very/much/very much

[navi tasan]

1) My car was very damaged by the accident.
2) My car was much damaged by the accident.
3) My car was very much damaged by the accident.

4) I was very encouraged by my teacher.
5) I was much encouraged by my teacher.
6) I was very much encouraged by my teacher.

7) I was very encouraged by my grades.
8) I was much encouraged by my grades.
9) I was very much encouraged by my grades.

The reason I have three batches is that I have heard that there is a difference between past participles of verbs that refer to psychological states and those of other verbs and also that there is a difference between when we have a personal agent and when we have a non-personal agent.

 

[Tarheel]

I would say the car was severely damaged or extensively damaged or seriously damaged. The others are okay.

 

[jutfrank]

Let's take just three at at time.

1) The words very and damaged don't collocate well. Use a different adverb, like 'badly' or 'seriously' or 'severely'.
2) That's wrong.
3) That's possible but it's an odd thing to say. It doesn't mean what I think you think it means.

I'd love to know what you've heard about verbs that refer to psychological states and the difference between when we have a personal and non-personal agent. Please could you explain?

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Jutfrank,

As to where I got my idea from, first, let's consider the fact that there are some adjectives that look like past participles (unimpressed). Now, adjectives can be modified with 'very' (we say 'very good' but not 'very much good').

When we have a real past participle (a verbal -ed participle form) then one might expect that 'very' would not work. That is not always the case.

One might also think that when we have a 'by phrase' following an -ed participle form, then the -ed participle form is necessary verbal and is not an adjective. That too is false.

"We were unimpressed by his attempts."

"A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language", Quirk et al., Longman, London and New York, 1985, p. 168.

"Unimpressed" is not even a verb.

So when can an -ed participle be modified by very?


"Generally, -ed participle forms accepting very can retain very when they co-uccur with a by phrase containing a nonpersonal semi-agent (cf 3.76):
I'm very disturbed by your attitude.
We were very pleased by his behaviour.
Also, as we have seen, personal agents sometimes occur in this construction, as in:
I was very influenced by my college professors.

Ibid. p.415

All these verbs seem to refer to psychological states.


I have been told (and I cannot give you a reference for this), that sentences such as 'I'm very disturbed by your attitude." were not acceptable in the past. Usage seems to have evolved.

So, as you see things are a bit vague here. We have psychological states, and other things. We have non--personal agents and personal agents, and in this case we don't have hard and fast rules.

Now, back to sentence '3'. What does it mean?

Would you say that 'very much' means 'indeed' in that sentence? Is the sentence a retort to the statement: 'Your car wasn't damaged.'?
I thought that would be expressed as: 'My car very much was damaged.'
And I think that usage of 'very much' is very old-fashioned.

Gratefully,
Navi

 

[jutfrank]

Thank you for explaining, Navi. I understand what you mean now.

I had the following use of very much in mind:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/very-much

Would you say that 'very much' means 'indeed' in that sentence? Is the sentence a retort to the statement: 'Your car wasn't damaged.'?
I thought that would be expressed as: 'My car very much was damaged.'

That's right, yes.

And I think that usage of 'very much' is very old-fashioned.

It isn't especially old-fashioned. It's still quite common.

 

[emsr2d2]

"Unimpressed" is not even a verb.

Is that a general statement or were you referring solely to the sentence you quoted? If it's the former, that's wrong. See HERE.

 

[jutfrank]

I agree with navi tasan that 'unimpress' is not a verb. At least, it's so rare that it isn't listed as such in any dictionaries I've checked.

Just to note: the Wiktionary page cites it as a back formation of the adjective 'unimpressed'.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you both very much,

The sentences is from book.
"A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language", Quirk et al., Longman, London and New York, 1985, p. 168.

I had given the reference for the sentence.

Here is what the book says (on that very same page):

Even -ed adjectives which have no corresponding active infinitive or finite verb forms may occasionally have agent by-phrases:
We were unimpressed by his attempts.

*His attempts unimpressed us.
His attempts did not impress us.

As you can see 'His attempts unimpressed us.' is considered incorrect.

Now, language might have evolved since the publication of the book, and 'unimpress' might have gained some limited acceptance as a verb. (My spellchecker considers it incorrect, by the way.) I don't believe that that will affect the argument of the book regarding -ed participles.


Gratefully,
Navi