Of Adjectives and Adverbs (Also, the Perfect)

[Terra]

I briefly return from my self-imposed exile to ask a few questions.

Consider the following sentences:
1a1) I will run fast.
1a2) *I will run fastly.
1b1) I will run hard.
1b2) *I will run hardly.
1c1) I will run quick.
1c2) I will run quickly.
1d1) I will run slow.
1d2) I will run slowly.

First, I understand that the current meaning of "fast" has diverged from it's previous meaning (which is preserved in "fasten"), which explains why "fastly" isn't even a word, but I don't understand why "hardly" means something unrelated to "hard", especially when "softly" does to "soft".

Second, I don't understand why 1a) and 2a) are even valid. They look like adverbs here since they're modifying a verb phrase and not a noun phrase. However...
2a1) *I will fast run.
2a2) *I will fastly run.
2b1) *I will hard run.
2b2) *I will hardly run. (Not with the intended meaning.)
2c1) ?I will quick run. (But "I will quick run to the store." sounds fine, strangely.)
2c2) I will quickly run.
2d1) *I will slow run.
2d2) I will slowly run.

Also, they don't seem to be nouns like in:
3a) I will do good/evil/wrong.

So perhaps they're adjectives after all! What does one call adjectives used in this manner? Do you notice any other properties they have? Do you contest anything that I've written above?

-----

I was speaking with a (Chinese) professor of mine, and she asked me to explain the difference between the past and the perfect. I tried to explain it as giving present relevance to a past event, but I don't think she understood completely (despite nodding ok). How would you explain the difference?

[Salmoneus]

With examples.

----

They're adjectives, not adverbs. They're subject complements - at least, that's what I was told to call them. To see the adjectival nature, compare an example with something less adverbial: "I will run unseen".

Or put in a noun for the subject, and then note how the sentence can be re-arranged: "The river runs fast" > "the fast river runs".

Two important things, however. Firstly, these examples are EXTREMELY dubious, and on the verge of what one might say in the modern language (or at least my modern language), which has a strong aversion to this sort of potentially-adverbial construction. "I will run fast" and "I will run quick" are barely legal if at all. "Run slow" is fine, but it has its own meaning (something "runs slow" if it it fails to keep the desired pace - chiefly timepieces).

The other thing is that it seems impossible to know whether something is a subject complement or an object complement without knowing the convention regarding each word. "I painted the house unseen" and "I painted the house blue" have exactly the same form, but the final word refers to the subject in the first sentence and the object in the second. "The lady looked offended, so I thrashed the rogue unasked" vs "The lady looked offended, so I thrashed the rogue unconscious".

[Niedokonany]

I'd try explaining perfect as the WALS defines it, i.e. for the most part, a combination of experiential (stressing the occurence of some event in one's life or other period) and resultative (sth happened, a certain state of affairs is brought up) uses.

[roninbodhisattva]

First, I understand that the current meaning of "fast" has diverged from it's previous meaning (which is preserved in "fasten"), which explains why "fastly" isn't even a word, but I don't understand why "hardly" means something unrelated to "hard", especially when "softly" does to "soft".

It's pretty much just weird semantic change.

[Mecislau]

Salmoneus, I don't think I could possibly disagree with you more on that analysis!

They're adjectives, not adverbs. They're subject complements - at least, that's what I was told to call them. To see the adjectival nature, compare an example with something less adverbial: "I will run unseen".

I've heard lots of different terms for them. In the literature I've read, I'm come across the term "secondary predicates" as well.

That said, I don't understand why the "unseen" in "I will run unseen" is less adverbial. It just means "I will run in a manner, such that I am unseen". Or, substitute in something that's more obviously an adverb: "I will run invisibly" (which sounds perfectly grammatical to me, if a little nonsensical).

Or put in a noun for the subject, and then note how the sentence can be re-arranged: "The river runs fast" > "the fast river runs".

Those are two completely different sentences to me, with very different meanings. The use of an adjective modifier in "The fast river runs" suggests a degree of permanance or an inherant quality. "The river runs fast", however, makes no statement either way as to the inherancy of the "fast" quality: it could be "this river always runs fast", or "this river is running fast right now".

Two important things, however. Firstly, these examples are EXTREMELY dubious, and on the verge of what one might say in the modern language (or at least my modern language), which has a strong aversion to this sort of potentially-adverbial construction. "I will run fast" and "I will run quick" are barely legal if at all. "Run slow" is fine, but it has its own meaning (something "runs slow" if it it fails to keep the desired pace - chiefly timepieces).

I don't think they're dubious at all, and actually I find it quite odd (and interesting) that you think they are. In the same vein, I find "I will run fast" and "I will run quick" both perfectly normal sentences, with absolutely no reason to doubt that they're grammatical.

[Sevly]

Mecislau has hit the nail on this one, I think. In all these examples, the modifier applies not to the subject in general, as it does when preceding its head noun in attributive use, but only with respect to the action being undertaken, hence a sense of non-permance. It seems reasonable then to say that their modifying the verb rather than the subject: it is the painting that is unseen, the motion of the water at a certain time that is fast.

Also, I find no problems at all with "I will run fast", although, oddly enough, I much prefer that sentence over "I will run quick". Hmm. Can't think of any particular reason, must just be a personal idiosyncrasy.

[Terra]

It's pretty much just weird semantic change.

I was expecting this response.

I don't think they're dubious at all, and actually I find it quite odd (and interesting) that you think they are. In the same vein, I find "I will run fast" and "I will run quick" both perfectly normal sentences, with absolutely no reason to doubt that they're grammatical.

Indeed, I don't find them contrived at all, and am puzzled that Salmoneus finds them so. The only one that I'm unsure of is the one I marked with a ?.

it is the painting that is unseen

What? I thought that sentences means that someone is painting, but that (the someone) can't be seen, not that the painting can't be seen.

Those are two completely different sentences to me, with very different meanings. The use of an adjective modifier in "The fast river runs" suggests a degree of permanance or an inherant quality. "The river runs fast", however, makes no statement either way as to the inherancy of the "fast" quality: it could be "this river always runs fast", or "this river is running fast right now".

I thought that Salmoneus brought up the sentences so one can see how they both contain adjectives, not that he was implying that they mean the same thing. Indeed, the property of permanence seems to be a key to understanding how they differ from adjectives in the attributive form.

The other thing is that it seems impossible to know whether something is a subject complement or an object complement without knowing the convention regarding each word. "I painted the house unseen" and "I painted the house blue" have exactly the same form, but the final word refers to the subject in the first sentence and the object in the second. "The lady looked offended, so I thrashed the rogue unasked" vs "The lady looked offended, so I thrashed the rogue unconscious".

Interesting. Wouldn't "offended" in these sentences be a subject complement as well? Now, I want to come up with an example that's reasonably ambiguous about whether it's a subject or object complement.

Also, something more interesting:
1) The thug beat her dead.
2) *The thug beat her killed.

The past participle can't be used as a complement?