Are "reach" and "die" linking verb there

Discussion in 'English Only' started by HyeeWang, Dec 21, 2009.

  1. HyeeWang Senior Member

    1. He reached the station exhausted!
    2. His son died young!
    Above, "exhausted" and "young" are both adjective!
    Why they can follow verb--"reach" and "die"---immediately?
    How to explain the roles of "exhausted" and "young" in those sentences?
    Are "reach" and "die" linking verb there?
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2009
  2. SangoireRose Member

    English (Aus)
    I believe it is because they are adverbs. Adverbs are words which modify/change verbs, adjectives, clauses and sentences, as well as other adverbs and numbers.

    Adverbs usually describe how when where and to what extent something is done.

    In your examples it describes how he reached the station, and when he died.

    I hope my explanation helps!
  3. LQZ

    LQZ Senior Member

    I disagree! In my dictionaries, both of them are adjectives.
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2009
  4. allenxy111 New Member

    chinese alwasy think about the grammar ,i think exhaused and yong are just show the status
  5. Thomas Tompion Senior Member

    Southwest France
    English - England
    I think you are right HyeeWang.

    These verbs are being used copulatively here, in my view.

    Exhausted and young are adjectives.

    He was exhausted when he reached the station, and his son was young when he died.

    It would be wise to wait for the view of someone who knows about grammatical terms.
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2009
  6. LQZ

    LQZ Senior Member

    No, TT, my grammar book calls "exhausted" the object complement.

    In other words, "reach" isn't a linking verb, but a verb that can be followed by an object and an object complement. Here are another examples:

    I found her dead.

    You can't say found is a linking verb, can you?
  7. Thomas Tompion Senior Member

    Southwest France
    English - England
    No, indeed, not in this case.

    But, for me, I found her dead is not analagous to he reached the station exhausted.

    She (the object of the first sentence, her) was dead.

    He (the subject of the second sentence) was exhausted. You seem to be suggesting that the station was exhausted, and that doesn't seem right.

    Perhaps then your grammar book would call exhausted a subject complement.

    You sound frightfully certain, LQZ. I think this is a case of the partially sighted leading the blind.
  8. catgrin Senior Member

    I agree. The first sentence is an example of an Object Compliment.

    1. He reached the station exhausted!

    where the parts are:subject verb object object compliment!

    The second one is different:

    2. His son died young!

    In this sentence, young is the Predicate Adjective. It is used to complete the idea of the verb, and can be tested by finding the verb and asking "how?" after.

    Example: Died how? Young.
  9. LQZ

    LQZ Senior Member

    Dear TT,

    I stand corrected. I think exhausted should be a subject complement.:eek:

    And I did a google search and failed to find that "die" or "reach" are linking verbs.
  10. Thomas Tompion Senior Member

    Southwest France
    English - England
    I'm not very happy with your litmus test, Catgrin.

    I wouldn't say that young was a way of dying.

    In response to the question Died, how? I'd say something like Fell off a precipice.

    I agree that it's an adjective, though. It describes his state when he died.
  11. catgrin Senior Member

    Hi Thomas,

    Would it make you more comfortable if it was worded He died in what state? The word "how" can have more than one meaning, as these examples demonstrate:

    How do you feel? I feel good.

    How do you feel? I use my hands.
  12. LQZ

    LQZ Senior Member

    The following definition of linking verbs is taken from

    Based on the above, we can try transfering some examples this way:

    he looked tired ---> he was tired, or he = tired;
    she acted suprised---> she was surprised, or she = surprised
    she remains young ---> she is young, or she = young.

    But, it manner doesn't work on the original sentence.

    He died young.
    He was young.
    They have definitely different meanings.

    Thus, both reach and die don't do the linking verb job, at least to me. :)
  13. HyeeWang Senior Member

    Thank you! LQZ.
    It seems we can not call them (die and reach) link verb.
    But any terminology can be given to such a usage?
  14. LQZ

    LQZ Senior Member

    I am afraid that my attempt may be a disputable one.:D

    He reached the station exhausted.
    He died young.

    To my way of thinking, both exhausted and young are subject complements that are saying the subjects' states.

    I may be wrong, since I am just a learner.
  15. bluegiraffe

    bluegiraffe Senior Member

    Nottingham, England
    English - England
    Does it really need terminology? Does it have to be labelled?
  16. Thomas Tompion Senior Member

    Southwest France
    English - England
    I think the terminology helps learners enormously, because they can see similar behaviour in different verbs, and that means that if they can handle one, they ought to be able to handle another.
  17. bluegiraffe

    bluegiraffe Senior Member

    Nottingham, England
    English - England
    Even in this complex language which has many exceptions to rules? When learning languages I've always found it much easier not to get bogged down in terminology and rules.
  18. LQZ

    LQZ Senior Member

    Learning English just like a game, and first we need to know the rule of game clearly, especally in a complicated game. ;)
  19. Loob

    Loob Senior Member

    English UK
    Sorry to come late to this party...

    I think there are two issues here.

    (1) whether reached and died are linking/copular verbs

    No, I don't think they are, for the reasons given earlier by LQZ. We can replace HyeeWang's He reached the station exhausted with When he reached the station, he was exhausted; we can replace his His son died young with His son was young when he died. But we can't do a similar translation with clearly-copular verbs: He became exhausted ≠ :cross: when he became, he was exhausted and he felt young ≠ :cross: when he felt, he was young.

    (2) whether exhausted and young are complements

    Again, I don't think they are, because they aren't necessary to complete the sense of the verb (compare: the training made him exhausted and she looked young.)
    I'd say that both exhausted and young are adjuncts: if we omitted the adjectives, the sentences would still make sense.
  20. HyeeWang Senior Member

    Thank you! Loob.
    In the original 2 sentences,it would does still make sense if we omit the adjectives.
    But the informations provied are not full and different from the original ones.
  21. JungKim Senior Member

    Having read the entire thread, I was wondering if there are any tangible benefits to ESL students to differentiating typical copular verbs from verbs like "die" as in "He died young."
  22. Tazzler Senior Member

    American English
    Sometimes it's hard to tell because of the lack of agreement but adjectives are not restricted to before a noun. They can be placed anywhere in the sentence and still relate to a word placed quite a ways away.
  23. wandle

    wandle Senior Member

    English - British
    There is a traditional grammatical explanation of this usage: namely, that, in the original examples, 'exhausted' and 'young' are predicative adjectives.

    In other words, (1) 'reach' and 'die' are not copulas, (2) 'exhausted' and 'young' are indeed adjectives and (3)
    'exhausted' and 'young' are being used predicatively.
    This means that they contribute meaning to the predicate (what is being asserted about the subject by the verb and its associated expressions).

    When an adjective accompanies its noun closely it is termed 'attributive', as in 'The young man died'.
    It is playing its normal role of qualifying or defining its noun.

    When it is used predicatively, as in 'The man died young', the adjective acquires a sense approaching that of an adverb.
    As well as describing the man, it is also affecting the sense of the verb, almost as if to say: 'The man died, despite the fact that he was young'.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2012
  24. JungKim Senior Member

    Yeah, your more complex and perhaps more precise explanation, that's good and all.
    But actually, I like your simpler explanation of an adjective better.
    According to the simpler version, you don't have to split hairs between "typical" copulas and all other verbs.

    What I was asking is if the more complex and precise analysis is pedagogically worth the extra complexity when it comes to having an ESL student understand the construction.
  25. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    It is helpful to call some verbs copular and others not because if all verbs are copular, then "copular" tells us nothing.

    It is useful to call these adjectives predicative, and it is useful to distinguish sentences in which they say something about the subject...

    He sat down and ate his sandwich, exhausted.

    ...from those in which they say something about an object:

    He sat down and ate his sandwich raw.

    Of course if the verb is intransitive (another useful concept), they must say something about the subject since there is no object for them to say anything about:

    He died young.
  26. JungKim Senior Member

    As long as we understand that "exhausted", "raw" and "young" describe "he", "sandwich" and "he", respectively, what's the use of grammar terms really? In fact, such understanding is possible not because of the terms but because of the context.
  27. Tazzler Senior Member

    American English
    So that we can talk about grammar? You can explain things without too much terminology because no student likes that but sometimes it's simpler to use terms and not use roundabout descriptions.
  28. wandle

    wandle Senior Member

    English - British
    Grammar enables us, among other things, (1) to make general statements which apply to a range of expressions, not just the one in front of us, and (2) to explain why one expression is right and another is wrong.

    Young children learn by listening and relying on context. They do not yet have the mental development to let them think in abstract terms or make explicit generalisations. They learn simply by experience of one situation after another.

    By the age of puberty, if not earlier, most young people are capable of abstract thought. Once they have that ability, the task of learning can be speeded up by formulating and learning abstract rules which express general ideas, applicable to a range of particular situations.

    In this way, each grammar rule becomes a short cut to understanding many individual situations.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012
  29. JungKim Senior Member

  30. PaulQ

    PaulQ Senior Member

    English - England
    He is exhausted :tick:
    He is young :tick:

    They are adjectives.
  31. wandle

    wandle Senior Member

    English - British
    The link you give refers that list of verbs to transformational grammar.
    My own view, based on traditional grammar, is that the verb 'to be' is the copula and the other verbs are not.
    I would analyse the examples in that list as cases of a predicative adjective following an ordinary verb which is intransitive.
    What do you want to do now?
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  32. entangledbank

    entangledbank Senior Member

    English - South-East England
    Loob has already mentioned that a key distinction is that some of the adjectives are adjuncts - words not necessary for the grammaticality of the sentence - but I'll reiterate that here, and make another distinction. All the adjectives under discussion are predicated of a preceding noun phrase, either the subject or the object, without being part of it; in that sense the adjectives all have the same function. I don't think the function depends on the adjective as such (it's not the case that 'tired' goes with subjects and 'wet' with objects, for example). They can also indicate that the predicand was already that way, or became that way as a result of the verb ('walked around naked' v. 'hammered the metal flat'). Again, the adjectives probably don't intrinsically fall into two classes (cf. 'stripped her naked', 'drank the beer flat').

    But there is a division of verbs into two kinds - there's the small class we have a special name for (copular or whatever), and there's all the ordinary verbs.

    Copular verbs are those that require the adjective as a complement. Sentences are ungrammatical without it (at least in the intended meaning). This class includes verbs of being, seeming, and becoming:

    It is wet.
    It seems/looks/feels wet.
    It became/got wet. (and some idioms, such as) She fell ill. She grew tired.

    The verbs that allow adjuncts - 'strip', 'hammer', 'drink' and so on - are an open class. I don't know if almost all verbs allow this, or if there are restrictions, but they can't be easily and narrowly categorized the way copular verbs can.
  33. JungKim Senior Member

    A couple questions:

    (1) "fall" is not marked as "linking verb" or copula in all the dictionaries that I looked up in, including this:

    However, "grow" is marked as linking verb in the same dictionary:

    So, it seems that the boundary of copulas is hazy at best. No?

    (2) Even though you can't come up with any rule about all the remaining verbs, you have no problem using them grammatically, copularly or not. Isn't that because you don't have to know any rules but the basic meaning of the verbs and context?
  34. entangledbank

    entangledbank Senior Member

    English - South-East England
    (1) No, my characterization was inaccurate: I listed 'grew tired' as an idiom; in fact 'grow' is fairly widely used to mean "become", so it should have said 'became/got/grew' (as it originally did) - but with an adjective other than 'wet', which is why I changed it. But 'fall' is restricted to one or a few idioms. I don't have any lists of these things - I am just thinking of them on the spot, so am liable to miss things.

    So (2) the point is, I suppose, that a closed class can be listed and marked as such in dictionaries, and it's one that we learn and generalize as a class. That is, the 'rule' includes a knowledge of class membership.
  35. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    When come or fall means something like "become", it is a copula. Perhaps sat can be a copula in some context, but I do not see it as a copula in "The car sat idle all winter", since we can omit idle, and "all winter" is adverbial.
  36. MikeLynn

    MikeLynn Senior Member

    I've read a nice explanation for copular verbs: if they can be replaced by be and the meaning is basically the same, they are copulas and it seems to be true because it usually works. For example feel, smell, taste, sound, look, as well as for become, get, grow, go, turn used for something that changes, where be would describe only the result of the process, not the process itself. Of course, it depends on the particular meaning of the verb when it is about senses—It smells really good=it "is" really good while in Why are you smelling that meat? it describes the action. This might be a bit off, but it did help me a llittle to understand the difference. M&L
  37. wandle

    wandle Senior Member

    English - British
    It still seems to me that the traditional analysis which says that the verb is intransitive and the adjective is predicative is much simpler and saves the learner from (a) trying to classify various verbs as copulas and (b) wondering what use he is then supposed to make of this classification (as in post 29).

    The WordRef dictionary (Concise OED) gives the following:

    copula noun
    Logic & Grammar
    a connecting word, in particular a form of the verb be connecting a subject and complement.

    This is the traditional grammatical definition.
    The only verb to qualify as copula is the verb 'to be', and then only when it is connnecting subject and complement.

    This definition dispenses with any need to classify other verbs as copula or not.
    The present thread goes to show that listing other verbs under this heading causes puzzlement to the learner and does not offer any real benefit in learning the language.

    When in May 1887 Colonel "Buffalo Bill" Cody brought his Wild West show to London, Queen Victoria went to Earls Court to see it. The story goes that after the show, Chief Sitting Bull was brought before her, still wearing the headdress, loin cloth and moccasins of the redskin brave.
    'Are you not cold?' the Queen, in her elaborate garments, reportedly enquired.
    'Ma'am', he is said to have replied, 'You face cold?'
    'Me all face'.

    If we put Sitting Bull's words into standard English, we have: 'Is your face cold?' and 'I am all face'.
    He had made himself fully understood without the verb 'to be'. (Some languages do not have it at all.)

    That is the true test, in my opinion, of a copula: namely, whether you can omit it with no loss of meaning.
    By this test, none of the other verbs put forward in this thread or on the linked list can qualify as copulas.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  38. JungKim Senior Member

    If you can omit it without changing any meaning, all you have proved is that the omitted thing was not in fact functioning as claimed, i.e. as a copula. No?
  39. wandle

    wandle Senior Member

    English - British
    'Copula' means 'link'. Its function is to connect A to B: for example, 'Life is real, life is earnest' (in Sitting Bull language: 'Life real, life earnest').
    It does not contribute any distinct meaning as a verb.

    When there is a verb with a distinct meaning of its own ('He reached the station exhausted') then it is a genuine verb, not a copula (mere link).
  40. SevenDays Senior Member

    My two cents, which might (or might not) be of help.

    He reached the station exhausted
    I separate syntax (structure) from semantics (meaning). In terms of syntax, this "exhausted" is part of the predicate (it belongs in the verb phrase), and I analyze it as such. Here, "exhausted" is a participle (adjective) in form but it functions like an adverb because it modifies the verb (as an adjunct). As an adverb, we can shift "exhausted" to the front of the sentence: Exhausted, he reached the station. To give it a fancy name, I'd call "exhausted" an absolute participle: a participle that has no syntactic/grammatical subject of its own and which functions like an adverb. Of course, "exhausted" has a relationship with "he," but that is a semantic analysis based on the meaning of the sentence. By the way, I don't see "reached" as a linking verb. It has two syntactic features lacking in a linking verb: a complement ("the station") and an adjunct ("exhausted").

    He died young
    I confess that here my mind works as it does in Spanish: the only truly "linking" verb is "to be," which is largely devoid of meaning (though it does convey "existence") and whose main function is to join two structures (subject and complement), in the process indicating features such as grammatical time (is, was) or mood (might be). All the other verbs that are said to be "linking" have inherent meaning and are intransitive. What the linking verb "to be" has in common with the intransitive verb "die" is that they both belong in the predicate and predicate something of the subject, here in the form of the adjective "young:" he was young; he died young. But all this may be too fine a distinction. According to traditional grammar, "died" is a linking verb, and "young" a subject complement.
  41. JungKim Senior Member

    If I had to pick a verb to be the one and only copula, it would have to be "seem" not "be". Like all the other verbs that can link the subject and its complement, "be" has a non-copular meaning, i.e., "exist". "Seem", however, is only used as a linking verb and has no other meaning.
    You can say, "I think, therefore I am." But you can never say, *"I think, therefore I seem".
  42. wandle

    wandle Senior Member

    English - British
    It is not a question of 'picking a verb'.
    This statement reflects the definition given by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, as quoted already:
    This definition means that the the verb 'to be' sometimes functions as a copula, and sometimes does not.
    That is because it also has the function of asserting existence, as in 'I think, therefore I am'.

    Whenever it functions as a copula, it can be omitted in imagination without loss of meaning, as in the Sitting Bull story.
    Whenever it asserts existence, it can be replaced by the verb 'to exist', but it cannnot be omitted, even in imagination, without loss of meaning.

    The verb 'to seem', on the other hand, does not pass the Sitting Bull test, because it always carries a distinct meaning of its own, namely 'appear'. Therefore it can never be omitted without altering the meaning.

    The verb 'to seem' can be used on its own without a complement perfectly well.

    Network World
    Everything's a scam ... or so it seems.

    Happiness U-Shaped? So it Seems.

    CT Post
    This garden installation in front of Paris City Hall is not what it seems.

    The Last Arena
    This photo is not what it seems.

    As for 'I think, therefore I seem', that is grammatically a correct sentence.
    The only problem with it is its semantic meaning. Many people would say that it is not a true statement.
    That does not alter the fact that is a valid sentence, grammatically speaking.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  43. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    I believe "I think, therefore I seem" is not grammatical. Seem requires a complement such as so in your first two examples and what in your other two.

    SevenDays has mentioned looking at the original two sentences from a Spanish language perspective, a perspective from which it is clear that neither sentence uses a linking verb. In fact Spanish has over a dozen ways to say "is". For example, Spanish uses one verb to say "Ice is cold" and a different verb to say "He is dead." The reason is that cold is an essence, or characteristic, of ice, but in "He is dead", dead is his state, or condition, not his essence. So one of the Spanish verbs links the subject to an essence and the other links the subject to a state. The difference then is semantic, and both verbs are linking verbs. They both even pass the "Sitting Bull test", in spite of the difference in meaning. (Aren't we confusing "Sitting Bull" with Tonto, ke-mo sah-bee?)

    And in different contexts, these verbs can be translated back into different English verbs. For example, the Spanish verb used to say "He is dead" is a cognate of "stand", which we use in the same sense in "I stand corrected", and I daresay this "stand" is also a linking verb, and it too passes the "Sitting Bull test". In the same way, depending on what interpretation we give it, "stand" can also be a linking verb in "An ancient castle stands on the hill." In one interpretation, "stands" here represents a sort of personification of the castle, in another, "stands" means something like "extends upward", but "stands" can also be interpreted with no more meaning than "is" or at most "is located", and with this latter meaning, Spanish offers more than one verb, but one choice is the same "is" as in "He is dead", and they all pass the "Sitting Bull test".

    Since several Spanish verbs and English "stands" play the same role grammatically, I think a term for their function is à propos in the present discussion, even if you define copula as restricted to one verb (per language). Seem is a verb that always plays this role, whereas be serves different purposes in different sentences, so I agree with JungKim that seem is a prime example of a verb that plays this grammatical role. Seem links (or connects) its subject with its obligatory complement, which is not a direct object but acts as a description (whether applicable to what the subject names or not), and can be either adjectival or nominal.
  44. wandle

    wandle Senior Member

    English - British
    Should we really look at Spanish usage and then say 'There must exist a corresponding usage in English'?
    It is an interesting question in comparative linguistics to ask whether a given usage exists in both languages. In some cases, the answer will be Yes, in some cases No; but it seems unwarranted to argue that usage must be the same in both.
    Why would you define copula like that?
    As far as I know, no one has done so. It seems quite arbitrary.

    As for 'seem', we have two questions: (1) whether it can function grammatically without a complement and (2) whether it is capable of acting purely as copula: that is, having no additional semantic meaning proper to itself.

    Question (1) depends on what we call a complement. For present purposes (that is, defining a verb as a copula or not) I would agree that 'what' in the latter two examples given is a complement, but not 'so' in the former two, since it is an adverb there, not a noun or adjective equivalent. In these examples, 'so' simply means 'in that way'. It is thus internal to the sense of the verb. It does not represent some third element being equated to the subject.

    Question (2), in my view, is settled by the observation that 'seem' always carries the sense of 'appear' or 'look'.
    To say that A seems B is not the same as saying that A is B, and never can be the same.
    << Distracting example removed by moderator. >>

    Similarly, with 'stand', 'lie', 'become' etc, there is surely a distinct semantic meaning which is present in each one, but not in the neutral copula 'to be'.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2012
  45. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    My main point is that copula, when it means "linking verb", traditionally refers to any verb with certain grammatical properties, and meaninglessness is not one of the properties traditionally used to define it.

    Secondarily, I believe that no verb is devoid of meaning.

    Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists several linking verbs, including seem, and it also lists six different meanings of be as a linking verb.

    Using the traditional meaning I am familiar with, the term "linking verb" does not apply to reached in "He reached the station exhausted" (linking verbs are intransitive) or to died in "His son died young" (young is an adjunct here, not a complement).
  46. wandle

    wandle Senior Member

    English - British
    Your main points? There has been no suggestion that any verb discussed here is meaningless. The question has been raised whether a verb has a distinct semantic meaning besides that of a copula. The verb 'to seem' certainly does.

    Think of the experiment with three bowls of water: one very hot, one lukewarm and one very cold. First, you place your left hand in the hot water and right hand in the cold. You wait till each hand has become adjusted to the temperature in the respective bowl. Then you place both hands at the same time in the lukewarm water.

    Now you find that your left hand registers the tepid water as cold and your right hand registers it as hot.
    We can describe this situation in correct English by saying that the tepid water seems hot and cold at the same time. However, we cannot correctly say that the tepid water is hot and cold at the same time.

    This shows (a) that the verb 'to seem' has a semantic meaning, namely 'to appear', distinct from any copulative function and (b) that the verb 'to be' does not have that additional meaning.

    I believe a similar analysis will apply to the other words which have been put forward as copulas, including all those on the list linked by JungKim. I expect it would apply also to those on Merriam Webster's list (though I have not seen it).
    What are the six meanings of 'be'? It seems to me that 'to be', as the copula, asserts a relation between A and B either of identity, equivalence or inclusion. I suppose that if B is either a noun or adjective equivalent, that gives in principle at least six possibilities.
    My main points are (1) that the verbs 'reached' and 'died' are not copulas, (2) that the linked list of verbs considered to be copulas in transformational grammar can be analysed as intransitive verbs followed by predicative adjectives, (3) that only the verb 'to be' acts a pure copula and (4) that this analysis is easier for learners of English than the theory of transformational grammar.
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  47. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    Aren't identity, equivalence, and inclusion distinct semantic meanings?

    And equivalence is a broad category. In "God is love" (an example of be as a copula from MW), is is a copula in the traditional grammatical sense even though I don't think it quite passes the "Sitting Bull test".

    In the tradition I am familiar with from school and dictionaries, a copula is a copula by virtue of its grammatical function irrespective of the semantic difference between, for example, equivalence and appearance.
  48. MikeLynn

    MikeLynn Senior Member

    I've been reading the previous posts and all the information given is really interesting. But, how about have that, at least I think so, hasn't been mentioned yet? Have as in I have/am having dinner is, according to some grammar books copulative, while have as in I have a car is notional, and there are some limitations: the copulative have can be "never" used in the have got form and cannot be used in progressive/continuous while the notional one gladly accepts the have got form, but excludes the progressive. Thank you for any input :) M&L
    as a notional verb is usually means to posses, own or "posses" used for diseases, family members etc.
    while as a copulative/copular/linking/link verb or a copula it derives the meaning from the word that follows-eat (dinner), drink (a cup of coffee), organize (a party), experience (I'm having a time of my life) and more
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  49. Loob

    Loob Senior Member

    English UK
    Hi M&L

    I don't think I've seen have described as a copular verb, and it wouldn't fit my understanding of "copula(r)": "copula(r)", to me, indicates a verb which requires a complement that refers back to the subject. (Others may see things differently.)

    I did learn from a previous thread, though, that verbs like the have in "have dinner" can be called 'delexical': see delexical verbs.

  50. MikeLynn

    MikeLynn Senior Member

    Thank you Loob, I'll check out the link and, hopefully, I'll learn something new. M&L

Share This Page