# word or group of words that <expresses>



## JungKim

The following is the definition of 'verb' in Oxford Learner's Dictionary:


> a word or group of words that expresses an action (such as eat), an event (such as happen) or a state (such as exist)


Is 'expresses' here the correct form of the verb 'express'?


----------



## Andygc

Yes. Two singular subjects which are alternatives. 
"A *word* that expresses an action"
or
"A *group* of words that expresses an action"


----------



## PaulQ

Are you concerned that "a group of words" is seen as plural? It is singular.

In cases of multiple individual subjects linked by *or *and *but* (and other exclusive conjunctions), the verb follows the final part of the subject - 
"Either a cat or two dogs *come *into the garden" 
"Either two dogs or a cat *comes* into the garden" 
"Either a cat or a dog comes into the garden."

"a word" and *"a* group of words" are both singular, so it is "expresses."

The guidance is justified by "Either X *or* *Y*s *come *into the garden" =  "Either an X *[comes *into the garden] or many *Y*s *come *into the garden" 

The other guidance is that in all multiple individual subjects, it is possible that the first subject controls the verb if the subsequent subjects are in parenthesis: "A cat (and two dogs) comes into the garden."


----------



## siares

"verb = a word or group of words that expresses A, B, *or* C"
Now I think it is definitely suspect.
The whole group would have to express A+B+C, with no 'or'(sum of that which its members express) .
Individual members may express A, or B, *or* C.

Seems similar to me to 'that is the group of people that speaks Dutch, Swahili, English or Japanese as a mother tongue.


----------



## RM1(SS)

siares said:


> "verb = a word or group of words that expresses A, B, *or* C"
> Now I think it is definitely suspect.
> The whole group would have to express A+B+C, with no 'or'(sum of that which its members express) .


 How in the world did you come up with that idea?


----------



## siares

I gave an example to show where my mind went.
I read threads on the group used as a singular entity, and taking a verb in singular. There were some differences on which speakers found this acceptable.
Relative pronouns - A group of men <who, which> ...?
All the examples dealt with one property which members of the group shared. Here the group comprises verbs which behave differently.
So I find it strange, as I would find: _That is the group of men which is sleeping or swimming. / which is 170 or 190 cm tall.
_


----------



## RM1(SS)

To use the example from the OP:

*a word or group of words that expresses an action (such as eat),* [or expresses] *an event (such as happen) or* [expresses] *a state (such as exist)*

The group of words doesn't have to express all three; it can express only one, just as the single word does.


----------



## bennymix

JK.  You do realize that your chances of finding an error in an Oxford publication, let alone its dictionaries, is very small, don't you?

Your question should be "Why is this correct?"




JungKim said:


> The following is the definition of 'verb' in Oxford Learner's Dictionary:
> 
> Is 'expresses' here the correct form of the verb 'express'?


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> JK.  You do realize that your chances of finding an error in an Oxford publication, let alone its dictionaries, is very small, don't you?


Well, benny, you never know.
If I had to find an error in this very definition, I would first say that the term 'verb' is a word class, not a class for a group of words, and that it's an error to say that a verb can be "a group of words". 

And even if we get rid of that error by removing "group of words" from the definition, there's another error lurking behind. That is, the definition is only about a particular type of verb, namely, a lexical verb. Auxiliary verbs such as "do", "be" and "have" are not covered in this definition, much less modals such as "can", "will", etc. Granted, these errors are not grammatical errors, but errors are errors.


----------



## suzi br

JungKim said:


> Well, benny, you never know.
> If I had to find an error in this very definition, I would first say that the term 'verb' is a word class, not a class for a group of words, and that it's an error to say that a verb can be "a group of words".
> 
> And even if we get rid of that error by removing "group of words" from the definition, there's another error lurking behind. That is, the definition is only about a particular type of verb, namely, a lexical verb. Auxiliary verbs such as "do", "be" and "have" are not covered in this definition, much less modals such as "can", "will", etc. Granted, these errors are not grammatical errors, but errors are errors.



Really, this is ridiculous.  Definitions are always only "a stab in the direction of something."  Something as complex as a verb is not going to be defined in a single shorthand sentence.  

However: the phrase "a group of words" is the dictionary's way of expressing exactly what you say it does not cover! Words in a group which could include auxiliaries and modals! 

Please feel free to write you one sentence defining verbs better than these experts manage it!


----------



## boozer

JK, you are, of course, wrong, sorry to say. A verb can be a group of words or one compound word. For instance, the Cambridge dictionary says, quite rightly, that to hand-wash is a verb, never mind the fact that 'hand' is a noun. Not to mention the fact that the extended definition of 'verb', especially from the point of view of syntax, may include the verb phrase, which contains the main verb and all the auxiliaries... In this way, 'have been writing' is a verb phrase that functions as a single verb within the sentence.


----------



## JungKim

suzi br said:


> Definitions are always only "a stab in the direction of something."  Something as complex as a verb is not going to be defined in a single shorthand sentence.


This sounds to me like an excuse for the definition's error. If you hadn't thought there were any error in the definition, you wouldn't have had to come up with any such excuse. So the very reason you're making the excuse is that you also think that there's an error in the definition.



suzi br said:


> However: the phrase "a group of words" is the dictionary's way of expressing exactly what you say it does not cover! Words in a group which could include auxiliaries and modals!


 I don't know how inserting the phrase "a group of words" would help cover auxiliaries and modals. You let me go back to my original comments: (1) A verb is not "a group of words" but a single word; (2) An auxiliary verb, much less a modal, doesn't really express an action, an event or a state; a lexical verb does. So, I don't understand how the phrase "a group of words", which is in and of itself an error, helps make the definition any better.



boozer said:


> JK, you are, of course, wrong, sorry to say. A verb can be a group of words or one compound word. For instance, the Cambridge dictionary says, quite rightly, that to hand-wash is a verb, never mind the fact that 'hand' is a noun.


I believe that the very reason you need a hyphen in "hand-wash" is because it has to be reanalyzed as a single word to be qualified as a "verb". So, I guess it's not a terribly convincing example to show that a verb can be a group of words.



boozer said:


> Not to mention the fact that the extended definition of 'verb', especially from the point of view of syntax, may include the verb phrase, which contains the main verb and all the auxiliaries... In this way, 'have been writing' is a verb phrase that functions as a single verb within the sentence.


I don't understand why you would voluntarily confuse "verb" with "verb phrase". I mean, when you already have the more fitting term "verb phrase" as you yourself have used above, why would you also have an "extended definition of verb"? 

Now, you say that 'have been waiting' is a "verb phrase that functions as a single verb." Maybe you want to have the syntax (verb phrase) and the semantics (a single verb) all mixed up. But why would you?


----------



## siares

Sorry I didn't realise what the definition meant with 'group' (I thought it meant that 'verb' could refer to whole bunch of verbs with different functions, not just one word.)

Would 'is eating' count as a group of words?


----------



## boozer

Verb: a word or phrase that describes an action, condition, or experience
verb Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Verb: a word or group of words that expresses an action....
verb noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com


JungKim said:


> This sounds to me like an excuse for the definition's error.


I must say, JK, I am mesmerised by your unflinching daring, which is surprising even in the face of your undisputed linguistic acumen (you write English so well). It takes _cojones_ to repeatedly accuse Oxford and Cambridge of committing errors and laughing to scorn their definitions.  But this is beside the point here. English is a 'democratic' language and anyone is free to rebel against the established authority. When one does so, however, one must at least propose a viable alternative to what one denies or rejects.

Is this the case here? Well, revolutionary breakthroughs in linguistics are few and far between. And, unsurprisingly, instead of proposing a new definition of 'verb', you suggest we revert to a more restrictive (and possibly older) definition that only accepts single words as verbs.

And, in the unlikely event of Cambridge and Oxford heeding your fair objections, we are left with the discomfort of not knowing what to do with, say, phrasal verbs. 
Verbs: multi-word verbs - English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionaries Online
What do we do with them? 'Come out', when it means 'publish', has a meaning of its own, so we cannot separate the main verb from the particle. Indeed, only the main verb is inflected, but when semantics is involved, the two parts are inseparable.


JungKim said:


> I believe that the very reason you need a hyphen in "hand-wash" is because it has to be reanalyzed as a single word to be qualified as a "verb"


A: But Mr. President....
B: Don't 'Mr. President' me...
Do you think the above is not English? Or is 'Mr. President' not a verb here? Or should we just re-analyse it as a single word?
Conversion is very strong in English, JK. Virtually any part (or parts) of speech can be a verb. (And, in fact, in English any part of speech can function as any other part of speech, but that is another story)


----------



## bennymix

Hi Jung Kim.

You make good points and know your linguistics so far as I can tell (I'm a generalist).
What you ignore, however, is the stated purpose of a particular dictionary.  _Oxford Advanced Learner's_ has about 15 words in each (sub)entry, using a base of 3000 key words to define something.  An unabridged dictionary is more precise and allows itself more words; a linguistics dictionary is for specialists.  As far as 'verb' goes, perhaps you'd be happier with M-W unabridged, which allows itself several dozen words in its definitions:

*verb*
*:*  a word belonging to that part of speech that characteristically is the grammatical center of a predicate and expresses an act, occurrence, or mode of being and that in various languages is inflected for agreement with the person and number of the subject, for tense, for voice, for mood, or for aspect and that typically has rather full descriptive meaning and characterizing quality but is in some instances nearly devoid of such meaning and quality especially in use as an auxiliary or copula.

Several of your points below, however, are related to defining a word, and again here you have to look at
stated purpose, and intended readership.

OALD says,

* **word* noun | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

[countable] a single unit of language which means something and can be spoken or written
===
That's about 15 simple words.   Can you improve that?

Now let's go up on level to M-W unabridged, for very literate and professional people including judges in courts:

[word, spoken]
_2a (1)_*:*  a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use *:*  linguistic form that is a minimum free form

====
This does not get into the problem of units.   So let's go to a linguistics dictionary:

*Lexicon of Linguistics*

Lexicon of Linguistics

*Word*

*MORPHOLOGY: *words are morphological objects which may but need not be the output of processes of affixation and compounding.

*[...]*

*SYNTAX: *words are generally considered atomic elements: they are the indivisible building blocks of syntax, which may be the input but not the output of syntactic processes, their parts presumably being inaccessible for syntactic rules. See *lexical integrity*.

*PHONOLOGY: *words are phonological objects which constitute the domain for lexical phonological rules. It is particularly striking that these three uses of the notion 'word' are not co-extensive

===
NOTE that that took 75 words and still has unresolved problems including the issue of 'lexical integrity.'

===
In short Jung Kim, keep up your inquiries but suit the critique to the publication, its stated purpose and its intended readership.        Good thinking!




JungKim said:


> This sounds to me like an excuse for the definition's error. If you hadn't thought there were any error in the definition, you wouldn't have had to come up with any such excuse. So the very reason you're making the excuse is that you also think that there's an error in the definition.
> 
> I don't know how inserting the phrase "a group of words" would help cover auxiliaries and modals. You let me go back to my original comments: (1) A verb is not "a group of words" but a single word; (2) An auxiliary verb, much less a modal, doesn't really express an action, an event or a state; a lexical verb does. So, I don't understand how the phrase "a group of words", which is in and of itself an error, helps make the definition any better.
> 
> 
> I believe that the very reason you need a hyphen in "hand-wash" is because it has to be reanalyzed as a single word to be qualified as a "verb". So, I guess it's not a terribly convincing example to show that a verb can be a group of words.
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you would voluntarily confuse "verb" with "verb phrase". I mean, when you already have the more fitting term "verb phrase" as you yourself have used above, why would you also have an "extended definition of verb"?
> 
> Now, you say that 'have been waiting' is a "verb phrase that functions as a single verb." Maybe you want to have the syntax (verb phrase) and the semantics (a single verb) all mixed up. But why would you?


----------



## Andygc

Boozer. I meant to post here, but you beat me to it. I was going to be more succinct "What about phrasal verbs?" I was going to say "They aren't verb phrases, they're verbs."

Ah well, too late.


----------



## siares

JungKim said:


> Is 'expresses' here the correct form of the verb 'express'?


I looks as though the discussion had moved on now from this OP, but just to be sure:
Would using a different verb improve the definition, JungKim? Such as 'can express'?


----------



## bennymix

Note that M-W unabridged goes with 'expresses'

*verb*
*:* a word belonging to that part of speech that characteristically is the grammatical center of a predicate and expresses an act,...

and for 'word'

symbolizes and communicates a meaning 

===
I think there are good reasons not to use the 'top of the head' concept, 'describes'.

NOTE: In the OP, Jung Kim did NOT question the word 'express';  he questioned whether an 's' was needed (singular or plural issue).

In his later post #9, he mainly questioned the issue of _group of words _and also auxiliaries.
Again, so far as I can tell, he did not question 'express'.



siares said:


> I looks as though the discussion had moved on now from this OP, but just to be sure:
> Would using a different verb improve the definition, JungKim? Such as 'can express'?


----------



## Andygc

siares said:


> I looks as though the discussion had moved on now from this OP, but just to be sure:
> Would using a different verb improve the definition, JungKim? Such as 'can express'?


No. The original "expresses" is the appropriate form for this definition.


----------



## bennymix

But Andy, she asked about using a different verb, as I read her.   This relates to possible improvements, an issue raised in later posts.



Andygc said:


> No. The original "expresses" is the appropriate form for this definition.


----------



## Andygc

Benny, is "can express" a different verb from "express", or is it a different form of the verb "express"?


----------



## siares

bennymix said:


> she asked about using a different verb


I meant to ask JungKim for his personal opinion about what he sees as problematic with this specific form of verb: 'expresses'.

Thanks bennymix and andygc for answers, and excellent quotes.

Can also adjective, adverb or noun be 'group of words'?
I am asking because the same dictionary doesn't give 'group of words' in a definition for any of these.


----------



## Andygc

We speak of "compound adjectives" eg "Love is a *many-splendoured* thing".


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> I don't know how inserting the phrase "a group of words" would help cover auxiliaries and modals. You let me go back to my original comments: (1) A verb is not "a group of words" but a single word;


You may wish to consider phrasal verbs: *to put across, away, down, forward, off, on, out, through, together, up*, and such verb forms *as should have been able to understand*; *had had to have;* etc.


----------



## bennymix

I think the problem, Paul, is that one doesn't have a clear definition of 'word' as a basic unit.  One cannot
discuss 'groups' without defining units.  Leaving aside phrasal verbs, simple examples such as 'waterski' (verb)
are already decomposable.  For nouns, consider 'upperclassman'--is that not a group in essence?

For verbs, one needs a word for basic units, so to say, 'verbs' in the narrow sense, e.g. 'can' and 'express'.
Then we need a word for the verb-group such as 'come across'.

I think for the narrow sense, the M-W definition above is not bad #15:

*verb*
*:* a word belonging to that part of speech that characteristically is the grammatical center of a predicate and expresses an act, occurrence, or mode of being and that in various languages is inflected for agreement with the person and number of the subject, for tense, for voice, for mood, or for aspect and that typically has rather full descriptive meaning and characterizing quality but is in some instances nearly devoid of such meaning and quality especially in use as an auxiliary or copula.

==
The concept of word 'devoid of descriptive meaning' is a tough one.  "He is to go" seems to have two verbs, by ordinary analysis, but both 'is' and 'to' are not, strictly speaking, words with descriptive meaning.


----------



## JungKim

Since this thread has deviated a little too far from the OP, I'd better not keep posting regarding this issue of whether 'verb' is able to represent more than a single word as in the dictionary's definition.

But since at least three people specifically asked about so-called 'phrasal verb' comprising a group of words, I will briefly comment on that term.

The term 'phrasal verb' sounds like a type of 'verb', but in reality it's not a verb per se if we're to define it to include not just the verb in that kind of 'phrase' but also any accompanying preposition/adverb(s). And unfortunately, this is how most people define the term. Hence, inherently confusing.

There's two solutions, if you will, to this confusion. One is to define the term to just refer to the verb itself. In this definition, only 'look' in 'look down on' is a phrasal verb. The other solution is to simply get rid of the term 'phrasal verb', as did Huddleston and Pullum in The Cambridge Grammar.


----------



## suzi br

JungKim said:


> This sounds to me like an excuse for the definition's error. If you hadn't thought there were any error in the definition, you wouldn't have had to come up with any such excuse. So the very reason you're making the excuse is that you also think that there's an error in the definition.


It might "sound like" that to you, but your attempts at reading my mind and imputing my motivation are wrong. 

In all your verbiage I might have missed your answer to my request for you to write a better definition of verb which meets the dictionary's criteria for length, so perhaps you could point that out for me?


----------



## boozer

QUOTE: "There's two solutions, if you will, to this confusion. One is to define the term to just refer to the verb itself. In this definition, only 'look' in 'look down on' is a phrasal verb. The other solution is to simply get rid of the term 'phrasal verb', as did Huddleston and Pullum in The Cambridge Grammar. UNQUOTE

On its own, 'look' cannot be a phrasal verb for obvious reasons. And then, simply keeping quiet about the existence of 'look down upon' without calling it anything does not solve the problem either. It is there, it is a semantic unit and it functions as a verb.

And what about the other example I gave you. I insist that 'Mr. President' can be a verb. Neither of the two constituent words is normally a verb. Yet, either or both of them together could be, in the right context.

And one last thing. The fact that you disagree with the accepted definitions does not give you leeway to call them an error. In fact, it does, but, well, you think about it. I mean, how modest is it to place yourself on an equal footing with the Cambridge and Oxford dons? I personally find this ridiculous.


----------



## JungKim

suzi br said:


> In all your verbiage I might have missed your answer to my request for you to write a better definition of verb which meets the dictionary's criteria for length, so perhaps you could point that out for me?


 I don't have to do the rewriting myself. Because more advanced dictionaries such as Oxford Dictionary and Merriam-Webster define 'verb' without mentioning "a group of words".



boozer said:


> On its own, 'look' cannot be a phrasal verb for obvious reasons. And then, simply keeping quiet about the existence of 'look down upon' without calling it anything does not solve the problem either. It is there, it is a semantic unit and it functions as a verb.


I don't know what's so obvious about it. Please enlighten me.
By the way, you failed to address my earlier reference to CGEL's rejection of the term. Here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia article on 'phrasal verb':


> The value of this choice and its alternatives (including separable verb for Germanic languages) is debatable. [...] One should consider in this regard that the actual term phrasal verb suggests that such constructions should form phrases. In most cases however, they clearly do not form phrases. Hence the very term phrasal verb is misleading and a source of confusion, which has motivated some to reject the term outright.[11]


(And Note [11] is CGEL)



boozer said:


> And what about the other example I gave you. I insist that 'Mr. President' can be a verb. Neither of the two constituent words is normally a verb. Yet, either or both of them together could be, in the right context.


Please think about why you needed to put in quotes what you claim are "the two constituent words". Just like you needed that hyphen for 'hand-wash', you needed the quotes to make the otherwise two words into a single word in order to make it like a verb. I wish you would have learned this from my earlier comment on 'hand-wash' but apparently you didn't.



boozer said:


> And one last thing. The fact that you disagree with the accepted definitions does not give you leeway to call them an error. In fact, it does, but, well, you think about it. I mean, how modest is it to place yourself on an equal footing with the Cambridge and Oxford dons? I personally find this ridiculous.


 First things first. I didn't say I wanted to be 'modest'. Secondly, I didn't put myself on an equal footing with the Cambridge/Oxford dons or anyone for that matter. Thirdly, calling something an error doesn't necessarily put me on an equal footing with those who wrote that something. Last but not least, this is the second time I've heard the word 'ridiculous' in this thread. In neither of the cases do I think such a word choice helps the discussion in any way.


----------



## boozer

JungKim said:


> I don't know what's so obvious about it. Please enlighten me.


I gladly would, were I not afraid that if you cannot see for yourself why a single word cannot be a phrasal anything, you are beyond enlightening.



JungKim said:


> Please think about why you needed to put in quotes what you claim are "the two constituent words". Just like you needed that hyphen for 'hand-wash', you needed the quotes to make the otherwise two words into a single word in order to make it like a verb. I wish you would have learned this from my earlier comment on 'hand-wash' but apparently you didn't.


So now you are saying that two or more words can function as a single word, after all. So, according to you, we can choose to see Mr. President as a single word? But that was the point all along and I see it is beginning to sink in.  No one could make Mr. and President a single word, i.e. a single lexical unit. However, we can use punctuation to denote the single and indivisible meaning... of a multi-word verb... But then, I admit that the instructive value of your earlier post must have eluded me,  so I failed "to learn".



JungKim said:


> I didn't say I wanted to be 'modest'.


Granted. And I see you really practice what you preach. 


JungKim said:


> Thirdly, calling something an error doesn't necessarily put me on an equal footing with those who wrote that something


Oh, but it does. Even worse - it reveals a self-perception of superiority (or, at least, superior knowledge). A perception that some of us seem to find misguided. Hence the word 'ridiculous' which, I notice, was also used by Suzi. If you do not like that word, I expect 'ludicrous' would be a good alternative.


----------



## JulianStuart

Does JK's thesis rest on the following: (paraphrasing #9, I think) "If _I_ state that "a verb can only ever be a single word", then anyone, high or low, who says otherwise, will, by _my_ definition, be making an error"?  

The concept of a _simple,comprehensive_ definition of "verb" (as requested by Suzi, for example) seems to have eluded many attempts.  That seems to be because it is a matter of terms and definitions, not an "intrinsic and immutable truth".  The OLD definition seems to accommodate the possibility that some consider/allow "multi-word" elements as "verbs".  This will only displease those who subscribe to the people who state as JK does above.  Those people are entitled to use their own set of terms and definitions in linguistic analyses, and_ to them_ the OLD definition would obviously be an error.  But to others, not so much  (I am reminded of a family's comment about their son when he had just joined the army "Everyone's out of step except our Johnny!")


----------



## RM1(SS)

boozer said:


> A: But Mr. President....
> B: Don't 'Mr. President' me...





JungKim said:


> Please think about why you needed to put in quotes what you claim are "the two constituent words".


Of course it's in quotes.  It _is_ a quote.


----------



## JungKim

boozer said:


> I gladly would, were I not afraid that if you cannot see for yourself why a single word cannot be a phrasal anything, you are beyond enlightening.


 Like I said earlier, this is one of the two alternatives to remedy the confusing term 'phrasal verb'. So, if you find this one nonsensical, then you're left with CGEL's approach. Speaking of which, what's your take on that approach?



boozer said:


> So now you are saying that two or more words can function as a single word, after all. So, according to you, we can choose to see Mr. President as a single word? But that was the point all along and I see it is beginning to sink in.  No one could make Mr. and President a single word, i.e. a single lexical unit. However, we can use punctuation to denote the single and indivisible meaning... of a multi-word verb...


I don't know where you're going with that. But let me make this clear.

The fact that you can see Mr. President (or any group of words, for that matter) as a single word by putting it in quotes and use it as a verb doesn't contribute anything to, and doesn't have anything to do with, the argument that a verb can be defined as a group of words. Because you're essentially making a single word out of a group of words by putting it in quotes or inserting one or more hyphens as in 'hand-wash'.

That is, the very purpose of using either quotes or hyphens is to make a single word out of however many words you have. So, it would be "ridonculous" to even suggest that your 'hand-wash' and 'Mr. President' examples are in any way proof that a verb can be a group of words.



boozer said:


> Oh, but it does. Even worse - it reveals a self-perception of superiority (or, at least, superior knowledge). A perception that some of us seem to find misguided.


Making a dictionary is an enormous task even considering the large number of people participating in such a task and the expertise of those. So it's entirely understandable to see some errors in a dictionary. But that doesn't mean that I see myself superior in any way. If it's not an error, how would you explain that the same Oxford Dictionary (a more comprehensive edition) defines a verb as a word and not a group of words?


> A word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.


It's possible that different people participated in different editions. So that could happen. But that doesn't mean that both versions should be considered correct. Because you can't have it both ways.

I, for one, think that the Learner's version is less accurate. If you don't want to call it an error, because it sounds like you dare to be judging those who can't be judged, that's fine by me. But if you argue that the Learner's version is accurate, you'd have to say the comprehensive edition cited above is somehow less accurate. Again, you can't have it both ways.



JulianStuart said:


> The OLD definition seems to accommodate the possibility that some consider/allow "multi-word" elements as "verbs".  This will only displease those who subscribe to the people who state as JK does above.  Those people are entitled to use their own set of terms and definitions in linguistic analyses, and_ to them_ the OLD definition would obviously be an error.


JulianStuart, it's not really about whether to consider/allow "multi-word" elements as "verbs". Even if you define a verb to be a single word, you can have "multi-word" elements as "verb*s*". The issue is whether to consider "multi-word" elements as a *single* "verb".


----------



## JulianStuart

JungKim said:


> JulianStuart, it's not really about whether to consider/allow "multi-word" elements as "verbs". Even if you define a verb to be a single word, you can have "multi-word" elements as "verb*s*". The issue is whether to consider "multi-word" elements as a *single* "verb".


I have to admit, you have so finely split this hair that I can almost no longer see it.  And if you _don't_ define a verb as "only possibly ever one word" then "a multi-word element" can be a "verb".  It is simply a question of the definition you start with - and those are not absolute truths, they are conventions.  It seems not everyone adheres to you assertion/convention. You can surely see that one person's (or dictionary's) definition is another one's "error" when trying to "define" things like verbs.



> _American Heritage
> verb
> n._
> *1. *_ Abbr. _*V* or *vb.
> a. *The part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence in most languages.
> *b. *Any of the words belonging to this part of speech, as _be, run,_ or _conceive._
> *2. A phrase or other construction used as a verb*.





> Collins
> * noun *
> 
> (in traditional grammar) any of a large class of words in a language that serve to indicate the occurrence or performance of an action, the existence of a state or condition, etc. In English, such words as _run, make, do,_ and the like are verbs
> (in modern descriptive linguistic analysis)
> *a word or group of words that functions as the predicate *of a sentence or introduces the predicate
> (_as modifier_)   ⇒ a verb phrase





> Cambridge
> Verbs:
> multi-word verbs
> 
> Multi-word verbs are *verbs which consist of a verb and one or two particles or prepositions* (e.g. up, over, in, down). There are three types of multi-word verbs: phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs and phrasal-prepositional verbs. Sometimes, the name ‘phrasal verb’ is used to refer to all three types. …
> Phrasal verbs
> 
> Phrasal verbs have two parts: a main verb and an adverb particle. …


----------



## JungKim

JulianStuart, thanks for the quotes from other dictionaries.
While reading those definitions, I came to realize something that I might have overlooked before.
And that is the fact that the definition of 'verb' in some of the dictionaries you cited may not be limited to the English language. This fact may even be applicable to the OP's definition.

Somehow, I subconsciously (and perhaps erroneously) assumed that the definition of 'verb' in the OP is limited to English. So, part of the reasons why they used 'a group of words' in the definition of 'verb' may be because the definition is not limited to a specific language such as 'English' but languages in general. To the extent that they used 'a group of words' to describe languages in general, I don't have any objection to, or even any knowledge to determine the validity of, such a definition.

But I'm sure that all the discussion in this thread has been about the English language only.


----------



## boozer

All definitions mentioning phrases like 'group of words', 'multi-word', 'phrase', 'other construction', etc., definitely talk about the English language and the English verb - mostly, if not exclusively. They and the ones quoted before constitute the bulk of modern authoritative dictionaries on both sides of the ocean, The Collins dictionary specifically mentions the word 'modern', as opposed to 'older', I presume. Just as I suspected, and mentioned in post 14, you essentially propose that we revert to a more restrictive and, likely older, definition.


----------



## Andygc

JK, the OED definition is 





> Grammar. That part of speech by which an assertion is made, or which serves to connect a subject with a predicate.


That doesn't limit it to one word or exclude phrases. In those true phrasal verbs where the base verb and particle are essential for a meaning not deducible from the separate parts, it is the function that is covered by the definition. If I look something up in a dictionary, the verbal function is provided by "look up", not by "look", even though the verb is separable.


----------



## bennymix

I've declined to get into the 'multiword' controversy.   The example much earlier was 'hand-wash'.   But considering verbs like 'waterboard' or 'waterski' we see that many so-called 'single word verbs' are not in fact single;   depending on how 'word' is defined.   Unless a definition of 'word' is on the table, one can't make a judgment like "is there more than one?"   In some sense one wants 'word' to be a unit, but that gets into "What is a morpheme?  What is a lexeme?"

There are also matters of evolution where "look up" has its own entry at one point in time, but not before.  So "having its own dictionary entry"
is not very useful as a criterion for word, multiword, phrasal entity, and so on.

*Follow-up *and *followup* are different spellings of the same word. The hyphenated form is more common, but the unhyphenated form is gaining ground. In either form, it works only as a noun or an adjective.   (from the Grammarist.com)

Followup, the noun will likely become one word, but the verb may remain as two.   So what's the point in arguing about one-word or two-word forms?




Andygc said:


> JK, the OED definition is That doesn't limit it to one word or exclude phrases. In those true phrasal verbs where the base verb and particle are essential for a meaning not deducible from the separate parts, it is the function that is covered by the definition. If I look something up in a dictionary, the verbal function is provided by "look up", not by "look", even though the verb is separable.


----------



## Andygc

bennymix said:


> . So "having its own dictionary entry" is not very useful as a criterion for word, multiword, phrasal entity, and so on.


  Sorry, benny, but I don't understand your point. Who said that was a criterion for anything? The discussion was about whether a phrase could be called a verb. I mentioned "look up" as an example of a phrasal verb whose verbal function requires both words, so it needs to be covered by the definition of the noun "verb".


----------



## bennymix

Defining 'what is a word' is related to defining a 'lexeme':

It is a basic unit of meaning, and the headwords of a dictionary are all *lexemes*. Put more technically, a *lexeme* is an abstract unit of morphological analysis in linguistics, that roughly corresponds to a set of forms taken by a single word.

---
Appearing in a 'lexicon' is a criterion for 'lexeme' and thus related to "What is a word?"

You yourself used 'appearance as a dictionary entry' as a criterion for the phrasal verb "look up".

My point of course is more general:  one can't define 'multiple word' verb unless one defines 'word' and deals with the issue of units.

Yet dictionary entries fudge the units issue or at any rate deal with it as 'in process'--my example of a prediction that 'followup' may soon begin to appear as a one-word entry, when a noun.

Very crudely, today's phrase may be tomorrow 'phrasal verb' and in some cases these become single words.   It's really pointless to argue about whether a verb can be more than one word, unless the concept of word is precisely defined.



Andygc said:


> Sorry, benny, but I don't understand your point. Who said that was a criterion for anything? The discussion was about whether a phrase could be called a verb. I mentioned "look up" as an example of a phrasal verb whose verbal function requires both words, so it needs to be covered by the definition of the noun "verb".


----------



## Andygc

bennymix said:


> You yourself used 'appearance as a dictionary entry' as a criterion for the phrasal verb "look up".


No I didn't. I wrote "If I look something up in a dictionary ..." as an example of a phrasal verb.


----------



## bennymix

Thanks for the correction Andy.    You do agree, don't you, that when talking to learners, we tend to use a dictionary and its lists
(incorporating its decisions) for determining whether something is a 'phrasal verb' 'multiword verb'  etc.  ?



Andygc said:


> No I didn't. I wrote "If I look something up in a dictionary ..." as an example of a phrasal verb.


----------



## Andygc

bennymix said:


> You do agree, don't you, that when talking to learners, we tend to use a dictionary and its lists (incorporating its decisions) for determining whether something is a 'phrasal verb' ?


With great caution. I wouldn't use Merriam-Webster or Longman for phrasal verbs because of their apparently very loose interpretation of what a phrasal verb is. But we are wandering off, aren't we?


----------



## JungKim

boozer said:


> And, unsurprisingly, instead of proposing a new definition of 'verb', you suggest we revert to a more restrictive (and possibly older) definition that only accepts single words as verbs.





boozer said:


> They and the ones quoted before constitute the bulk of modern authoritative dictionaries on both sides of the ocean, The Collins dictionary specifically mentions the word 'modern', as opposed to 'older', I presume. Just as I suspected, and mentioned in post 14, you essentially propose that we revert to a more restrictive and, likely older, definition.



So, I guess, boozer, you seem to prefer 'new' theories of linguistics over 'old' ones. And you seem to consider reverting to the 'old' theories unreasonable and illogical. If that's your general approach to these things, I agree with your approach.

That said, I think we need to get things straight as to which theory is 'newer', 'more modern', or 'older' than which theory. When you mentioned those 'new' and 'old' definitions of 'verb' in post 14, I didn't quite understand what you were referring to. But having read post 36, I think I got the picture.

The 'modern descriptive linguistic analysis' mentioned in the Collins dictionary probably refers to the kind of analysis adopted in the "modern" descriptive grammar that is at least 30 years old. For example, A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language by Quirk, et al. (hereinafter Quirk's CGEL) was published in 1985 and adopted Collins' "modern" descriptive linguistic analysis, which can be called "modern" compared to the older theories but cannot be so called compared to the newer theories employed in The Cambridge Grammar by Huddleston and Pullum (hereinafter H&P's CGEL), which was published in 2002 and rejected the "modern" analysis adopted by Quirk's CGEL.

Not only did H&P's CGEL reject the use of the term 'phrasal verb', as pointed out in post 26 and 29, but it also rejected Quirk's CGEL's "modern" notion that a verb can mean two or more verbs such as "will come", "should be", etc. Instead, H&P's CGEL, if memory serves, adopts a newer, more modern analysis where you call each verb in the verb cluster a separate verb and you never call the verb cluster like "will come" as a verb.

So, if you prefer a newer, more modern theory, then shouldn't you be ditching the 30-year-old theory and adopting the newer, more modern theory?


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> JK, the OED definition is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grammar. That part of speech by which an assertion is made, or which serves to connect a subject with a predicate.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't limit it to one word or exclude phrases. In those true phrasal verbs where the base verb and particle are essential for a meaning not deducible from the separate parts, it is the function that is covered by the definition. If I look something up in a dictionary, the verbal function is provided by "look up", not by "look", even though the verb is separable.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the OED definition of 'verb'. I think I like that definition much better than the OP's, not because it's OED's but because it's simpler yet comprehensive.

Having said that, I respectfully disagree with your judgment that OED doesn't limit 'verb' to one word or exclude phrases. In general, 'part of speech' concerns a word. For example, Oxford Dictionary Online defines it as follows:


> part of speech: A category to which *a word* is assigned in accordance with its syntactic functions. In English the main parts of speech are noun, pronoun, adjective, determiner, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection. Also called word class.


But since your definition was from OED, could you please show me what's OED's definition of 'part of speech'? (I don't have access to OED.)


----------



## RedwoodGrove

I'm not going to read through this entire thread in one sitting but suffice it to say that JK is correct that "a" verb is a single word. A group of words can also be singular. A "verb phrase" is a group of words. Typically, one thinks of a verb as being one word: "I have said" consists of two verbs, "have" and "said". I suppose I would go along with Oxford's definition here, though I haven't found the Oxford Dictionary's work to be compellingly authoritative. The OED is.


----------



## boozer

JungKim said:


> So, if you prefer a newer, more modern theory, then shouldn't you be ditching the 30-year-old theory and adopting the newer, more modern theory?


People tend to ditch something only when they have a replacement that is not only newer, but also superior in quality and functionality. So how new is The Cambridge Grammar by Huddleston and Pullum? According to you, it came out some 15-17 years after Quirk's Comprehensive Grammar. Yes, grammar books tend to do that - they tend to get written a lot more often than any observable grammar changes occur in the language.  And, apparently, 14 years after it was published, now, The Pullum-Huddleston grammar has not been able to gain universal recognition, judging by the definitions in what appears to be the majority of dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. In fact, they stick with what Pullum and Huddleston see as traditional, which is also 'modern', according to the Collins dictionary.

The Cambridge Grammar by Huddleston and Pullum came out several years after my graduation, so, for obvious reasons I did not read it as a student. I still have not read it, for less obvious reasons , but I have it and have been going over parts of it, particularly where it dwells on the verb. Okay, I am not impressed by their choice to call all phrasal verbs "verbal idioms" consisting of a verb and particles/prepositions, etc., but that does not matter - I deeply respect their opinion and I see that every now and then they keep saying phrases akin to the one I have quoted below:
"One of the most obvious respects in which we have departed from traditional grammar..."

On the other hand, Quirk's Grammar offers a comprehensive approach that takes into account both ways of analysing phrasal verbs:
QUOTE: There are therefore two complementary analyses of a sentence like "She looked after ['tended'] her son":
ANALYSIS 1 :
S            V                A
She [looked] [after her son]

ANALYSIS 2:
S              V                   O
She [looked after] [her son]
UNQUOTE

As you see, in analysis 1, we have a one-word verb, while analysis 2 recognises a multi-word verb. So, do not tell me, JK, that Pullum's Grammar contains anything unheard-of. Even Quirk's older Grammar proposes your analysis. In the end, it appears, Quirk leans towards the phrasal-verb analysis. But all along, the tone remains level and strictly analytical.

And, finally, having read this and that from the two books, I see nothing but level tone of voice and cool-headed analysis. There is no hint of either author accusing the other of committing *errors*. You are the only one who does that. From what dizzy heights, I do not know.


----------



## siares

boozer said:


> were I not afraid that if you cannot see for yourself why a single word cannot be a phrasal anything, you are beyond enlightening.





RedwoodGrove said:


> A "verb phrase" is a group of words.


This can also depend on which bit of elephant is being described. Chomsky called a single word 'a verb phrase', depending on a role it had in a sentence.



JungKim said:


> Instead, H&P's CGEL, if memory serves, adopts a newer, more modern analysis where you call each verb in the verb cluster a separate verb and you never call the verb cluster like "will come" as a verb.


How does it define a cluster, please?
Do you know what it says about things like 'well-known'? Is the presence of the hyphen sufficient to make the adverb+adjective combination to fall into the same category as any other one-word adjective?


----------



## RedwoodGrove

siares said:


> This can also depend on which bit of elephant is being described. Chomsky called a single word 'a verb phrase', depending on a role it had in a sentence.



I really don't think of Chomsky as an authority on grammar. "Phrase" has traditionally meant more than one word. I don't see why Chomsky thinks he has the ability to wave a magic wand and change what hundreds of millions of people believe.


----------



## JungKim

boozer said:


> As you see, in analysis 1, we have a one-word verb, while analysis 2 recognises a multi-word verb.


I haven't checked if Quirk's CGEL treats both the analyses equally. But even if they treat them equally, they couldn't have switched randomly between them every time they analyze a verb cluster. 

If you allow a multi-word verb, why not allow a multi-word noun or a multi-word adjective and so on and so forth?
As far as I know, most grammars use the term 'something phrase' to indicate a "multi-word something', as in 'noun phrase', 'adjective phrase', etc. Would it make sense to you to get rid of these terms and simply use 'noun' and 'adjective' for phrases?


----------

