Talk:Adverb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I

Adverbs which are identical in form to their adjectives are compared the synthetic way. Most others, though forms like wiselier are poetic, are formed analytically with more or most. And all adverbs take as...as or less, least for the diminishing comparatives.

Something to do with comparative and superlative, but I can't follow it. Could be improved by someone who can follow it. Ortolan88

I think synthetic="more + adv", and analytic="adv+er". Stephen C. Carlson
Oops, got it backwards. Stephen C. Carlson

Sounds reasonable. Wanna rewrite the para? Someone else as dumb as me might read it and be confused. And, if you do, get wiselier outta there. What's that as...as about? Ortolan88

"As large as", etc. Patrick 11:13 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
I took a shot at it. Furture fixes welcomes. Stephen C. Carlson


Hopefully? Hopefully as a sentence adverb is not shunned simply because some purists decided that it should rather be 'I am hopeful + relative clause'. There is more to it. To quote Eric Partridge: "hopefully, besides meaning 'in a hopeful way', now often means 'it is hoped'. This new use seems no odder than the corresponding use of adverbs such as naturally: ' Hopefully/Naturally she'll come', but it has aroused the rage of many purists. Those who do use it should at least beware of ambiguity, since 'He will leave tomorrow hopefully' might be interpreted in either way [This is, 'It is hoped (or indeed, I am hopeful) that he will leave tomorrow.', or 'He will leave tomorrow in a hopeful way.']." (Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, Third Edition, 1999, Penguin Group, London)

The ambiguity exists for any sentence adverb. I am aware many purists use this example as an argument for avoiding this usage, but then we should avoid all sentence adverbs. CyborgTosser 00:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The myth of the "hopefully error" is one of the few things people think they know about adverbs. Granted, the following, which was just removed from the article, is a little strong:
== "Hopefully" ==
The hopefully controversy is based on the theory that people should say I am hopeful that... instead of hopefully to start and modify a sentence. Yet, there are dozens of adverbs used in this way. Obviously this rule is illogical. So, *Hopefully, grammarians won't trash hopefully as a sentence adverb anymore.
but I believe something like this is relevant to the article.Ortolan88 21:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We definitely need something about it in here. Andre (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Grammar Mistake?

Near the beginning of the article it says:

"Alternatively, an adverb may be contained within a sentence element.

   An extremely small child entered the room. (SUBJECT + ADVERBIAL + OBJECT +VERB)"

Shouldn't it be:

(ADVERBIAL + SUBJECT + VERB + OBJECT)


I'm putting this here instead of making the change myself because I consider myself weak at grammar and could be missing something. But if I am missing something -- it looks like something explaining in more depth. Because I can't for the life of me see how the sentence ends in a verb.

[edit] Conditional adverbial

I was sitting around thinking about useless stuff, as usual, and I began to wonder what kind of adverb 'probably', 'possibly', and 'neccessarily' are. It seems to me that they are conditional adverbs, that is, they describe the conditions under which an action will take place. Another cool one may be 'stochastically', but I can see how this may describe in what manner something is done. 'Hopefully' seems conditional, but there's an extra twist of the speaker's desired outcome or result. Is there an "official" list of kinds of adverbs? Arguments for or against adding conditionals to the Groups of adverbs section?

[edit] List

Firstly, what does the NB mean? Nota bene?

Secondly, is there a list of irregular adverb construction adjectives, as well is for good (instead of goodly?). Thank you. --Abdull 16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


An adverb is a word that modifies a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. Some irregular [mostly, words that we don't recognize as adverbs] adverbs include: very, well, quite, before, usually, a lot, already, rather, really, more, now, not, why etc. It answers the questions: how, when, where, to what extent, or how often.

[edit] hello

english class: i need an easier way to explain adverbs.

(Smillar 17:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)) goodbye

[edit] Sentence modification

I don't understand how an adverb can modify an entire sentence. In the examples listed on the page, it appears (to me) that only the verb is being modified. Isopropyl 21:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I gather what is meant by modifying is that adverbs modify the meaning, i.e. express the way how something is done. E.g. if the adverb quickly is added to the sentence He said..., it modifies the meaning of the verb. --Sebesta 22:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
However, adjectives can certainly be modified by adverbs as well, e.g. extremely good. --Sebesta 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand what an adverb is. I'm just curious as to (4) on the article page, which has the sentence
Suddenly, the cat came in.
I don't understand why this is a sentence-modifying adverb. Isn't
The cat came in suddenly
equivalent in this case? Both sentences use "suddenly" to describe how the cat came in. Isopropyl 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now I see what you were talking about. :) I would say an adverb is used at the beginning of a sentence to emphasize (intensify) the meaning of the adverb; this position makes the adverb much more important in the sentence.
As for the example sentences you have cited—I don't think their meaning are necessarily equivalent.
"The cat came in suddenly." You would probably ask, How did the cat come in?
"Suddenly, the cat came in." I would feel more like, Oh, what happened?
But I do agree that in some cases this difference could be insignificant or arguable.
--Sebesta 22:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adverbs

I recently came across a rather strange construction when I was reading a book that explained the usage of adverbs. The sentence was "... a really astronomical figure..." As far as I know, ttwo constructions would be possible: ".... a real astronomical figure..." or " really an astronomical figure.." My question is: which of the two is the correct one? Is it possible to use the first construction?

Teacher Adriano

I consider the very first one ("a really astronomical figure") correct. To make sure, I consulted the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and it gives this example for the "really" entry:
was a really beautiful morning
"real" is not an adverb in standard usage.
--Sebesta 18:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think he means a real astronomical figure, where "real" would be an adjective equivalent to "actual". Adriano, in the sense that astronomical means "large", the original sentence is correct in stating that it's "a really large figure". Isopropyl 20:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Really is used there as a comparative. It answers: How astronomical? Very. — robbiemuffin page talk 15:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Adverbs

Order of Adverbs is needed.

[edit] Adverbs modifying adverbs

Is it possible to have one "-ly" adverb modifying another? For example, can we say: "The bus travelled fairly slowly."

Yes, in English "fairly slowly" is OK, as is "surprisingly quickly." Other adverbs are more picky, however, so for example, "extremely probably" is very clumsy, as well as "fairly luckily." In other languages, like Italian, adverbs ending in -mente can't be modified by other adverbs, if these also end in -mente. So in Italian, there is a big difference between "estremamente spesso" (`extremely often'), which is fine, because "spesso" doesn't end in -mente, and "estremamente frequenatmente" (`extremely frequently'), which is completely impossible. Nobody really knows how to characterize what's going on in English, but a rough rule would be that manner or frequency adverbs, like "often," "frequently," "quickly," etc. can be so modified, while modal adverbs, like "probably" etc. can't. Another test would be whether one can question the adverb with "how" as in How frequently do you visit your mom? This doesn't work at all with modal or evidential adverbs, e.g. "*how usually do you visit your mom?" or "*How probably will the Republicans win?" or "*How evidently is Bob a genius?" Again, nobody really knows why this is, but if you can get the feeling for which adverbs can be questioned in this way, then it's probably safer to abstain from modifying those that can't with an -ly adverb.
Neither 02:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romance Language adverbs/-ment(e)

I remember reading that the construction of adverbs in modern Romance languages (that is, adding -ment(e) to the end of the feminine adjective comes from a form or phrase in Greek (perhaps early medieval/late Koine) in which one combines the adjective with the word for "mind (ment/e from the Latin mens). Therefore to do something exactly is do something with and exact mind(exacta+mente). Is there any validity to this? I know this is not how adverbs were formed in Latin, but I do not speak any form of Greek, ancient or otherwise and it's been bugging me for a while. 201.21.96.49 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that to form adverbs in Spanish you add the "-mente" suffix, but my teacher's bad at explaining the exact properties of it. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 20:44, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about usage

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that someone "spelled the word incorrect" rather than "incorrectly", because by saying that person spelled it "incorrectly" is to say that the mechanism which allows he or she to spell is broken (as in, the physical action the person used to spell the word was incorrect)? And no, I couldn't find a simpler way to form that question. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 20:17, April 8, 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Derived from Latin

Whatever the above is all about, I've got an issue with the nonchalant parenthetical claim in the article that English grammar is "derived from Latin". I would call that, at best, misleading and poorly worded. It gives the impression that English would not have grammar if it weren't for Latin. I'm struggling to find anywhere on the Wiki a more substantial claim to this effect (that English grammar is derived from Latin grammar). English is no more derived from Latin than dogs are derived from saber-toothed cats, but in both cases the one is similar to the other because they share a common ancestor. If I don't get some arguments to the contrary pretty soon, I'll remove the clause. Tsunomaru 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: did so. Tsunomaru 11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adverbs modifying nouns?

In its current state the article says that adverbs can't modify nouns, but I've seen (outdated?) grammar books that disagree. Think of only in The blade scratched only the boy, which certainly appears to be modifying the boy (the meaning is quite different from The blade only scratched the boy). And it isn't acting like a typical adjective, since it's positioned before the article the. How would modern linguists describe what's happening here? 61.196.81.225 06:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's referring to robust contrasts like quick trip vs. *quickly trip or very wealthy vs. *very wealth. For the major classes of adverbs, such as the ones formed by adding -ly to an adjective, this holds, i.e. they don't combine directly with nouns.
In your example, only the boy, the focus-sensitive adverb only is associating with the entire noun phrase the boy and not with the noun itself. The syntax of focus sensitive adverbs is complex and controversial, however, and some linguists -- though not this one -- think these can combine with any grammatical category, including nouns. Perhaps a more plausible candidate for exhibiting direct noun modification would be the phrase the only boy, where only seems to combine with the noun directly. But, here, we see that there is a clear dependency between the adverb and the determiner the: *every only boy, *each only boy, *some only boy, *no only boy are all bad. Another case: an only child (less frequent: an only kid; an only car) might a case of only being reanalyzed as an adjective, with a somewhat different meaning than the adverb. In sum, it's doubtful whether the focus-sensitive adverb only can directly modify a noun. Another case of an "adverb" that seems to be able to modify (mass) nouns directly is more as in John has more money than Bill. But in this case it could be argued that more is the comparative form of the adjective much (John doesn't have much money). Thus there are some isolated cases of adverbs apparently directly modifying nouns, but they are extremely rare, compared to the very common adverbs modifying adjectives, or verb (phrases). Many of those cases, perhaps all, turn out to be disputable. Neither 11:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment on above: Since when have adverbs today not modify nouns? Did adverbs yesterday give it up after being told practically every adverb cannot ignore quite a few rules of academic grammar? (See if you can spot the adverbs and which nouns they modify in the last two sentences.) In practice adverbs have always modified nouns, and the response by the academics, especially secondary school teachers, has usually been enraged denial ("Don't be so stupid, only adjectives do that!")or elaborate subterfuges, usually going on the lines of, "Well that adverb is really not modifying the noun, you see, it is delimiting the parameters of a phrase." Sir, what sort of phrase would that be?" Teacher flushes, faces away to the board, and mutters, "Oh, uh, a noun phrase, I should think." My favorite adverbial waffling occurs in the Harbrace College Handbook, 12th edition, p. 12, where the definition of an adverb begins with certainty, "…adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs…" and then trails off weakly into admitting, "…or even the rest of the sentence." I suppose the rest of the sentence would be where the nouns are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.16 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adverbs telling why

"Adverbs typically answer questions such as how?, when?, where?, why? and to what extent?"

I'm struggling to think of an instance where an adverb answers a why? question. Should that be in the list? If so could someone provide an example? Matt 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC).