Just today I again read an article about someone who was charged with "drunken driving." The term "drunken driving" never has seemed right to me. I realize that "drunken" is an adjective and "driving" is a noun, so I am not sure what is bothering me about it. Does anyone else feel that way?

It seems fine and normal to me. However, if you stop to think about it, it's not the driving that's drunk, it's the driver.

"Driving while intoxicated" takes longer to say and uses more ink, thus the shorthand term - or so I suppose.

Aha! You are right, arnie. That's it! I bet the author of Proof's article wouldn't like that use.

My pet peeve is "The car lost control and hit the house." Obviously it's the driver who loses control, not the car.

Again, the other day our local paper had a story about "the car fired five shots and drove away." Now that is a dangerous vehicle.

Well, I can see that a car can't fire shots, but doesn't the car lose control? I realize the driver does, too.

[Edited typo]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

The car is inanimate and cannot gain control, unless some AI is involved.

Yes, I see your point. My mistake.

quote:

However, if you stop to think about it, it's not the driving that's drunk, it's the driver.

I am not sure I buy this explanation. What if I say the "The man was known for his fast driving."? Isn't this analogous to "The man was known for his drunken driving." In these two examples, the adjectives "fast" and "drunken" refer to the driving, not the driver.

The point is the term "drunken driving" is not saying the driving is "drunk", but rather, that it is "drunken".

Of course, the term "drunk driving" is very common, and again, I believe this use does actually describe the driving, and says nothing about the driver! Of course, "drunk driving" does require a drunk driver to actually produce it! Egad!

If we want to be pedantic, as mentioned earlier, 'drunken' is an adjective modifying a verb. An adverbial form, 'drunkenly' would perhaps be preferable, giving us 'He was arrested for driving drunkenly'.

And - we do like to be pedantic here, don't we?

It depends on just how pedantic we want to be. In this instance I suggest that "driving" is not a verb, but a noun gerund formed from the verb "drive". Thus either "drunk" in "drunk driving" or "drunken" in "drunken driving" would be adjectives describing the noun gerund "driving".

The whole construction of the sentence clearly uses "driving" as a noun. The following two sentences are grammatically parallel:

"The man was arrested for utter carelessness."
"The man was arrested for drunken driving."

... or so I see it, anyway.

BTW, adjectives don't modify verbs, adverbs do.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WeeWilly,

Is there a difference between being pedantic and being prescriptive in language? I am thinking there is no difference, but I could be convinced otherwise.

quote:

Is there a difference between being pedantic and being prescriptive in language? I am thinking there is no difference, but I could be convinced otherwise.

Possibly not, but I am unclear how this applies to the discussion. The point is that, as used in the sentence "The man was arrested for drunken driving", driving is not a verb, but a noun (a "noun gerund" from the verb "drive"), and "drunken" is an adjective describing it! That is simply the explanation of the particular grammar at work here. So, is this pedantic, or simply an explanation in response to a question?

"Drunken driving", or the more common "drunk driving" is an offense like "careless driving", "driving without due care and attention", or "robbery", and is noun, able to stand alone as a noun, in the absence of any "performing agency" - as it were. The following illustrates:

"Drunken driving is among society's biggest scourges!"

Cheers.

Related to pedantic, I was just responding to arnie above.