# Are Funktionsverben Pro-Verben?



## kimko_379

Thank you so much in advance for your kind answer to the following question:
(I would like you all to answer me in English, as much as you can.)

Are the empty-verbs ( = Funktionsverben) a kind of pro-verbs?
Pro-form - Wikipedia
(The German Wikipedia fails to show any pro-verbs.)

ex.:
Hilfe leisten
Schaden tun
gute Dienste tun
Freude/Sorge/Spaß machen
sich an die Arbeit machen

just like :
to do ( = to wash) the dishes/laundry
to do some reading/letter-writing/shopping
to make haste (Middle-Age English:  = to hurry up)
to make waste (Haste makes waste.) = to waste
to make a mistake = to mistake
to make a (photo-)copy of = to (photo-)copy
to dream a big dream
to die a heroic death

This book, the most detailed one on German pro-forms, also fails to apply itself to answering such a question, even:
Textgrammatik – Gesprochene Sprache – Sprachvergleich: Proformen im gesprochenen Französischen und Deutschen Variolingua. Nonstandard – Standard – Substandard, Band 9: Amazon.de: Schreiber, Michael: Bücher


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> Are the empty-verbs ( = Funktionsverben) a kind of pro-verbs?


I believe both in the context of L1-DE (natives) or L2-DE (German as second language) the concept of "pro-verbs" is actually unknown und never discussed. So it's just not an item here. I am not sure whether German linguists discuss this issue a lot, but certainly it is not part of German grammar in all kinds of L1 and L2 German teaching.

We use the concept of pronouns and consider them as a word class of their own. We do not distinguish verbs like that. Verbs are verbs, no matter which function they have. We talk about auxiliary verbs (haben / sein).



kimko_379 said:


> Hilfe leisten
> Schaden tun
> gute Dienste tun
> Freude/Sorge/Spaß machen
> sich an die Arbeit machen


No, I have the feeling that "pro-verb" does not fit here anyway. The "machen" does not replace a verb, it just is combined with a noun phrase to build a more full verb phrase.


----------



## Demiurg

Here's an explanation in German: Proverb


> Ein *Proverb*, auch Verb-Substitut genannt, ist ein Verb als Proform und als Mittel der Kohäsion. Es ist eine referentielle Verweisform.
> 
> Proverben (z. B. _tun, machen, sein_) werden (immer gemeinsam mit anderen Proformen) im Text verwendet, um den Inhalt eines stärker determinierten Verbs (oder einer Verbalphrase) präsent zu halten [. . .] (Beaugrande & Dressler 1981: 67).
> ...
> Beispiel
> Schreibst du noch heute einen Brief?
> Das _mache_ ich bestimmt. Oder: So _ist_ es.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, we have mainly two verbs which can replace almost all other verbs: "*tun*" and "*machen*".

In the English Wikipedia, they have:

"I will go to the party if you do".

I could translate this:

_Ich gehe zur Party, wenn du das auch tust. - mostly in this context.
Ich gehe zur Party, wenn du das auch machst. - seldom in this context.

"Machen" _ is often used for verbs which describe a handling.
_Kannst du mit dem Auto fahren? Ja, aber ich will das nicht mehr machen._

Both are not good style, but I remember during my own language learning as pre-school child, I used it a lot if I did not know a better word.
In school they jokingly adviced we should finish to "tuten" - that is why I remember it. (Eselsbrücke)

"Tun" can also used as "Hilfsverb"  (aux. verb) like in English, but this is in almost all cases bad style. --- in this case it isno "pro-verb"

Some verbs include "machen" in  a standard form and are standard verbs:

einmachen=1. einkochen/einwecken - 2. In die Hose pullern as euphemism

---
In some cases "machen" became standard:

Ich mache Hausaufgaben.
Ich mache nichts.
Ich mache mich davon (sich davonmachen)

In these cases they are no "pro-verbs" any more.



---
Pro-verb is a concept, we did not learn in school, because it is seldom and in German it is covered by other concepts, too. The others mentioned it already.

In answers to questions in many cases you can replace other verbs by "machen":

Ich mache das. Ich mache das nicht.
Ich tue das. Ich will das nicht tun. Ich tue das nicht. Much less frequently then "machen" in this context.
---

Very idiomatic:

"Lass mich das mal machen!"
"Lass mich das mal tun!"


---
summary:
"Tun" and "machen" can work this way.
But often they are used as aux. verb (tun and machen) (other function) or as verbs on their own (machen).


----------



## kimko_379

Demiurg said:


> Here's an explanation in German: Proverb


Vielen Dank!　　
I guess the presently-so-called Proverben are what Michael Schreiber calls Pro-VPs( = Pro-Verbalphrasen) in the above "Textgrammatik" book:

Eng. ex.:
Did you go there yesterday? -- Yes, I *did*.  (The "did" stands_for/replaces the whole verb phrase:  "go there yesterday".)

(But that may carry the strictness of the namings too far; "he" can be a "proNOUN" for "the tall thin Japanese guy who lives here", so that is actually a Pro-NP.  Schreiber uses the term Pro-NPs all right, though.)

And what should originally be called authentic/genuine/pure pro-verbs, I think, are, for example:
I'll *do *( = wash) the dishes/laundry.
He *gave* the telephone a look/glance.
Here, "the telephone" is inevitably a presupposition/old_info, while in "He looked/glanced at the telephone.", "the telephone" is [part of] the focus/new_info, especially when it gets a prominence of a stress and high pitch/intonation.
"He *looked/glanced at *the telophone." also gives the action (in this case:  the verb) the focus(-ness), but at the same time, the verb also gets the contrast to, for example, " , not *knocked off *the telephone." etc..

So, "machen" in "Das ( = Das Briefschreiben) mache ich bestimmt/doch/schon/etc.."   IS  supposed to be originally called a pro-verb.  And by the same token, I guess, the empty verbs ( = Funktionsverben) belong to the same kind?  Or should you call them semi-pro-verbs, as they bear some part(s) of the meaning(s) of the nomen_actionis/action_names and leave the other part(s) out? :
Freude machen = freuen
Hilfe leisten = helfen
sich an-die-Arbeit machen = die Arbeit an-fangen

Regarding the above English examples, I hear that in/with/bei Funktionsverben you can add modifiers to the nomen actionis:
eine große Freude machen
eine große Hilfe leisten
Is it not the same case of the English examples?  Namely, in English, the action names get the focuses(-ness), and the German counterparts, too:
do a quick/big laundry/shopping
be/give a big help

But what about in the case of these simple, modifiers-less cases?:
Freude machen
Hilfe leisten
Do the action names still/even_here get the focus, in the contrasts to
Schaden/Sorgen machen
Un-Hilfe leisten ?


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,

1. I am not fully sure - but "leisten" does not seem to be such a pro-verb. It is used in its own sens without replacing other verbs or verb phrases.
Another point:

2. A pure ellipsis does also not create a pro-verb. Tun and to do are false friends in some phrases regarding pro-verb.


In my mind only tun and machen are pro-verbs in your given sense.


----------



## kimko_379

Hutschi said:


> Hi,
> 
> 1. I am not fully sure - but "leisten" does not seem to be such a pro-verb. It is used in its own sens without replacing other verbs or verb phrases.
> Another point:
> 
> 2. A pure ellipsis does also not create a pro-verb.


Would you mind elaborating on the above "pure ellipsis"?

And I edited my previous posting many times, also while you posted your answer.  So, I wonder if you could possibly go to the trouble of reading it over again.


----------



## Hutschi

Do you come with me?
Yes, I do.

"Do" does not replace "come" here. The verb phrase is just shortened.

In German it replaces the original word.
Kochst du Mittagessen?
Ja, ich mache das.
Ja ich werde das tun.
These are no ellipsis.

But it is seldom used and often bad style.


----------



## kimko_379

Hutschi said:


> Hi, we have mainly two verbs which can replace almost all other verbs: "*tun*" and "*machen*".
> 
> In the English Wikipedia, they have:
> 
> "I will go to the party if you do".
> 
> I could translate this:
> 
> _Ich gehe zur Party, wenn du das auch tust. - mostly in this context.
> Ich gehe zur Party, wenn du das auch machst. - seldom in this context.
> 
> "Machen" _ is often used for verbs which describe a handling.
> _Kannst du mit dem Auto fahren? Ja, aber ich will das nicht mehr machen._
> 
> Both are not good style, but I remember during my own language learning as pre-school child, I used it a lot if I did not know a better word.
> In school they jokingly adviced we should finish to "tuten" - that is why I remember it. (Eselsbrücke)
> 
> "Tun" can also used as "Hilfsverb"  (aux. verb) like in English, but this is in almost all cases bad style. --- in this case it isno "pro-verb"
> 
> Some verbs include "machen" in  a standard form and are standard verbs:
> 
> einmachen=1. einkochen/einwecken - 2. In die Hose pullern as euphemism
> 
> ---
> In some cases "machen" became standard:
> 
> Ich mache Hausaufgaben.
> Ich mache nichts.
> Ich mache mich davon (sich davonmachen)
> 
> In these cases they are no "pro-verbs" any more.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Pro-verb is a concept, we did not learn in school, because it is seldom and in German it is covered by other concepts, too. The others mentioned it already.
> 
> In answers to questions in many cases you can replace other verbs by "machen":
> 
> Ich mache das. Ich mache das nicht.
> Ich tue das. Ich will das nicht tun. Ich tue das nicht. Much less frequently then "machen" in this context.
> ---
> 
> Very idiomatic:
> 
> "Lass mich das mal machen!"
> "Lass mich das mal tun!"
> 
> 
> ---
> summary:
> "Tun" and "machen" can work this way.
> But often they are used as aux. verb (tun and machen) (other function) or as verbs on their own (machen).


Thank you so much!
Our "Eijiroo Eng. Dict. on the WEB" says the antonym of the aux.(-verb) is called the main/principal verb.  (Just for your information/reference.)


----------



## kimko_379

Hutschi said:


> Do you come with me?
> Yes, I do.
> 
> "Do" does not replace "come" here. The verb phrase is just shortened.
> 
> In German it replaces the original word.
> Kochst du Mittagessen?
> Ja, ich mache das.
> Ja ich werde das tun.
> These are no ellipsis.
> 
> But it is seldom used and often bad style.


I see that you meant by "ellipsis" omission!
The above intial/sentence-head "Do" is not a so-called pro-verb, and so, not a Pro-VP; it is an aux..


----------



## kimko_379

kimko_379 said:


> Would you mind elaborating on the above "pure ellipsis"?
> 
> And I edited my previous posting many times, also while you posted your answer.  So, I wonder if you could possibly go to the trouble of reading it over again.


You seemed to have missed the above second paragraph before I added it to the first and while you replied to the first.  Excuse me the too-much-hurried jobs.


----------



## kimko_379

kimko_379 said:


> I see that you meant by "ellipsis" omission!
> The above intial/sentence-head "Do" is not a so-called pro-verb, and so, not a Pro-VP; it is an aux..





Hutschi said:


> Hi,
> 
> 1. I am not fully sure - but "leisten" does not seem to be such a pro-verb. It is used in its own sens without replacing other verbs or verb phrases.
> Another point:
> 
> 2. A pure ellipsis does also not create a pro-verb. Tun and to do are false friends in some phrases regarding pro-verb.
> 
> 
> In my mind only tun and machen are pro-verbs in your given sense.


Michael Schreiber:  "Textgrammatik" classifies a whole lot of pure ellipses also as pro-forms of/with null/zero-realization/expression-forms.  As you know, the linguists see many silence-pauses or blanks that represent un-realized/un-expressed semantic units as the so-called "null symbols" = "Φ”.  Chomsky's "traces" of "t"-s, too, could be regarded as ones; I fail to know if Chomskians really treat them as such.


----------



## Kajjo

Ich habe bisher unterschieden:

Hilfsverben (sein, haben, werden) ... für Grammatik wie Tempus, Modus
Kopulaverben (sein, werden, bleiben) ... bilden zusammen mit Prädikativ ein Prädikat
Modalverben (können, dürfen, sollen, müssen, mögen) ... für Modalität
Funktionsverben (machen, kommen, bringen, finden...) ... ergänzen Nominalphrasen um die Funktion des Verbs
Das Konzept der Proverben erscheint mir nicht unbedingt zwingend zu sein, aber falls eine Art Universalverb wie _machen/tun _ein anderes Verb ersetzt, mag das eine sinnvolle Bezeichnung sein. Ich glaube aber, dass du oft Funktionsverben und Proverben verwechselst.

Wenn man das Wort vergleicht, so sind Pronomen und Nomen eindeutig unterschiedliche Wortklassen, nicht nur unterschiedliche Funktionen. Die Unterscheidung ergibt daher großen Sinn. Im Kontrast dazu sind Proverben auch ganz normale Verben und der Status Proverb wird nur nach der Funktion zugeordnet, ähnlich wie bei den oberen vier Kategorien, die auch alle Verben sind und nur nach Funktion unterschieden werden. Es handelt sich nicht um eine eigene Wortklasse.


kimko_379 said:


> The above intial/sentence-head "Do" is not a so-called pro-verb, and so, not a Pro-VP; it is an aux..


That's correct.


----------



## kimko_379

Excuse me, Mr. Kajjo:  I have an objection:
In the light of the modern semantics, the parts of speech/Wortklassen cross_over/intermingle each other.

example:
According to Dwight Bolinger's "Meaning and Form," the following "that" is a conjunction AND a demonstrative pronoun:

The weatherman said that it'll be fine tomorrow!
("That" = that previuosly-discussed/argued thing concerning their/"our" foregoing/former conversation contents.)
According to Bolinger, you could never utter the above sentence without any preceding context, like when you suddenly enter the listener's room without having discussing tomorrow's weather with him/her.  In that case, you must say:
The weatherman said it'll be fine tomorrow!  (without "that")

I forgot what they were, but I know that there were other examples of parts-of-speech mixings/blendings.

Grammars are flexible and fluid/liquid and have no perfectly-rigid boundaries/barriers inside them.  That's why the grammaticalizations happen, don't you think?
See the rock-logic and water-logic shown by Prof. de Bono:
Laterales Denken – Wikipedia
The language moves by both those logics.
(I highly honor your German thorough orderliness/rigidness with the perfect sorting/arrangement habits, though.)


----------



## kimko_379

Addition for Mr. Kajjo:
Können has the etymology of kennen.  And I am sure the following "kann" can be interpreted both as a main/principal verb and as an auxiliary verb at the same time:
Ich kann Japanisch. = Ich kann Japanisch (sprechen/benutzen :  can be seen as omitted, but historically:  added later).  = I know Japanese. = I know to speak/use Japanese. = I know how to speak/use Japanese.


----------



## kimko_379

kimko_379 said:


> Excuse me, Mr. Kajjo:  I have an objection:
> In the light of the modern semantics, the parts of speech/Wortklassen cross_over/intermingle each other.
> 
> example:
> According to Dwight Bolinger's "Meaning and Form," the following "that" is a conjunction AND a demonstrative pronoun:
> 
> The weatherman said that it'll be fine tomorrow!
> ("That" = that previuosly-discussed/argued thing concerning their/"our" foregoing/former conversation contents.)
> According to Bolinger, you could never utter the above sentence without any preceding context, like when you suddenly enter the listener's room without having discussing tomorrow's weather with him/her.  In that case, you must say:
> The weatherman said it'll be fine tomorrow!  (without "that")
> 
> I forgot what they were, but I know that there were other examples of parts-of-speech mixings/blendings.
> 
> Grammars are flexible and fluid/liquid and have no perfectly-rigid boundaries/barriers inside them.  That's why the grammaticalizations happen, don't you think?
> See the rock-logic and water-logic shown by Prof. de Bono:
> Laterales Denken – Wikipedia
> The language moves by both those logics.
> (I highly honor your German thorough orderliness/rigidness with the perfect sorting/arrangement habits, though.)


Correction:
Delete "each other" from "cross_over/intermingle each other." .


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> According to Dwight Bolinger's "Meaning and Form," the following "that" is a conjunction AND a demonstrative pronoun:


Of course words can belong to different word classes depending on usage. This is very often the case. In a few cases assigning a word class might be difficult or ambigious. However, I don't see how your statement relates to my reply.



kimko_379 said:


> can be interpreted both as a main/principal verb and as an auxiliary verb at the same time:


I cannot see the auxiliary interpretation at all.  

I agree that two possible analyses are possible:

1 "kann" as modal verb with the infinitive "sprechen" omitted
2 "kann" as full verb in the basic meaning "to be able to do something"

The second analysis is the default, "etwas können" is very idiomatic and common. Interpretation 1 is only theoretical (see below).

See Duden, 2a): Duden | können | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft

Argument in favor of 2 is the parallel structure with negation:

Richtig: _Ich kann Japanisch, aber ich kann kein Russisch._
aber nicht: _Ich kann Japanisch, aber ich nicht Russisch [sprechen]._


----------



## kimko_379

Thank you so much!
As I have recalled, I suggested that the empty verbs may have to be called "semi-pro-verbs," because they have/hold only parts of the meanings of the action-names/nomen-actionis (Sorry:  I fail to know the plural form of that Latin phrase.  Nomina-action-?)  Would you mind letting me know what you say about the idea, please?

The self-answer to my question around the thread-beginning or -middle:
The FVG ( = Funktionsverbgefügen)-action-names do bear the focus function:
Das macht mir FREUDE.  =  Das FREUT mich.
Er leistet mir HILFE.  = Er HILFT mir.  
(Are all these sentences possible, I wonder?)


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> The FVG ( = Funktionsverbgefügen)-action-names do bear the focus function:


Funktionsverbgefüge bestehen aus einem Funktionsverb und typischerweise einer Präpositional- oder Nominalphrase. Das Funktionsverb steuert nur die grammatische Verb-Funktion bei, während der Inhalt weit überwiegend durch die Präpositional- oder Nominalphrase bestimmt wird.

In jenen Fällen, in denen ein alternatives Vollverb zur Verfügung steht, kann die Wahl des Funktionsverbgefüges durchaus rhetorischen Charakter haben. In etlichen Fällen gibt es aber kein äquivalentes Vollverb. Funktionsverbgefüge sind einfach ein ganz normaler Bestandteil der deutschen Sprache.

Was genau meinst du mit "do bear the focus function"? Als rhetorisches Mittel?

Im übrigen gefällt mir persönlich der Ausdruck "empty verb" nicht. Funktionsverben sind nicht immer "leer" und manchmal ist der Übergang zwischen Funktionsverb und Vollverb fließend.

Vergleiche "in Verbindung setzen" (make new connection) mit "in Verbindung stehen" (have an established connection). Das Funktionsverb ist nicht leer, sondern trägt zur Bedeutung bei. 



kimko_379 said:


> Das macht mir FREUDE. = Das FREUT mich.
> Er leistet mir HILFE. = Er HILFT mir.
> 
> (Are these sentences possible, I wonder?)


Yes, all four sentences are correct.


----------



## kimko_379

You most-probably already know this, but I add this, to be on the safe side:  
"Focuses" are the opposite/antonym of "( [anti-] focal) presuppositions" in the "information structures"-theory of the recent linguistics since around 1970s.
Let's see the case of "He went to the MARKET."  It is "presupposed" that "he went (to) somewhere," but the sentence information value/Wert = the core of the sentence's message is "focused"/has a "focus" on the new-info "market" as if it were the answer to the question "Where did he go?"  And also, that's why only the omitted utterance of "To the MARKET." or  "(The) MARKET." can be a sufficient answer to such a question.

As I hinted to you above, "He took/had a look/glance at the telephone.", "He looked/glanced at the telephone.", "The telephone, he looked/glanced at.", and "The telephone, he looked/glanced at it." all have a different info structure each, namely a different distribution of the presuppositions and of the focuses.

I submitted for your reply that the German functional-verb-constructions must have also separate specific info structures other than those of the full-verb constructions.  (That guess excludes the cases that you mentioned = the cases where the original full-verb forms have died out/got extinct and the functional-verb-constructions have "fossilized" as old idioms.)


----------



## kimko_379

Sorry:  I must add (to the present info-structure-theory) my own theory on the essence/fact-vs.-appearance/Schein relationship structures:

John, Susie called/telephoned. = Speaking of John, Susie called him.
John, Susie CALLED him.  = Speaking of John, the fact is, Susie CALLED him, not VISITED/etc. him, although it (might/must) seem(s)/scheint/(scheinen) as if she visited/etc. him.

Hast Du Geld? = a plain/simple question proposition showing that you want an answer to it from the listener called Du
Hast Du denn Geld? = Es scheint/schien mir, dass Du kein Geld hast, aber ist es/die Tatsache, dass Du wirklich etwas Geld hast?

The four afore-mentioned English sentences including "the telephone" and "look/glance at" have differences that can be fully analyzed only with such a theory, I suppose.

And I'd like you all to answer me whether the differences between the German full- and functional-verb constructions are also such/like_that.


----------



## kimko_379

I wonder if you could possibly elaborate on what you precisely meant by the "rhetorical character" of FVGs, please?
Is it like a stylistic trait like in "consider" vs. "take into consideration" as in legal documents (or like in "a lie" vs. "an alternative fact")?


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> Let's see the case of "He went to the MARKET." It is "presupposed" that "he went (to) somewhere,"


No, that is wrong. There is no such presupposition in this simple statement sentence. There is the presupposition (1) that there is a "he" and both communication partners know who is meant; the presupposition (2) that both know which market is meant and that there is a market. There is no presupposition that he "went (somewhere). This could be the new information as well, depending on context and intonation. Only if this were an answer to the question "where did he went?" the reply would presuppose and agree that he went somewhere.


kimko_379 said:


> And I'd like you all to answer me whether the differences between the German full- and functional-verb constructions are also such/like_that.


I don't really understand what you mean. Using special rhetoric forms and selecting different styles carries a lot of connotations and even meanings.


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> I wonder if you could possibly elaborate on what you precisely meant by the "rhetorical character" of FVGs, please?


Well, selecting a simple full verb or opting for a FVG phrase often corresponds with a choice of style, with elevated or simplified speak, with added connotations between the lines. Very often (almost always) FVG and simple full verbs are not identical in meaning, even if they are relatively.

_Wir nehmen Abschied von... <Trauerfeier>
Wir verabschieden... <Auf Wiedersehen>_

Often FVG hat entirely different meaning:

_In Angriff nehmen <beginnen>
angreifen <to attack>_

or different agents:

_in Erfüllung gehen <either neutral or happen by whatever circumstances>
erfüllen <someone actively doing it>_


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> No, that is wrong. There is no such presupposition in this simple statement sentence. There is the presupposition (1) that there is a "he" and both communication partners know who is meant; the presupposition (2) that both know which market is meant and that there is a market. There is no presupposition that he "went (somewhere). This could be the new information as well, depending on context and intonation. Only if this were an answer to the question "where did he went?" the reply would presuppose and agree that he went somewhere.
> 
> I don't really understand what you mean. Using special rhetoric forms and selecting different styles carries a lot of connotations and even meanings.


I should have notified you that by the capital-letters I meant that the  word of MARKET has got the intra-sentence stress/prominence.

And by "such," I meant "info-structure-related/originated".

Would you further complete your answer for me accordingly?


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> I should have notified you that by the capital-letters I meant that the word of MARKET has got the intra-sentence stress/prominence.


Yes, but many different questions could lead to that answer and stress: _Where is Hans? Have you seen Hans? Where did Hans go? _Only the last question presupposes "that he went somewhere". Stress alone does not imply that all other parts are presupposed.


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> Yes, but many different questions could lead to that answer and stress: _Where is Hans? Have you seen Hans? Where did Hans go? _Only the last question presupposes "that he went somewhere". Stress alone does not imply that all other parts are presupposed.


I'm no expert on English intra-sentential stresses and intonations, but the whole-sentence-focus sentences, namely, the sentences whose entireties/Ganzen consist of only focus words, seem to fail to get any special stress on any specific words to show any special focus(es) that fail to exist(s):
The answer-parts of the Qs&As of
Where's Hans?  --  He's gone to the market.
and
Have you seen Hans?  --  He's gone to the market.
seem to have no special prominence(s) on any syllable(s) to show any focuses, as well as in
A car's coming! = Car!  (for short)
as a whole-sentence-focus sentence.
On the other hand, an answer to "Where did Hans go?" seems to need a special prominence on the focus substantival/non-function(-al) word(s).

Added note:
The capital-letters in
FREUDE machen = FREUEN
was not for the representations of any actual special prominences but for the highlighting/underlining/underscoring/pointing_up of my point/hypothesis.  It was confusing with the case of MARKET capitalization.  Excuse me.


----------



## kalamazoo

I would also add that Bolinger's example "The weatherman said that it'll be fine tomorrow" is something that would seem normal to me without requiring any preceding context or explanation.


----------



## kimko_379

kalamazoo said:


> I would also add that Bolinger's example "The weatherman said that it'll be fine tomorrow" is something that would seem normal to me without requiring any preceding context or explanation.


Thank you so much for reminding me!  I also have read in some book(s) on the English stylistics or on the history of English(-grammar?) that the demonstrative-ness of the conjunction "that" has got grammaticalized and "eroded"/almost_vanished, just like the "können" having once been meaning "kennen" or "to have to do ..." having once been meaning "to have some business/task of doing ... ," and that some (or maybe all) people never apply the "rule" pointed out by Bolinger any more.  
Would you mind letting me know if there are some statistical researches on various persons' habitual uses of that "that" in such regards/viewpoint?


----------



## kimko_379

Addition:
In scientific, literary, or political texts employing/with long sentences before the PE ( = Plain English) movement, the use of the conjunction "that" was inevitable to keep the readers from mis-understanding the sentence structures.
Thanks again to Mr./Ms. kalamazoo!


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> Of course words can belong to different word classes depending on usage. This is very often the case. In a few cases assigning a word class might be difficult or ambigious. However, I don't see how your statement relates to my reply.
> 
> 
> I cannot see the auxiliary interpretation at all.
> 
> I agree that two possible analyses are possible:
> 
> 1 "kann" as modal verb with the infinitive "sprechen" omitted
> 2 "kann" as full verb in the basic meaning "to be able to do something"
> 
> The second analysis is the default, "etwas können" is very idiomatic and common. Interpretation 1 is only theoretical (see below).
> 
> See Duden, 2a): Duden | können | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Herkunft
> 
> Argument in favor of 2 is the parallel structure with negation:
> 
> Richtig: _Ich kann Japanisch, aber ich kann kein Russisch._
> aber nicht: _Ich kann Japanisch, aber ich nicht Russisch [sprechen]._


I just would have liked to say this in answer to your former reply:

Not only in the case of word class classifications/belongingnesses, you know that you must acknowledge/anerkennen flexibilities/fluidities in classifications of a lot of grammatical phenomena.  I should like to submit to you for consideration that maybe you should add the Unterschiede between pro-verbs and functional verbs, etc. to those classification flexibility/fluidity cases.


----------



## kalamazoo

I have no idea what all these rules are, but to me you just say "Jane said X" or "Jane said that X" and these are exactly the same, except that in the first one the "that' may be omitted.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, I studied the English Wikipedia:

Pro-verb - Wikipedia



> In grammar, a *pro-verb* is a word or phrase that stands in place of a verb (for example, in order that the verb not need to be repeated). It does for a verb what the more widely known pronoun does for a noun. It, along with pronouns and some other word classes, form the general group of word classes pro-forms. It is a type of anaphora. ...



But it is not available in all languages.

In German, as we already wrote, this concept is not in the standard school grammar._* It is not even mentioned as word in the Duden.*_
At least I did not find one.

In English: (Wikipedia, same place)



> English





> does not have dedicated pro-verbs; however, a bare infinitive can generally be implied rather than expressed, such that the verbs that take bare infinitives (including most of the auxiliary verbs) can be said to double as pro-verbs. Additionally, _have_ and _be_ can double as pro-verbs for perfect, progressive, and passive constructions (by eliding the participle). Finally, the dummy auxiliary verb _do_ can be used when there is no other auxiliary verb, except if the main verb is _be_.



They give examples. But it will be too long to quote.


In German we could interprete it in a similar way. But I never heared it before that it is actually be done.
I have a question: Can a noun be a Pro-Verb in  your definition?
_Das Gehen macht Spaß. Zu gehen macht Spaß. Gehen macht Spaß._ (?)


English and German are similar enough, so it would be possible. It is just not used this way in praxis. I do not know about scientific research. Maybe it can be generalized somehow.


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> I have a question: Can a noun be a Pro-Verb in your definition?
> _Das Gehen macht Spaß. Zu gehen macht Spaß. Gehen macht Spaß._ (?)


No pro-verbs here, but always "gehen", either as verb or noun.

_(Das) Gehen macht mir Spaß. Es macht mir Spaß. <using pronoun "es" instead of nominalized verb "Gehen">
Zu gehen macht mir Spaß. Es macht mir Spaß. <using pronoun "es" instead of infinitive "zu gehen">_

Funktionell gesehen ersetzt ein Pronomen typischerweise ein Nomen. Es ersetzt normalerweise kein Verb. Insofern könnte man die Bezeichnung "Pro-Verb" wohl rechtfertigen, wenn es tatsächlich mal eine Verbalphrase ersetzt. In dem zweiten Beispiel ersetzt "es" die Verbalphrase "zu gehen". Persönlich würde ich das Wort aber trotzdem mit der Wortklasse "Pronomen" bezeichnen. Aber aus funktionaler Sichtweise mag das anders sein.

In der deutschen Grammatik kann man im weiteren Sinne Nomen als Oberbegriff für alle deklinierbaren Wortarten verstehen (Substantiv, Adjektiv, Artikel, Pronomen, Numerale). Im engere Sinne (meistens Schulgrammatik) sind Nomen nur Substantive. Ich mag letztere Definition lieber, aber beide Sichtweisen haben ihre Argumente. In Vermeidung diese Definitionsunklarheit bevorzuge ich aber durchgehend _Substantiv _zu verwenden und das unklare _Nomen _zu vermeiden. Nichtsdestotrotz taucht es in Begriffen wie _Nominalphrase _oder dergleichen natürlich in der Bedeutung _Substantiv _auf.

Fakt bleibt aber, dass "Pro-Verb" in der deutschen Grammatik *kein häufig diskutierter, üblicher Begriff* ist. Dagegen sind Funktionsverbgefüge, Modalverben, Vollverben und Hilfsverben etablierte Begriffe.

Wenn Verben wie "tun" oder "machen" andere Verben ersetzen, ohne Bestandteil eines Funktionsverbgefüges zu sein, mag konzeptionell eine Art Pro-Verb-Funktion vorliegen. Aber braucht das eine eigene Bezeichnung? ich denke, nein. Denn Pronomen bilden eine eigene Wortart, Proverben wären dagegen nur funktionell unterschieden. *Proverben bilden im Deutschen also keine eigene Wortklasse* und das ist für mich entscheidend.


----------



## kimko_379

Hi, Hutschi! 
I wonder if these are possible:
1. Ich ging heute in/durch den Garten.  Das Gehen machte mir viel Spaß. 
2. Ich ging heute in/durch den Garten.  Heute machte es mir viel Spaß.  --  Ja?      (Zu) Gehen macht mir immer und überall viel Spaß.
If they are, would you not call those 　"(Das/Zu) Gehen"　 Semi-Pro-VPs, because they replace/substitute and represent part of the VP(s) in the preceding context?


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> If they are, would you not call those 　"(Das/Zu) Gehen"　 Semi-Pro-VPs, because they replace/substitute and represent part of the VP(s) in the preceding context?


Well, reconsidering my vague answer in #34, I am still not convinced. Let's consider this proper statement:

_Ich ging heute durch den Garten. Es machte mir viel Spaß._

So what is "es" referring to?

_(Ging|gehen) machte mir viel Spaß. _-- No!
_(Durch den Garten zu gehen) macht mir viel Spaß. _-- Yes.

The "es" replaces a whole phrase. Yes, it is a verbal phrase. So a pronoun can refer to nouns, pronouns, nominal phrases, verbal phrases. But it does not replace a single verb.


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> Well, reconsidering my vague answer in #34, I am still not convinced. Let's consider this proper statement:
> 
> _Ich ging heute durch den Garten. Es machte mir viel Spaß._
> 
> So what is "es" referring to?
> 
> _(Ging|gehen) machte mir viel Spaß. _-- No!
> _(Durch den Garten zu gehen) macht mir viel Spaß. _-- Yes.
> 
> The "es" replaces a whole phrase. Yes, it is a verbal phrase. So a pronoun can refer to nouns, pronouns, nominal phrases, verbal phrases. But it does not replace a single verb.


Thank you very much!  But what about "das Gehen" in my #35?  And my 2. in #35?


----------



## Hutschi

kimko_379 said:


> Hi, Hutschi!
> I wonder if these are possible:
> 1. Ich ging heute in/durch den Garten.  Das Gehen machte mir viel Spaß.
> 2. Ich ging heute in/durch den Garten.  Heute machte es mir viel Spaß.  -- Ja? (Zu) Gehen macht mir immer und überall viel Spaß.
> If they are, would you not call those 　"(Das/Zu) Gehen"　 Semi-Pro-VPs, because they replace/substitute and represent part of the VP(s) in the preceding context?



 Ich ging heute in den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß.    - This might be possible but it does not feel well. The relation of "es" is not clear. It is chaotic/mehrdeutig. It can refer to "gehen" (literally) or "in den Garten" (expected).
 Ich ging heute durch den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß.  This works.

Repeating "heute": The second "heute" builds a contrast. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß, im Gegensatz zu sonst. Else it would not be repeated.


----------



## kimko_379

Functional categories (like Pro-Formen and FV     [ = Funktionsverben] ) are getting more and more weights these days; in the school grammars, even, the across-parts-of-speeches etymological lexical grammars ( = grammars of whys) with words' core images, incorporated into the cognitive functional semantics, are becoming the mainstream, not any longer the parts-of-speeches-based usage-knowhows cramming/rote-teaching grammars ( = grammars of hows).
That's because students really hate crammings/rote-learnings of fragmented usage knowhows without seeing why those expressions have got those usages because they fail to know the words' historical/etymological core-images.
For example, the lexical grammar of English explains that "to have + p.p." means "to have something in your mind (as gotten) something done," like the German and English languages histories show.  Only that explanation can clarify why you can say "I've read the e-book/online-newspaper." without actually possessing a physical e-book or online-newspaper.
Namely, more broadly speaking, "to have something" has a core image of "to be with that something as a 'part' of the intensions or 'world' of the subject," according to the lexical grammar.
And to convince students, you also must be able to explain why these expressions could have arisen:
She sneezed the tissue off the table.
Tom kicked the ball to John.
The ball floated into the cave.
This tent sleeps four (people).


----------



## kimko_379

Correction:
Read "have ... (as gotten) something done" as "have ... (as) gotten something done".


----------



## kimko_379

Hutschi said:


> Ich ging heute in den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß.    - This might be possible but it does not feel well. The relation of "es" is not clear. It is chaotic/mehrdeutig. It can refer to "gehen" (literally) or "in den Garten" (expected).
> Ich ging heute durch den Garten. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß.  This works.
> 
> Repeating "heute": The second "heute" builds a contrast. Heute machte es mir viel Spaß, im Gegensatz zu sonst. Else it would not be repeated.


I agreed with the above approximately, but on second thought, I have questions:
What do you mean by "literally" and "expected"?
Why can "durch den Garten" NOT be "expected," unlike "in den Garten"?


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> But what about "das Gehen" in my #35?


"Das Gehen" is obviously a noun. It is derived from a verb, but it is a noun.


----------



## kalamazoo

To 'have ' + past participle is just the present perfect tense .  If someone asks me if I have read a book, it means did I carry out the act of reading the book.  It doesn't matter whether or not I had a physical book or if I read it online.  I never heard of 'sneezing' something 'off" anything.


----------



## Kajjo

kalamazoo said:


> it means did I carry out the act of reading the book. It doesn't matter whether or not I had a physical book


Of course. Agreed.


kalamazoo said:


> I never heard of 'sneezing' something 'off" anything.


Me neither.


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> "Das Gehen" is obviously a noun. It is derived from a verb, but it is a noun.


Thank you so much again for your precious viewpoint.
I guess, function-wise, you can regard it as a proVP ( = pro-"verb-phrase"), as Mr. Hutschi endorsed it.  
But, more grammatically exactly speaking, maybe you should call it a pro-infinitive-phrase or a pro-phrasal-infinitive.  How would that be, I wonder?  Would everyone be convinced and satisfied by that naming?


----------



## Hutschi

kimko_379 said:


> I agreed with the above approximately, but on second thought, I have questions:
> What do you mean by "literally" and "expected"?
> Why can "durch den Garten" NOT be "expected," unlike "in den Garten"?



 Ich *ging* heute (in den Garten)... Heute machte *es* mir viel Spaß. (literally: I enjoyed to go (into the garden) -- I mean "es" cannot stand for "to go" here.
 I enjoyed to *go into the garden*. Heute machte *es* mir viel Spaß.

If you rephrase it to: "Heute machte es mir Spaß, in den Garten zu gehen" it becomes an idiom and it is idiomatic.

  I expect here: Ich ging heute in den Garten. Heute machte *es* mir viel Spaß, im Garten zu sein. I expect that "to be in the Garden" is enjoying. Not the way alone.


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> But, more grammatically exactly speaking, maybe you should call it a pro-infinitive-phrase or a pro-phrasal-infinitive.


"Das Gehen" is a noun. It does not matter that it is derived from a verb.

"Zu gehen" is an infinitive.


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> Of course. Agreed.
> 
> Me neither.


But the lexical-sematic analysis of the "have + p.p." construction and the "sneeze ... off" example sentence are now in the famous cognitive linguistics textbooks.  Many proper modern linguist-authors quote or refer to them, even.


----------



## kimko_379

Hutschi said:


> Ich *ging* heute (in den Garten)... Heute machte *es* mir viel Spaß. (literally: I enjoyed going (into the garden) -- I mean "es" cannot stand for "going" here.
> I enjoyed *going into the garden*. Heute machte *es* mir viel Spaß.
> 
> If you rephrase it to: "Heute machte es mir Spaß, in den Garten zu gehen" it becomes an idiom and it is idiomatic.
> 
> I expect here: Ich ging heute in den Garten. Heute machte *es* mir viel Spaß, im Garten zu sein. I expect that "to be in the Garden" is enjoyable. Not the way alone.


Thank you so much!  (Excuse me:  I have made a few minor corrections of the quoted original sentences, just in case you overlooked them.)


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> famous cognitive linguistics textbooks.


Maybe the fame is not deserved then. For me this looks like the author lost ground contact.


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> "Das Gehen" is a noun. It does not matter that it is derived from a verb.
> 
> "Zu gehen" is an infinitive.


Maybe German-grammar should copy or import the English-grammar concepts of the "bare/plain infinitives = 'to"-less infinitives" and "  'to'-ed/accompanied infinitives".
Examples of the former:  I cannot *swim/tell.*  Go *tell *him.
(German had these too, didn't it?  The "um ... zu ~" constructions or something lacked the "zu".  Or was it that they lacked the "um"?)


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> Maybe the fame is not deserved then. For me this looks like the author lost ground contact.


But now most researchers consider those authors as the most-advanced mainstream semantics experts. Those theories are now the present currents/trends of the major linguistic schools of the cognitive functional linguistics, you know?  I just hoped that  you saw the reason why they are so popular and still hope that you will see it.  Would it be possible?  Would you mind trying to know the cognitive functional linguistics?


----------



## berndf

kimko_379 said:


> Hilfe leisten
> Schaden tun
> gute Dienste tun
> Freude/Sorge/Spaß machen
> sich an die Arbeit machen
> 
> just like :
> to do ( = to wash) the dishes/laundry
> to do some reading/letter-writing/shopping
> to make haste (Middle-Age English: = to hurry up)
> to make waste (Haste makes waste.) = to waste
> to make a mistake = to mistake
> to make a (photo-)copy of = to (photo-)copy
> to dream a big dream
> to die a heroic death


None of those examples have much to do with pro-verbs. They are function verbs but not pro verbs. An example of a pro verb is something like that:
_Will Tim go to the cinema tonight? Yes, he might *do* that._​A _pro verb_ is a verb that stands as a place holder for another verb (_do_ stands for _go to the cinema_, much like the pronoun _he_ stands for _Tim_) and what it stands for is defined by the context. This isn't the case in any of your examples. In _do the dishes_, this _do_ always means _wash_. It is not a place holder for a variable kind of activity. It is a completely different concept than a pro-form.

This thread is rather long now and I might have missed something. My apologies should this already have been clarified.


----------



## kimko_379

A German "bare infinitive" candidates:
*Lachen *ist gesund.  Ich kann nicht *swimmen.*


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> Maybe German-grammar should copy or import the English-grammar concepts of the "bare/plain infinitives = 'to"-less infinitives"


In German, an infinitive does not require a "zu". It can be an infinitive even without "zu".

However, a nominalized form like "das Gehen" is a noun. This is undisputable.


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> Ich kann nicht *schwimmen.*


Yes, together with modal verbs we use infinitives without "zu".


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> I just hoped that you saw the reason why they are so popular and still hope that you will see it. Would it be possible? Would you mind trying to know the cognitive functional linguistics?


I honestly do not see that. A lot of that appears to be pseudo-science and more theories than reality, or trivia on the other hand. 

Please try to sum up the central core of cognitive functional linguistics in just a few very clear statements. Would you mind to do that?


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> In German, an infinitive does not require a "zu". It can be an infinitive even without "zu".
> 
> However, a nominalized form like "das Gehen" is a noun. This is undisputable.


Strictly speaking, infinitives are always nouns. It just isn't always obvious. Systematically, lower case infinitives are maybe better called _verbal nouns_ and upper case infinitives _deverbal nouns_.


----------



## kimko_379

berndf said:


> None of those examples have much to do with pro-verbs. They are function verbs but not pro verbs. An example of a pro verb is something like that:
> _Will Tim go to the cinema tonight? Yes, he might *do* that._​A _pro verb_ is a verb that stands as a place holder for another verb (_do_ stands for _go to the cinema_, much like the pronoun _he_ stands for _Tim_) and what it stands for is defined by the context. This isn't the case in any of your examples. In _do the dishes_, this _do_ always means _wash_. It is not a place holder for a variable kind of activity. It is a completely different concept than a pro-form.
> 
> This thread is rather long now and I might have missed something. My apologies should this already have been clarified.


I corrected my original pre-conception some days ago:  maybe Funktionsverben are to be regarded as "semi-proVPs" because they replace/substitute and represent only part(s) of the congruent/non-Funktionsverb-Gefüge form VPs with the action-names/nomina-actionum.


Kajjo said:


> I honestly do not see that. A lot of that appears to be pseudo-science and more theories than reality, or trivia on the other hand.
> 
> Please try to sum up the central core of cognitive functional linguistics in just a few very clear statements. Would you mind to do that?


I am afraid that, as far as those theories are related to my points, I already did the summing-up in #39.  Please google the other sources for the introductory summaries of the theories.


----------



## Kajjo

Back to the title question:

Are function verbs pro-verbs?

Clearly no. They are distinct entities.


----------



## berndf

kimko_379 said:


> I corrected my original pre-conception some days ago: maybe Funktionsverben are to be regarded as "semi-proVPs" because they replace/substitute and represent only part(s) of the congruent/non-Funktionsverb-Gefüge form VPs with the action-names/nomina-actionum.


Still disagree. The core property of a pro-form is that it serves as a variable. This isn't the case here. Might sound similar but it is a fundamentally different concept. In _doing the dishes_, _doing_ cannot suddenly mean, say, _smoking a cigarette_ if placed in a different context.


----------



## kimko_379

berndf said:


> Still disagree. The core property of a pro-form is that it serves as a variable. This isn't the case here. Might sound similar but it is a fundamentally different concept. In _doing the dishes_, _doing_ cannot suddenly mean, say, _smoking a cigarette_ if placed in a different context.


Maybe you should call the "do" in "do the dishes" a specific or individual/einziges/solitary/singular pro-verb and the ordinarily-so-called "do" a universal/allgemeines/all-purpose/versatile pro-verb or proVP?


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> Maybe you should call the "doing" in "doing the dishes" a specific or individual/einziges/solitary/singular pro-verb and the ordinarily-so-called "do" a universal/allgemeines pro-verb?


No, it's a function verb, it does not replace anything. Simple as that. Why make it more complicated?


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> No, it's a function verb, it does not replace anything. Simple as that. Why make it more complicated?


But does it not take over only the tense etc. ("etc." as I fail to specify them all yet) parts of the meanings of the verb "wash"?


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> Are the empty-verbs ( = Funktionsverben) a kind of pro-verbs?
> Pro-form - Wikipedia
> (The German Wikipedia fails to show any pro-verbs.)
> 
> ex.:
> Hilfe leisten
> Schaden tun
> gute Dienste tun
> Freude/Sorge/Spaß machen
> sich an die Arbeit machen


Let's return to the German verbs.

All these examples are Funktionsverbgefüge. They consist of a nominal phrase and a functional verb. The verb is more or less only there to bring in the verb function (tenses, person, mode).

But the verbs to not replace another verb. In "Hilfe leisten" the "leisten" does not replace a "better" verb. The two words just work together.

Pro-verbs replace a verb or verbal phrase.


----------



## kimko_379

Kajjo said:


> Let's return to the German verbs.
> 
> All these examples are Funktionsverbgefüge. They consist of a nominal phrase and a functional verb. The verb is more or less only there to bring in the verb function (tenses, person, mode).
> 
> But the verbs to not replace another verb. In "Hilfe leisten" the "leisten" does not replace a "better" verb. The two words just work together.
> 
> Pro-verbs replace a verb or verbal phrase.


Excuse me:  doesn't "leisten" in "Hilfe leisten" act as (namely, equal to) "do," the pro-verb + some elevated/gehobenen or official/legal connotations, together_with/coupled_with the similarly stylistically-specific "Hilfe"?


----------



## berndf

kimko_379 said:


> Maybe you should call the "do" in "do the dishes" a specific or individual/einziges/solitary/singular pro-verb and the ordinarily-so-called "do" a universal/allgemeines/all-purpose/versatile pro-verb or proVP?


No, you should stay completely clear of the pro-concept. It is just something completely different and any attempt to mingle the concepts can't cause anything but confusion. 


A pro-form is a variable in maths and a function verb is like a function in maths, the value depends on a predicative, like a function value depends on an argument.


----------



## kimko_379

berndf said:


> No, you should stay completely clear of the pro-concept. It is just something completely different and any attempt to mingle the concepts can't cause anything but confusion.
> 
> 
> A pro-form is a variable in maths and a function verb is like a function in maths, the value depends on a predicative, like a function value depends on an argument.


I should say a pro-form has contents, not only variable-like form, of the original word after/from which the pro-form takes(-over) the contents, like, in the case of a pro-verb, as already acknowledged above, tense and verb-ness = Bewegung(swort-heit) and so on.  It's no almost-totally non-descript/faceless word or "term" like x or y.


----------



## kimko_379

Excuse me:  I was just pressed for time and stopped writing the previous post halfway.
As I have shown you in #66, the functional verb does take over some meaning(s) of the nomina actionum, just like the pro-verb does.
And do you intend to say functions themselves have no contents/meaning?
Does the primitive successor function of +1, or traditionally writing, y=fx=x+1 have no contents/meaning until the value of x has been determined?  Of course not!


----------



## berndf

In a well formed object language expression a function has to be bound to its arguments. A function transforms its arguments. A variable can remain unbound in the expression itself but bound through wider context outside of the expression itself. In meta language a function can be unbound but then it still is a constant and not a variable representing the totality of its argument-value tuples. Then there are also function variables, i.e. a variable the possible values of which are functions. Again, those are completely different concepts.


----------



## kimko_379

berndf said:


> In a well formed object language expression a function has to be bound to its arguments. A function transforms its arguments. A variable can remain unbound in the expression itself but bound through wider context outside of the expression itself. In meta language a function can be unbound but then it still is a constant and not a variable representing the totality of its argument-value tuples. Then there are also function variables, i.e. a variable the possible values of which are functions. Again, those are completely different concepts.


And?  Would you mind answering my question in #69 squarely/directly, with or without the use of your above argument?  Do or don't functions have contents/meanings?  Even Mr. Kajjo HAS proved the non-"empty-verbs"-ness of functional verbs all right.  Aren't you being self-contradictory?


----------



## berndf

The point, and that is really the only point, is that function verbs and pro-forms are separate concepts that serve different purposes. Between any two concepts in any field of analysis you will find some commonalities if you search long and deep enough. But I see no insight to be gained from such endeavour in this case.


----------



## Kajjo

kimko_379 said:


> I should say a pro-form has contents, not only variable-like form


No, not really.

_Kannst du bitte auf das Geschenk noch eine Schleife binden? -- Ja, mach ich.
Kannst du bitte noch dein Zimmer aufräumen? -- Ja, mach ich.
Fährst du nachher noch einkaufen? -- Ja, mach ich.
_
The pro-verb "machen" does not contain content here. We do not know what you are supposed to do without the context. It is a variable, which value can be "Schleife binden", "das Zimmer aufräumen" or "einkaufen fahren".

Of course, things are not black-and-white and the "name" of the variable can give away certain properties of the content it represents. So in language "machen" might restrict the scope to actions to which it fits. Just like special symbols in mathematics can give a clue whether the variable represents a number, a set, an element, a constant, a physical quantity, a vector or similar. But again, not the content itself, just a property.

Function verbs on the other hand have content and work together with the nominal or prepositional phrase they go along with. Both parts add to the content, but usually not 50:50 but more like 80:20 (just as example). The function verb mostly contributes the "function of a verb" and often only adds trivial or limited content of its own. I do not understand why people would call German function verbs "empty". They are not empty, both parts need each other to work.

I do not see a significant overlap between function verbs and pro-verbs. Both are separate animals.


----------



## kimko_379

I'd have liked you to understand "contents/Inhalt/Wesen" in the broadest Hegelian sense (including property as some information[-contents] ) in contrast to mere "form/Form/Erscheinungsform".  But since you MUST dismiss/do_without Hegelian Inhaltlogik/contents_logic, we are supposed to end up failing to reach any agreement.

But, in the end, from my viewpoint for readers other than you opposers, I'd like to add the applicational "merits" of such classifications of FVen ( = Funktionsverben) as/into semi-pro-VPs ( = verb phrases), against #72 opinion:

1. The classifications should facilitate the learnings of the ideational GMs ( = grammatical metaphors) = abstract-verb constructions = constructions using verbs with abstract noun complements/Ergänzungen including abstract nomina actionum subjects/objects, abstract noun attribute complements, and abstract de-nominal adverbial/circumstantial complements.

It's for this reason A.:  The classications should enable us to list the collocatabilities of FVen ( = functional verbs) and the nomina actionum through the analyses of what sememes are or are not shared by those two constituents of collocations.

2. The classifications should help clarify the CS ( = cognitive structure)/DS ( = deep semantics) = allgemeine/all-humankind LS ( = linguistic structures)/SS ( = surface semantics) = allgemeine BFen ( = Bedeutungsformen) = all-humankind Denkweisen = Denklehre = contents logic.
Because it should clarify the einzelne/individual/language-specific to besondere/language-family-specific LS/SS/BFen/Denkweisen.
The reason is the above A. again.


----------



## kimko_379

kimko_379 said:


> I corrected my original pre-conception some days ago:  maybe Funktionsverben are to be regarded as "semi-proVPs" because they replace/substitute and represent only part(s) of the congruent/non-Funktionsverb-Gefüge form VPs, with the action-names/nomina-actionum.


Correction:  I added a comma between "VPs" and "with" in the last line.


----------



## kimko_379

kimko_379 said:


> I'd have liked you to understand "contents/Inhalt/Wesen" in the broadest Hegelian sense (including property as some information[-contents] ) in contrast to mere "form/Form/Erscheinungsform".  But since you MUST dismiss/do_without Hegelian Inhaltlogik/contents_logic, we are supposed to end up failing to reach any agreement.
> 
> But, in the end, from my viewpoint for readers other than you opposers, I'd like to add the applicational "merits" of such classifications of FVen ( = Funktionsverben) as/into semi-pro-VPs ( = verb phrases), against #72 opinion:
> 
> 1. The classifications should facilitate the learnings of the ideational GMs ( = grammatical metaphors) = abstract-verb constructions = constructions using verbs with abstract noun complements/Ergänzungen including abstract nomina actionum subjects/objects, abstract noun attribute complements, and abstract de-nominal adverbial/circumstantial complements.
> 
> It's for this reason A.:  The classications should enable us to list the collocatabilities of FVen ( = functional verbs) and the nomina actionum through the analyses of what sememes are or are not shared by those two constituents of collocations.
> 
> 2. The classifications should help clarify the CS ( = cognitive structure)/DS ( = deep semantics) = allgemeine/all-humankind LS ( = linguistic structures)/SS ( = surface semantics) = allgemeine BFen ( = Bedeutungsformen) = all-humankind Denkweisen = Denklehre = contents logic.
> Because it should clarify the einzelne/individual/language-specific to besondere/language-family-specific LS/SS/BFen/Denkweisen.
> The reason is the above A. again.


Correction:
In the last paragraph:  read "the einzelne/... ... ." as "some einzelne/... ... ."


----------



## kimko_379

Noch etwas/ein_Wort:
Contrary to my opposers' opinion, the present information theory and formal semantics handle forms, rather than "contents"/meanings, as information included in the set of all the contents (namely, what Marx called "Forminhalt" = forms seen as a kind of contents of the researches on those forms):
I mean Shannon's theory on "information quantity" = a kind of quantitative contents of information.
The contents/meaning of "one-ness" is the same in every spoken and written language, but the cipher "1" has far less information quantity ( = quantitative contents) than the letters-row "t'ááłá'í" ("one" in Navajo).
(That kind of merely-formal info theory was criticized by Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt, though:
Information – Der Schlüssel zum Leben: Amazon.de: Gitt, Werner, Compton, Robert W., Fernandez, Jorge A.: Bücher  )


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, I want to summarize:

In German we do not have a special word category (Wortart) "Pro-Verb".

But the function exists.

mainly two verbs can be used as pro-verbs.

Additionally "es", and similar pronouns can be used to replace verb phrases.

Ich gehe ins Bad um *zu schwimmen*. *Es* macht mir Spaß.

---
A very common pro-form it omission (ellipsis, Auslassung).

_Ich gehe Schwimmen. Anton auch.
= Ich gehe Schwimmen. Anton geht auch Schwimmen.
I renne, Anton auch. = ..., Anton rennt auch._

I think such forms are the most common in German without having a special name depending on kind of words.

Here I found an English source:
" Pro-forms and ellipsis"


https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/phil/eng...alien/exploringEnglish/pro-forms&ellipsis.pdf
This is in English - but the most is very similar to German.

---
A main property of Pro-forms is that you can "expand" them to the long form.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> Additionally "es", and similar pronouns can be used to replace verb phrases.
> 
> Ich gehe ins Bad um *zu schwimmen*. *Es* macht mir Spaß.


Yes, but even non-captalized infinitives have a dual nature: They are verb forms and functionality also nouns. _Es_ refers to the infinitive in its function as a noun (_Was macht mir Spaß? Das Schwimmen macht mir Spaß._). I don't think, this use is relevant when discussing pro-verbs.


----------



## Hutschi

Thanks, Bernd.

I replace it:

Ich *schwimme*. *Es* macht mir Spaß.

You could say:

The second is: "es macht mir Spaß, zu schwimmen." -- But "es" refers to "schwimmen" in a strange "translation/assigning/forming" way, I do not know the exact name for this.

The noun is (like a ghost) between the sentences.

I do not know if such constructions exist in English, in German they are common.


----------



## kimko_379

Vielen Dank, Guys!  Michael Schreiber:  "Textgrammatik" betrachtet Ellipsen mit einer Pro-Form-Funktion als Null-Zeichen und mit einem "Φ" bezeichnet, wie ich mitteilte.
Das Buch enthält viele interessante Beispiele davon.


----------



## kimko_379

Plus-alpha trivia:

Wasn't the bare-infinitive the origin of the zu/to-infinitive?
"Ich ging spazieren/einkaufen.  =  Ich ging, um zu spazieren/um einzukaufen."
("aller faire des courses")

And wasn't the bare infinitive construction the origin of the um-zu construction?
"O du selige, o du fröhliche, Gnaden-bringende Weihnachtszeit!
Christ ist erschienen, uns zu versöhnen;
Freue, freue dich, o Christenheit!"


----------



## Hutschi

I do not know this.
I onlyknow that in some cases both with and without "zu" is possible and in other cases not.

Christ ist erschienen, uns versöhnen. (Seldom used. I'm not sure whether it is standard language in this case.)
Christ ist erschienen, uns zu versöhnen. (In the song)
Christ ist erschienen, um uns zu versöhnen. (Standard language but not poetically)

I  will look for sources about the history of the infinitive in German language.

Note also that usage may be different in dialects.

PS: Ich habe ein Buch über den Infinitiv im Mittelhochdeutschen gefunden: https://www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/mediae/einführung_in_die_mediävistik_ii_reader_2017.pdf
Hierin habe ich keine Infinitivgruppe mit "zu" gefunden. Das deutet darauf hin, dass sie später kam.




> Wasn't the bare-infinitive the origin of the zu/to-infinitive?


Das scheint demnach zu stimmen.


Im Forum gibt es sicher einige, die sich besser damit auskennen.


----------

