compound adjectives

Hi, Rasha Assem,

@Rasha Assem posted:

I was surfing the net for information about compound adjectives, one of the topics that I haven't studied. I came across this site: https://www.englishgrammar101..../compound-adjectives. There I read the following:

1- The slowly moving train blocked the traffic.
2- The slow-moving train blocked the traffic.

‘Slowly’ is an adverb that modifies the verb, i.e. the train that was moving slowly (temporary case). ‘Slow moving’ is related to the train itself. It was slow. This is what your link (https://www.englishgrammar101..../compound-adjectives) is trying to explain. Unlike your link, I see that ‘slow’ in ‘slow-moving’ doesn’t have to be an adjective. It could be classified as ‘an adverb + a participle’. You can find a similar example in ‘Advanced Grammar in Use’, page ‘138’. It classifies ‘fast-growing’ as an adverb + -ing participle.

@Rasha Assem posted:

I don't understand the difference in meaning. Also, I don't know when to add an adverb to the participle to form a compound adjective and when to add an adjective to the participle to form a compound adjective.

I think the following part might help. It is from the ‘Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 1695:

Verbs like look, smell, taste, seem, etc., which take adjectival predicative complements, occur in compounds matching the clausal construction: a strange-looking object matches an object that looks strange, a desperate-seeming suggestion matches a suggestion that seems desperate, and so on. But good-looking and high-sounding are lexicalised – we can say, for example, Your prospects look good, but not ∗Your prospects are good-looking. With other kinds of verb there is also a good deal of lexicalisation, as in easy-going, far-seeing, long-suffering. Hard-working corresponds to work hard, with adverbial hard, but we need to distinguish between compound adjectives of this form
and adverb + verb syntactic sequences like rapidly diminishing ( returns). One difference is that we can say They seem hard-working, but not ∗They seem rapidly diminishing.

@ahmed_btm posted:

One difference is that we can say They seem hard-working, but not ∗They seem rapidly diminishing.

It is interesting to note, though, that we can say both of the following:

(a) They seem to be working hard.

(b) They seem to be diminishing rapidly.

This makes me wonder why "they seem *rapidly diminishing*" is not grammatical...

@MlleSim posted:

It is interesting to note, though, that we can say both of the following:

(a) They seem to be working hard.

(b) They seem to be diminishing rapidly.

This makes me wonder why "they seem *rapidly diminishing*" is not grammatical...

I think the reason is that "seem" needs to be followed by a noun or an adjective, and "rapidly diminishing" is not a compound adjective. This can be fixed by inserting "to be," in which case "rapidly diminishing" will be merely a variant of "diminishing rapidly" (progressive form of the verb with an adverb of manner):

(c) They seem to be rapidly diminishing.

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

I think the reason is that "seem" needs to be followed by a noun or an adjective, and "rapidly diminishing" is not a compound adjective.

Thank you, Gustavo, for your reply. Could "rapidly diminishing" be made a compound adjective, though? After all, "slow-moving" and "fast-growing" can also be seen as an adverb + a present participle. What is the difference syntactically? To be honest, I do not quite understand the point highlighted by the Cambridge Grammar (i.e. "We need to distinguish between compound adjectives of this form and adverb + verb syntactic sequences like 'rapidly diminishing'").

The point is that, for the adjective to be compound, hyphenation (or merging into a single word) needs to occur, and "rapidly-diminishing" is not possible.

This is only possible with short adverbs like fast, slow, easy, far, well, never, ever, long, hard.

Regarding the differences in grammaticality observed here:

(1a) He seems hard-working.
(1b) *He seems working hard.
(1c) He seems to be working hard.

In (1a), "seems" is a copula, and "hard-working" a lexicalized adjective, one which need not even be hyphenated (see here). Compare: "He is hardworking."

Verb phrases don't complement copulas. The "is" in "He is running" is not the same lexical item as the "is" in "He is fit," even though it has the same spelling.

That's why (1b) is ungrammatical. In (1c), "seems" is complemented by an infinitival clause, one in which "be" is the progressive auxiliary, not the copula.

The difference comes down to the difference between "He is working hard" and "He is hardworking." In the latter, we have a copula; in the former, we don't.

@David, Moderator posted:

Regarding the differences in grammaticality observed here:

(1a) He seems hard-working.
(1b) *He seems working hard.
(1c) He seems to be working hard.

In (1a), "seems" is a copula, and "hard-working" a lexicalized adjective, one which need not even be hyphenated (see here). Compare: "He is hardworking."

Verb phrases don't complement copulas. The "is" in "He is running" is not the same lexical item as the "is" in "He is fit," even though it has the same spelling.

That's why (1b) is ungrammatical. In (1c), "seems" is complemented by an infinitival clause, one in which "be" is the progressive auxiliary, not the copula.

The difference comes down to the difference between "He is working hard" and "He is hardworking." In the latter, we have a copula; in the former, we don't.

In (1a), though, couldn't we say that "seems" is complemented by an infinitival clause whose copula "be" has been omitted/suppressed?

@MlleSim posted:

In (1a), though, couldn't we say that "seems" is complemented by an infinitival clause whose copula "be" has been omitted/suppressed?

There is no "to" in (1a). Not only is there no "be," but there is no infinitival clause.

@David, Moderator posted:

There is no "to" in (1a). Not only is there no "be," but there is no infinitival clause.

True, not as it is written, but what about "he seems [to be] hardworking"?

@MlleSim posted:

True, not as it is written, but what about "he seems [to be] hardworking"?

Yes, "He seems to be hardworking" does contain an infinitival clause and "be." That sentence can be used as a paraphrase of "He seems hardworking."

It think it is a mistake to consider "He seems hardworking" to BE, underlyingly, "He seems to be hardworking," with two unexpressed words.

Note, incidentally, that the "be" in "He seems to be . . ." need not be the copula "be." It can, alternatively, be the progressive auxiliary or the passive auxiliary:

(2) He seems to be happy.
(3) He seems to be walking.
(4) He seems to be (being) supported.