In the underlined proposition, I take it that "the contexts" refers not to semantic contexts but to syntactic contexts.


Neither.  I simply meant the sentence on the left and the sentence on the right.


JungKim said:


> _This is the way which leads home. ==> This is the way home._
> Now, you agree that _which leads home_ does modify _*the way*_. But you still claim that _home _doesn't modify *the way*.


Yes, I do.  The point about elision (the omitting of "which leads") is that elision doesn't change the syntactical structure.  When parsing the sentence, we need to re-introduce the omitted components in order to identify the underlying structure (I know this can be difficult).
The relative clause "which leads home" modifies "way" and therefore behaves like an adjective.
When we omit "which leads", the adjectival relative clause is reduced to an adjectival phrase (which happens to consist of only one word, namely "home"), but within that phrase, the word "home" is still an adverb modifying the implied verb "leads".


----------



## Jack Armstrong

SevenDays said:


> The noun "home" starts as part of a prepositional phrase, which functions adverbially (it tells where I'm going):
> _I'm on my way to my home_
> The prepositional phrase is then reduced to its "locative" element, the noun home, and that's how the noun "home" functions like an adverb.
> _I'm on my way home_



I agree that home is part of an unspoken prepositional phrase that acts as an adverb.  Home is a noun within that phrase and 'to' is the unspoken preposition.
I think that this is a case of one of the  ways that English has evolved. For example, you would say "I am going to the bar for a drink" you would not say "I am going bar for a drink."  
But the word home occupies a special case in our grammar, probably because of its constant usage in speech.  So you may say "I am going to my home for a drink" or you may say "I am going home for a drink." Both are correct. The rules of grammar have adjusted to the use of the language.


----------



## Andygc

Perhaps you missed post #37


Andygc said:


> As I mentioned earlier, the etymology in the OED tells us that the locative adverbial use came into English ready formed. It never was derived from "to home" in English.


While your two sentences mean the same, it is incorrect to say "that home is part of an unspoken prepositional phrase". The locative meaning was created before English existed.


----------



## SevenDays

It isn't just the locative meaning that was created before English existed; the _reduction_ that I spoke of earlier (_to my home ~ home_) also happened before English came along. That this reduction fits so well in English is perhaps evidence of the controversial _Universal Grammar_ that Chomsky talks about (one of its features being that all natural languages share certain grammatical properties; the property shared in this case is "reduction"). .

I also think that this "unspoken prepositional phrase" is there, at _deep structure_. After all, it surfaces in context:

_I'm going home
What? Are you going to Mary's home?
No; my home. I'm going to my home.
_


----------



## srk

But it doesn't "surface" in "I'm going away."  There is no noun corresponding to "away" that you can work into a prepositional phrase that has been reduced.


SevenDays said:


> the _reduction_ that I spoke of earlier (_to my home ~ home_) also happened before English came along.


How do you know that "home" was not always a grammatical counterpart of "away" as well as a noun?  What is your evidence?


----------



## Andygc

SevenDays said:


> I'm going home
> What? Are you going to Mary's home?
> No; my home. I'm going to my home.


If you create an implausible conversation you can create an artificial context to claim an implied structure. "I'm going home" can never mean "I'm going to Mary's home". As I said before, I cannot quote the etymology detailed in the OED because it would exceed forum limits on citing copyright material, but it points to the use of the singular accusative and dative cases of nouns equivalent to our "home" as adverbs of motion - to home - and place - at home - in Germanic languages, with no suggestion that they were ever reduced prepositional phrases. The entry does include comment on the use of prepositions in Old English, but only in discussing which case was being used adverbially.


----------



## karlalou

srk said:


> But it doesn't "surface" in "I'm going away." There is no noun corresponding to "away" that you can work into a prepositional phrase that has been reduced.


ah.. I'm sorry I'm confused. 'Away' is always an adverb.. How can we compare it with 'home'?



Loob said:


> I'm on the way ... to my home.


Isn't this enough as the evidence?


----------



## Andygc

karlalou said:


> Isn't this enough as the evidence?


Evidence of what? That a phrase "to my home" can mean the same as an adverb "home" provides no evidence that the adverb is derived from the phrase. Indeed, the evidence collected by the editor of the OED is that it is *not* so derived.


----------



## karlalou

I don't see the point of 'derived' needing for the original phrase to disappear. "Home" is still mainly thought as a noun, and makes the phrase, 'to the home', and that is why it troubles us, even linguists, to understand it, isn't it?


----------



## Andygc

I don't have any difficulty understanding 'home' to be an adverb. I still don't understand what you meant by 


karlalou said:


> Isn't this enough as the evidence?


----------



## SevenDays

Andygc said:


> If you create an implausible conversation you can create an artificial context to claim an implied structure. "I'm going home" can never mean "I'm going to Mary's home". As I said before, I cannot quote the etymology detailed in the OED because it would exceed forum limits on citing copyright material, but it points to the use of the singular accusative and dative cases of nouns equivalent to our "home" as adverbs of motion - to home - and place - at home - in Germanic languages, with no suggestion that they were ever reduced prepositional phrases. The entry does include comment on the use of prepositions in Old English, but only in discussing which case was being used adverbially.



So, is there a suggestion in the OED that they were _not _reduced prepositional phrases in Old Saxon and Old German? It doesn't surprise me that the OED is silent on whether there's reduction involved or not; OED is talking about _usage_, not about the underlying syntactic phenomena that results in that usage. 

Don't get caught up in "I'm going to Mary's home." The point is simply this: if, for whatever reason, "I'm going home" is not contextually clear, do you really find it odd, unusual, wrong, incorrect to say "I'm going *to my home*" in order to remove all ambiguity? I don't find that unusual or wrong at all, precisely because "I'm going to my home" is the deep/underlying structure of "I'm going home." The fact that we can say "I'm going home" but not "I'm going office" reflects the history/etymology of "home," which allows us to use it in that way (perhaps alluding to the deep emotional attachment that we have with the concept of "home").


----------



## sdgraham

SevenDays said:


> I don't find that unusual or wrong at all, precisely because "I'm going to my home" is the deep/underlying structure of "I'm going home."


Mumbo-jumbo aside. We native speakers use "going home" without problems, although we're likely to be tolerant of a learner who insists on inserting an unidiomatic "my."

German, as opposed to Spanish, also gets along quite nicely without the first-person possessive pronoun, I believe.


----------



## karlalou

Andygc said:


> I don't have any difficulty understanding 'home' to be an adverb.


I am happy to know you've come to that conclusion. I believe no one is arguing against that.


Andygc said:


> I still don't understand what you meant by


I was replying to srk saying


srk said:


> How do you know that "home" was not always a grammatical counterpart of "away" as well as a noun? What is your evidence?


Seven has shown above with the clear example once again.


SevenDays said:


> "I'm going home" but not "I'm going office"


I agree with Seven.

What is the evidence of the other way around? I am someone just told so, but you say both "I go home" and "to my home."


----------



## siares

SevenDays said:


> if, for whatever reason, "I'm going home" is not contextually clear, do you really find it odd, unusual, wrong, incorrect to say "I'm going *to my home*" in order to remove all ambiguity?


There must be a need for more specifying often. Say you come from town A where your family lives, but work shifts in a factory in town B, where you live also. At the end of a shift a conversation in my language may go: - Are you staying for company football game? - No, I'm going home. - Say hello to Mary. - No, I'm going home _here_, I have another shift tomorrow; I'm just too tired to play football. (I don't know whether English is likely to use _home here_ or _to my home here _or something else completely).


----------



## karlalou

sdgraham said:


> Mumbo-jumbo aside. We native speakers use "going home" without problems, although we're likely to be tolerant of a learner who insists on inserting an unidiomatic "my."


No.., you needed 'to' in front of your 'my'. I mean that is what we've talking about here. No one is saying "go my home".


----------



## Andygc

The OED entry for 'home', adverb, discusses etymology, not usage.


SevenDays said:


> do you really find it odd, unusual, wrong, incorrect to say "I'm going *to my home*" in order to remove all ambiguity?


I find it utterly bizarre. Why would I say that when "I'm going home" contains no ambiguity whatsoever. Just as "Mary's going home" is equally lacking ambiguity. I am certain that I have never, in over 50 adult years, said "I'm going to my home". I might have said it when I was 5 or 6.


----------



## karlalou

Andygc said:


> I find it utterly bizarre. Why would I say that when "I'm going home" contains no ambiguity whatsoever. Just as "Mary's going home" is equally lacking ambiguity. I am certain that I have never, in over 50 adult years, said "I'm going to my home". I might have said it when I was 5 or 6.


Loob has provided us with the correct one. Isn't this enough for you?


Loob said:


> _I'm on the way ... to my home._


----------



## heypresto

Loob offered that to illustrate how, if she had to, she would split the sentence 'I'm on the way to my home' which was being discussed at the time. 

This is not the same as, and nor does it justify saying 'I'm going to my home' instead of 'I'm going home'.


----------



## Loob

Karlalou, I was talking in post 17 about the sentence _I'm on the way to my home,_ and whether "to my home" modified "way" or not in that sentence.

My comment has no bearing on how you analyse "home" in _I'm on my way home _or _I'm going home.

............

Cross-posted with heypresto_


----------



## karlalou

Loob said:


> I'm on the way to my home


So, are you saying this sentence of yours is wrong?


----------



## Loob

Karlalou, I didn't say anything about the utility of the sentence _I'm on the way to my home.
_
And it was SevenDays' sentence, not mine.


----------



## karlalou

When the point of discussion here switched to the actual usage?

So, your objection is 'my' or 'the'?
WR dictionary says 'home' as an adverb means 'to' or 'toward' or 'at' home.


----------



## Andygc

karlalou said:


> So, your objection is 'my' or 'the'?


It's rather difficult to understand what you are asking.

Normal English using the adverb 'home': "I'm on my way home"/"I'm going home".

Alternative non-idiomatic but grammatical sentences using the noun 'home': "I'm on my way to my home."/"I'm going to my home"

The question in this thread was to ask how 'home' in "I'm on my way home" could be classified as an adverb when it modifies the noun 'way'. There have been several attempts at answers, but I'm not sure any have been satisfactory. The etymology of the adverb 'home' does not support the suggestion that it was formed by reduction - but I'm repeating myself.

I suppose that the answer to the original question is that some adverbs, contrary to popular belief, can modify nouns.


----------



## karlalou

Andygc said:


> It's rather difficult to understand what you are asking.
> 
> Normal English using the adverb 'home': "I'm on my way home"/"I'm going home".
> 
> Alternative non-idiomatic but grammatical sentences using the noun 'home': "I'm on my way to my home."/"I'm going to my home"
> 
> The question in this thread was to ask how 'home' in "I'm on my way home" could be classified as an adverb when it modifies the noun 'way'. There have been several attempts at answers, but I'm not sure any have been satisfactory. The etymology of the adverb 'home' does not support the suggestion that it was formed by reduction - but I'm repeating myself.
> 
> I suppose that the answer to the original question is that some adverbs, contrary to popular belief, can modify nouns.


OK. I find this is fair.


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> _I'm on my way home._
> In this sentence, the word _home_ is classified as an "adverb" in the dictionaries I've consulted and the threads I've looked at.
> But how can that be?
> I think _home_ here post-modifies the noun _way_.
> If so, how can something that post-modifies a noun be classified an adverb?


It is a matter of definition. If a word that modifies a noun has to be an adjective, then _home_ can be both an adverb and an adjective.

It seems a useful simplification to say that adverbs of certain types and in certain structures can modify nouns. After all, they can modify just about anything else.

But if those certain types and structures are not well defined, the traditional distinction between adjective and adverb gets muddled. (It is already hard enough to explain why "I feel wrongly" sounds so silly.)

Another way to look at this is that "on the way" might be understood as an idiom meaning, for example, "partway" or "headed". If it means "partway", then "on the way" modifies "home", but if it means "headed", then "home" modifies "headed", which at least looks to be a past participle.


----------

