question for linguists, please

[jirikoo]

Hey guys,

I am trying to atomize this sentence:

She has not taken her hands off me all night.

Can you help me.

1) What is the direct object in this sentence?
2) Supposing her hands is the direct object, what is the personal pronoun me to the phrasal verb take off?

[OddThomas]

The phrasal verb take off means a number of things, such as to launch oneself into flight, to remove ones clothing, to discount the price of something, to leave in a hurry, and other things. None of the meanings include removing ones hands from something or someone.

Given that, we can use the simple meaning of take, coupled with the preposition off, to take hands (hands=direct object of take) off me (me=object of preposition off).

[jirikoo]

The phrasal verb take off means a number of things, such as to launch oneself into flight, to remove ones clothing, to discount the price of something, to leave in a hurry, and other things. None of the meanings include removing ones hands from something or someone.

Given that, we can use the simple meaning of take, coupled with the preposition off, to take hands (hands=direct object of take) off me (me=object of preposition off).

OddThomas, the usage is colloquial, loosely meaning removing sth./sb. off sth. / sb.

The sentence quoted is actually a full transcript of a phrase from Sienfeld im just watching.

This verb belongs amongst so called obligatorily separable phrasal verbs in which the direct object is always between the main verb a the preposition of the phrasal verb. There are obviously many more like this. Eg. get a plumber in, take eyes off, talk sb. into sth., talk sb. out (of).

Please dont confuse it with so called prepositional verbs!

What im asking is what is the "me" to the direct object "hands" in that aforementioned connection. Is it an object complement?

[Marius Hancu]

I'd take:

verb: has not taken
direct object: her hands
place/manner adverbial (implemented as a prepositional nominal phrase): off me
time adverbial: all night

[Bridget]

Sounds like a figure of speech in the thread example.

[MrPedantic]

I have to admit, I can't see a problem with "hands" as the direct object of "take" and "off me" as a prepositional phrase.

The other examples are of two different kinds:

1. get a plumber in
— "plumber" = object, "in" = adverb.

2. take [one's] eyes off [something]
— same as original example.

3. talk sb into sth.
— same as original.

4. talk sb. out
— as #1.

MrP

[jirikoo]

I'd take:

verb: has not taken ok
direct object: her hands ok
place/manner adverbial (implemented as a prepositional nominal phrase): off me is it? after all the "off" is still a part of the phrasal verb (it's not a prepositional phrase "off sth", thus a modifier - adverbial to the direct object)
time adverbial: all night fair enough


just my two cents

[Bridget]

Given that, we can use the simple meaning of take,

Which would be?

I think I agree with Ot's take on this. Afterall, if it was put as "he hasn't taken/removed his hands from me all night", we wouldn't claim that "take/remove from" is a phrasal verb, now would we?

[jirikoo]

fair enough


just my two cents


so once again, "take off" is meant to be an obligatorily separable phrasal verb with the direct object "my hands".

Simple question - simple answer:
Talk into - phrasal verb obligatorily separable

I talked him into the action.

him - DO
the action - ????

[Bridget]

so once again, "take off" is meant to be an obligatorily separable phrasal verb with the direct object "my hands".



I would say it is a prepositional verb, above, and not a phrasal verb.

[jirikoo]

I would say it is a prepositional verb, above, and not a phrasal verb.


With all due respect, Bridget, you are not right.

Here is a proof.


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=81210&dict=CALD

[MrPedantic]

For interest, here is the CALD's definition of "phrasal verb":


phrasal verb
noun [C]
a phrase which consists of a verb in combination with a preposition or adverb or both, the meaning of which is different from the meaning of its separate parts:
'Look after', 'work out' and 'make up for' are all phrasal verbs.



(Unfortunately they don't have a definition for "prepositional verb".)

MrP

[Bridget]

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-phrasal-verbs_1.htm

[jirikoo]

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-phrasal-verbs_1.htm


what a coincidence, im just looking up this website.

its pretty twisted there anyway, because their claim that for example wait for is a transitive verb in the form "John is waiting for Mary", with "Mary" being a direct object, which is nonsensical.

I believe, prepositional verbs are verbs bearing preposition objects only - no direct objects.


Further, they set an example of "look after" as being a prepositional phrase. Again, i think, its a inseparable phrasal verb. In this context, there is only a fine line between them.

[Pete]

I had never run into the distinction that Bridget's referenced web site makes, but it appears useful to me. I'd say that it doesn't really change the grammar-- just makes it easier to talk about by using different terms for structurally different things.

I think the distinction between a "prepositional verb" (or equivalently, a phrasal verb of the "v+prep" variety) and a verb plus a prepositional phrase is that in the first case, the meaning is something more than or different from the meaning of the verb coupled with the meaning of the preposition. Because the phrase as a whole has a unique meaning, the speaker thinks of the phrase as a unit. Take for example,
- The authorities should look into those allegations. (prepositional verb + direct object)
- He looked into the box. (Intransitive verb + prepositional phrase)

It makes a difference with passive forms:
- The allegations were looked into several times, but no charges were ever filed. (That sounds OK to me.)
- The box was looked into. (Sounds like the sort of sentence that you should avoid.)

'Course I'm certainly no linguist; just try, when I can, to help people speak and understand English.

[Marius Hancu]

>place/manner adverbial (implemented as a prepositional nominal phrase): off me is it? after all the "off" is still a part of the phrasal verb (it's not a prepositional phrase "off sth", thus a modifier - adverbial to the direct object)

-----
Type II (transitive) phrasal verbs

When the object is a personal pronoun, the SVOA order is in fact the only one allowable:

*They switched on it. [*: not correct]
They switched it on.

Quirk et al, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, p. 1154
-------

Thus this is a transitive phrasal verb, and on is considered as A (adverbial).

[Bridget]

I had never run into the distinction that Bridget's referenced web site makes, but it appears useful to me.

http://www.google.es/search?hl=en&q=%22prepositional+verbs%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=


Because the phrase as a whole has a unique meaning, the speaker thinks of the phrase as a unit.


Yes, and new units are springing up daily:

"About to" and "want to/wanna" (in some uses) are examples.

[Bridget]

BASIC VERB: to look - PREPOSITIONAL VERB: to look for
BASIC VERB: to look - PHRASAL VERB: to look down

[jirikoo]

>place/manner adverbial (implemented as a prepositional nominal phrase): off me is it? after all the "off" is still a part of the phrasal verb (it's not a prepositional phrase "off sth", thus a modifier - adverbial to the direct object)

-----
Type II (transitive) phrasal verbs

When the object is a personal pronoun, the SVOA order is in fact the only one allowable:

*They switched on it. [*: not correct]
They switched it on.

Quirk et al, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, p. 1154
-------

Thus this is a transitive phrasal verb, and on is considered as A (adverbial).




Marius, but there are also some obligatorily phrasal verbs depending on a meaning that are separable regardless of a personal pronoun used.

get into
get in
talk into
talk out
set apart (many phrasal verbs with the particle "apart", unless intransitive)
ask out

http://esllanguageschools.suite101.com/article.cfm/english_phrasal_verbs_for_esl_students


...based on your concept you could not replace the personal pronoun with a name of the person for instance as it would at once become optionally separable.
You are not wrong, what im saying is there is also another group of phrasal verbs that allows us to insert any kind of direct object between the verb and the particle.

[Marius Hancu]

It's not me, you're talking Quirk here, as I am quoting them.

They mark that
*They switched on it.
as incorrect, not me.

I just wanted to tell you that "off," as suggested by me and MrPedantic, can be considered an (part of) an adverbial.

What you do with this information/POV I don't honestly care, but it's legitimate.

[MrPedantic]

BASIC VERB: to look - PREPOSITIONAL VERB: to look for


BASIC VERB: to look - PHRASAL VERB: to look down


In which sense would "look down" be a phrasal verb, if "look for" is a prepositional?

MrP

[Bridget]

In which sense would "look down" be a phrasal verb, if "look for" is a prepositional?

MrP

When "down" is an adverb particle.

[MrPedantic]

What would be an example of "look down" where "down" was an adverbial particle?

I can only think of prepositional or straightforwardly adverbial examples.

MrP

[Bridget]

I look down on forum stalkers.

[MrPedantic]

I'm not sure I would classify "look down on" as a phrasal verb; it is a metaphor whose meaning is easily inferred from its components.

MrP

[Bridget]

I'm not sure I would classify "look down on" as a phrasal verb; it is a metaphor whose meaning is easily inferred from its components.

MrP

I see. So what definition of "phrasal verb" are you using?

[MrPedantic]

I see. So what definition of "phrasal verb" are you using?

I don't much mind the usual definitions. But I would not call a verb + adverb/preposition combination "phrasal" or "prepositional" or "phrasal-prepositional" unless the combination created a sense that was different from the sum of the parts.

Thus:

1. I walked across the road ] not phrasal / prepositional (apologies to Wikiphiles)

2. You'll have to put up with it. ] phrasal / phrasal-prepositional

MrP

[Bridget]

2. You'll have to put up with it. ] phrasal / phrasal-prepositional

MrP

Personally, I'd say the "look down on" in "he looks down on most of his colleagues" isn't easily identified as "despreciar" for most of our Spanish ESL students. Some might have trouble with "beauty looks down on the ugly" or "beauty looks down on early mornings". Not you and yours though, eh?

[MrPedantic]

Personally, I'd say the "look down on" in "he looks down on most of his colleagues" isn't easily identified as "despreciar" for most of our Spanish ESL students.

That should be unsurprising, since the underlying metaphor in "-preciar" formations relates to "setting a price on"; which is quite different from the underlying metaphor in "look down on".

Perhaps if you were to bring out the physical aspects of "look down on", your students would find it easier to remember.

MrP

[Bridget]

Perhaps if you were to bring out the physical aspects of "look down on", your students would find it easier to remember.

As in "thank goodness God is looking down on us"? See what I mean?

[Bridget]

Would you call this a phrasal verb, MrP?

come on in

[MrPedantic]

As in "thank goodness God is looking down on us"?

That is simply a variant of the literal meaning. Cf.

1. I look down on the town ] literal
2. I look down on metalinguists ] metaphorical.

MrP

[Bridget]

That is simply a variant of the literal meaning. Cf.

1. I look down on the town ] literal
2. I look down on metalinguists ] metaphorical.

MrP

Yes, and the second is metaphorical enough to warrant the label "phrasal verb".

[MrPedantic]

Yes, and the second is metaphorical enough to warrant the label "phrasal verb".

On the contrary; it would be when a compound verb was no longer perceptibly metaphorical that you might label it a "phrasal verb".

While it's "metaphorical enough", the original meaning is still perceptibly present.

MrP

[Bridget]

While it's "metaphorical enough", the original meaning is still perceptibly present.


phrasal verb noun, grammar a phrase consisting of a verb plus an adverb or preposition, or both, frequently with a meaning or meanings that cannot be determined from the meanings of the individual words, eg let on or come up with something.

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=phrasal+verb&title=21st

As said, frequently, i.e. not always. Which some means that "look down on" can still be labeled as a phrasal verb even when "the original meaning is still perceptibly present".





As always, MrP, we disagree. I think "look down on" will remain a phrasal verb for some and you think we are all mistaken for thinking it is so. Life goes on.

[MrPedantic]

Of course, if you call collocations "phrasal verbs" where the meaning can be determined from the components, your circumscription will include ordinary combinations of verb + preposition / adverb, e.g.

1. I gave it to the police officer ] give sth to = phrasal verb
2. I walked sadly across the road ] walk + sadly + across = phrasal verb
3. I ate in the kitchen ] eat + in = phrasal verb

Which is clearly absurd.

MrP

[Bridget]

Which is clearly absurd.


So for you, with phrasal verbs, the meaning can never be determined from the components, right?

So this is not a phrasal verb for you, is it?

I hope you get over your operation quickly.

[MrPedantic]

Cf.

On the contrary; it would be when a compound verb was no longer perceptibly metaphorical that you might label it a "phrasal verb".


MrP

[Bridget]

Cf.

On the contrary; it would be when a compound verb was no longer perceptibly metaphorical that you might label it a "phrasal verb".

MrP

Are you alone in thinking so?

[Bridget]

IMO:

He slipped on a sweater. phrasal verb
She slipped on the ice. prepositional verb
The IRA blew up the bridge. pharsal verb
The smoke blew up the chimney. prepositional verb
The boy ate up the cake. phrasal verb
The friends ate up at at Ken's Place. prepositional verb
The boss looked over my report. phrasal verb
The neighbour looked over the fence at me. prepositional verb

[MrPedantic]

Cf.

1. "Where was the neighbour looking?" "Over the fence."

Thus

2. The neighbour looked over the fence

is simply a verb + a prepositional phrase.

MrP

[Bridget]

For you, MrP.

[MrPedantic]

If you want to classify innumerable combinations of verb + preposition as "prepositional verbs", then naturally you are free to do so.

It does somewhat neutralise the usefulness of the phrase, of course; and it implies a wonderfully Swiftian inefficacy (see the Voyage to Laputa). But the whim will no doubt be replaced by some other pressing concern, some time soon.

MrP

[Bridget]

Let me see if I can get time to read that classic English language literary heritage work.

[MrPedantic]

Do so. You would find it apposite.

MrP

[Bridget]

Do so. You would find it apposite.

MrP

As might you with this.

http://www.amazon.com/Hardcover-Longman-Grammar-Written-English/dp/0582237254

We live in hope.

[Bridget]

From MrP's take on this, I get the feeling that we could use either of these to mean the same:

He looks down on/at his colleagues.

And, according to Huddleston, these are prepositional verbs:

refer to
apply for
approve of
attend to
decide on
accuse ... of
confine ... to
interest ... in
protect ... from
lend ... to
buy ... for

What's do you think, folks?

[Bridget]

We mocked them as they strolled through our town.

What did they stroll through?
Where did they stroll?

Therefore:

"Where was the neighbour looking?" "Over the fence."

Who/what was the neighbour looking over at?
Where was the neighbour looking?

Your question transformation test has flaws, MrP.

[MrPedantic]

No; your example fails the phrasal/prepositional verb test:

1. Where did they look? Over the fence.
2. Where did they stroll? Through the town.

#1 & #2 can be separated into verb + prepositional phrase with no loss of meaning; therefore they are not phrasal/prepositional verbs.

Cf.

3. *What didn't he put up? With all this paperwork.
4. *What did he apply? For the job.

#3 and #4 can't be separated into verb + prepositional phrase. Therefore they are phrasal/prepositional verbs.

MrP

[Bridget]

No; your example fails the phrasal/prepositional verb test:

There are many tests, but not all of them can be trusted. Are you then saying that with prepositional verbs, the verb can never be separated from the preposition?

I guess "?*the wall was looked over" is an OK passive for you.

And are you a Götz/Herbst man at heart, MrP? Methinks you are.

[Bridget]

Builder: I'll look the wall over and give you a quote. -phrasal verb

Nosy person: Look over the wall. - prepositional verb
Nosy person: I'll *look the wall over - impossible to be a prepositional verb

[MrPedantic]

Are you then saying that with prepositional verbs, the verb can never be separated from the preposition?

I'm saying that if a division into verb-question and preposition-answer disrupts the usual meaning of the combination, then the verb is prepositional.

If it doesn't disrupt the usual meaning, it's simply a verb + prepositional phrase.

Your system, on the other hand, would make any verb + preposition combination a "prepositional verb".

The latter would therefore cease to be a useful term. (What would it distinguish?)

MrP

[Bridget]

Your system, on the other hand, would make any verb + preposition combination a "prepositional verb".

Not necessarily. I see you haven't considered collocational fixity in all this.

Also, regarding lexicalisation in prepositional verbs:

"Whereas a sequence of verb and preposition like live at is a purely non-idiomatic free combination, in prepositional verbs like look at, look for, etc. the verb has literal use but a fixed association with the preposition. These cases may , in turn, be distinguished from prepositional verbs, e.g. go in ('investigate') where both words form a semantically idiomatic (often metaphorical) unit.

Quirk et al. (1985, 1156) in Superlative Verbs, by Beate Hampe.

[MrPedantic]

This then is your quotee's position:

1. He lives at No. 10.
— non-idiomatic free combination; thus not a prepositional verb.

2. He looks at the policeman outside No. 10.
— fixed association between verb + preposition; thus prepositional verb.

How is "look at" in #2 different in kind from "live at" in #1?

MrP

[Bridget]

Are you really interested in the answer, MrP? It seems to me you can't see the wood for the valency, and no matter what I or Quirk et al. say, you'll still stick by what you believe in.

For others who may really be interested, ask what word could replace live at in MrP's sentence above. You might also want to apply the question test - using Wh-questions(e.g. "Where does he live?", "Who does he look at?"). MrP seems to believe in that test. Lastly, think "cline". Think "relatively free" and "relatively fixed".

Lastly, lastly (;-)), think of "live at/in/inside X" and "look at/?/? X".

[jirikoo]

Are you really interested in the answer, MrP? It seems to me you can't see the wood for the valency, and no matter what I or Quirk et al. say, you'll still stick by what you believe in.

For others who may really be interested, ask what word could replace live at in MrP's sentence above. You might also want to apply the question test - using Wh-questions(e.g. "Where does he live?", "Who does he look at?"). MrP seems to believe in that test. Lastly, think "cline". Think "relatively free" and "relatively fixed".

Lastly, lastly (;-)), think of "live at/in/inside X" and "look at/?/? X".


For me, the collocations such as look at, live at, think of, etc. are clearly prepositional verbs. They are definitely not phrasal verbs albeit there is a fine line between some phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs.

[Bridget]

For me, the collocations such as look at, live at, think of, etc. are clearly prepositional verbs.


In what way/s is live at a prepositional verb?

[jirikoo]

there is a little bit of discrepancy of how to define prepositional verbs as opposed to phrasal verbs. Although I do not think it is so general, many sources quote a prepositional verb as:

verb + preposition + object

...when they often, IMHO incorrectly, include regular inseparable phrasal verbs such as look after, get at, etc.


The thing is that some experts seem to mistake inseparable phrasal verbs with prepositional verbs.From my point of view, there is a slight difference between them.

Lets take look after

This website http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/phrasal-verbs/look+after.html presents this verb as phrasal verb with the direct object.

Contrary to this, a website states on their http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-phrasal-verbs_1.htm that look after is prepositional verb while mixing it with some other verbs that are evidently not of the same kind...


Bridget, as for live at; what else would you call it then....?

[jirikoo]

there is a little bit of discrepancy of how to define prepositional verbs as opposed to phrasal verbs. Although I do not think it is so general, many sources quote a prepositional verb as:

verb + preposition + object

...when they often, IMHO incorrectly, include regular inseparable phrasal verbs such as look after, get at, etc.


The thing is that some experts seem to mistake inseparable phrasal verbs with prepositional verbs.From my point of you, there is a slight difference between them.

Lets take look after

This website http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/phrasal-verbs/look+after.html presents this verb as phrasal verb with the direct object.

Contrary to this, a website states on their http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-phrasal-verbs_1.htm that look after is prepositional verb while mixing it with some other verbs that are evidently not of the same kind...


Bridget, as for live at; what else would you call it then....?


or, on the second thought, there might me be one more explanation. English does not make differences in definitions of inseparable phrasal verbs and and phrases that bear the structure: verb + preposition + object. they might be all called prepositional verbs.

if that take effect, there is one more aspect of all of this: Inseparable phrasal verbs bear a direct object whereas the structure of prepositional verbs not (eg.: I go to cinema)

to - object of the verb
cinema - a prepositional object of the verb and an object of the perposition
to cinema - verb complement

[Bridget]

Bridget, as for live at; what else would you call it then....?

Some would call it a free combination.

[MrPedantic]

You might also want to apply the question test - using Wh-questions(e.g. "Where does he live?", "Who does he look at?").



1. Which house does he live at? No. 10.
2. Who does he look at? The policeman.
3. Where does he live? At No. 10.
4. Where does he look? At the policeman.

What's the difference?


Lastly, lastly (;-)), think of "live at/in/inside X" and "look at/?/? X".

1. live at / in / inside No. 10.
2. look at / in / inside No. 10

What's the difference?

MrP

[Bridget]

1. Which house does he live at? No. 10.
2. Who does he look at? The policeman.
3. Where does he live? At No. 10.
4. Where does he look? At the policeman.

What's the difference?

Is the #4. the expected question from "He looks at the policeman"?



1. live at / in / inside No. 10.
2. look at / in / inside No. 10

What's the difference?



Do you think the basic meaning changes with the change of preposition in #1?

Not sure of your position in all of this at this moment, MrP. What for you, are "live at" and "look at"?

[Bridget]

That should be unsurprising, since the underlying metaphor in "-preciar" formations relates to "setting a price on"; which is quite different from the underlying metaphor in "look down on".



MrP

Here you go:

despreciarin context (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=es&lr=lang_es&q=despreciar) | images (http://images.google.com/images?hl=es&safe=on&q=despreciar)des·pre·ciar Verb

despise (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/despise.php), disdain (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/disdain.php), flout (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/flout.php), hold in contempt (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/hold%20in%20contempt.php), look down on (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/look%20down%20on.php), look down upon (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/look%20down%20upon.php), scorn (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/scorn.php), slight (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/slight.php), sneer at (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/sneer%20at.php), spit at (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/spit%20at.php), treat with contempt (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/treat%20with%20contempt.php), turn up one's nose at (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/turn%20up%20one%27s%20nose%20at.php), view with a scornful eye (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/view%20with%20a%20scornful%20eye.php), contemn (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/contemn.php), pooh-pooh (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/pooh-pooh.php), scout (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/scout.php), spurn (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/en-es/spurn.php); Synonyms: desdeñar (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/desde%F1ar.php), aborrecer (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/aborrecer.php), abominar (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/abominar.php), desvalorar (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/desvalorar.php), mirar con desprecio (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/mirar%20con%20desprecio.php), tener a menos (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/tener%20a%20menos.php), tener en menos (http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/tener%20en%20menos.php); Menospreciar, desestimar, valorar poco a algo o alguien.; Desairar, desdeñar, maltratar moral o síquicamente, humillar, arrinconar o vilipendiar. Juan desprecia a los avaros, John despises cheapskates.

[Bridget]

So, (re the gradience from from grammar to lexis) what do you think, folks?

/look/over at Jon/
/look over/at Jon/
/look over at/Jon/
/live/at number six/
/live at/number six//be/interested/in...
be/interested in...
be/interested in/...
/be interested in/...

[Bridget]

I said above:

Lastly, think "cline". Think "relatively free" and "relatively fixed".

To add to that:

“[in] practice, it is hard to make an absolute distinction between free combinations and fixed multi-word verbs; one should rather think of a cline on which some verbs, or uses of verbs, are relatively free and others relatively fixed.”

Biber et al. (1999: 403)

Nuff said?

[MrPedantic]

Is the #4. the expected question from "He looks at the policeman"?



Expected or unexpected, the purpose of the Q&A is to demonstrate that the components may be separated without trauma.

MrP

[MrPedantic]

Here you go:

despreciar

<various rough equivalents>



That's merely a fairly basic aid for translation. It does not relate to my comment, which addresses the etymology.

(Etymologically, the underlying metaphor in "-preciar" formations relates to "setting a price on"; which is quite different from the underlying metaphor in "look down on".)

MrP

[MrPedantic]

“[in] practice, it is hard to make an absolute distinction between free combinations and fixed multi-word verbs; one should rather think of a cline on which some verbs, or uses of verbs, are relatively free and others relatively fixed.”

Biber et al. (1999: 403)

Nuff said?


It's a little peculiar to plagiarise a statement surreptitiously, and then produce that statement triumphantly in support of one's earlier plagiarisation; but at least it requires forethought, which is always to be commended.

MrP

[Bridget]

It's a little peculiar to plagiarise a statement surreptitiously,


Nice try, MrH, but I've been talking about clines for ages, and on many fora. I can see you're upset, MrH. You get like this when you are. Is it because we are reluctant to accept your take on all this?

That's merely a fairly basic aid for translation. It does not relate to my comment, which addresses the etymology.



And of course we are all aware of the etymology and underlying metaphor (as if there was always only one metaphor) of a word each time we utter it, aren't we? Take it easy, MrH. Go clutch at straws in private if you will.

[Bridget]

Expected or unexpected, the purpose of the Q&A is to demonstrate that the components may be separated without trauma.

MrP

What kind of trauma are you thinking of?


Not sure of your position in all of this at this moment, MrP. What, for you, are "live at" and "look at"?


Moving on to the passivization test, true patients, the affected, etc.

?No 10 is lived at by him.
The policeman is looked at by him.

And, here, does each preposition have a meaning of its own (e.g. spatial, temporal, etc)?

He lives at number 10.
He looks at the policeman.
We'll wait at the library.
I've arrived at a conclusion.

[MrPedantic]

What kind of trauma are you thinking of?


Disruption to the sense.


Moving on to the passivization test, true patients, the affected, etc.

?No 10 is lived at by him.
The policeman is looked at by him.



And what does that demonstrate to you?

(Remember to review your previous answers before you reply...)

MrP

[Bridget]

(Remember to review your previous answers before you reply...)

Isn't it cute how excited you get when think you're springing a trap?

You're back to asking questions and avoiding answering questions that have been put to you.

Here it is again:


Not sure of your position in all of this at this moment, MrP. What for you, are "live at" and "look at"?

[MrPedantic]

You're back to asking questions and avoiding answering questions that have been put to you.



"...de virtute locuti / clunem agitant..."



What for you, are "live at" and "look at"?


Intransitive verbs + prepositions.

MrP

[Bridget]

"...de virtute locuti / clunem agitant..."

Naa, not at all. The problem lies in your need to see yourself as master, as sage, as sensei. This type of comment comes straight from Teenage Ninja Turtles, or Kung Fu, the 70s TV show.


(Remember to review your previous answers before you reply...)


Finally:


Intransitive verbs + prepositions.


Now we know your view - remember, it is only a view. See, we can all play sensei at times. :p

[MrPedantic]

"...de virtute locuti / clunem agitant..."

This type of comment comes straight from Teenage Ninja Turtles, or Kung Fu, the 70s TV show.



?

It was Juvenal, actually.


See, we can all play sensei at times.

You are not quite ready, grasshopper.

MrP

[Bridget]

<You are not quite ready, grasshopper.

MrP>

On the contrary, I've walked your path many times and found it crooked and misleading. :p

[MrPedantic]

Consider:

1. He looks after | the boy. [prepositional verb]
2. He looks | after the boy. [verb + preposition]

In your scheme, both are classified as "prepositonal verbs". But mine permits the above distinction.

MrP

[Bridget]

In your scheme, both are classified as "prepositonal verbs".

Not at all.

He/looks after/the boy. (Takes care of him. Prep verb.)
He looks/after the boy. (Looks later than him. Non-prep verb.)

The boy was looked after by him.
*After the boy was looked by him.

So, how do you see "stare at" in the sentence below?

He stared at the moon.

1. (simple) verb + prepositional phrase (consisting of Prep + NP, in turn).
2. (complex) verb (consisting of V + Prep) and NP (as object).

And what are the substitutional properties with each of these?

he looked after/? the boy (cared for)
he looked after/before the boy (later than)

[MrPedantic]

He looks/after the boy. (Looks later than him. Non-prep verb.)



That's an interesting 3rd meaning; but mine was:

2. He looks / after [i.e. in the direction of the departing] X

MrP

[Bridget]

That's an interesting 3rd meaning; but mine was:

2. He looks / after X

MrP

If you indicate his use of sight/eyes in the action, you could replace "look after" with "follow" there, couldn't you?

I see. So you wouldn't see it as a multi-word verb, right? For you, there is no semantic unity between the particle and the verb, there. Am I right? How about these?

He goes/runs/walks after the boy. (i.e. in the direction of the departing) X

And my question, repeated from above.


So, how do you see "stare at" in the sentence below?

[I]He stared at the moon.

1. (simple) verb + prepositional phrase (consisting of Prep + NP, in turn).
2. (complex) verb (consisting of V + Prep) and NP (as object).

[Bridget]

All, which reading?

Ye shall not go / after / other gods. Deut. vi. 14.
Ye shall not / go after / other gods. Deut. vi. 14.

[MrPedantic]

I see. So you wouldn't see it as a multi-word verb, right? For you, there is no semantic unity between the particle and the verb, there. Am I right?

As I said before:


1. He looks after | the boy. [prepositional verb]
2. He looks | after the boy. [verb + preposition]


In your scheme, both are classified as "prepositonal verbs". But my analysis permits a distinction.

MrP

[Bridget]

But my analysis permits a distinction.


What analysis? You call the above analysis? And what is the meaning of your after in "He looks | after the boy. [verb + preposition]"?

So how about these?


Ye shall not go / after other gods. Deut. vi. 14.

Ye shall not / go after / other gods. Deut. vi. 14.

[MrPedantic]

what is the meaning of your after in "He looks | after the boy. [verb + preposition]"?



2. He looks / in the direction of the [departing] boy.

MrP

[Bridget]

2. He looks / in the direction of the [departing] boy.

MrP

Would there be a difference in meaning between these?

He looked after/at/toward the departing boy.
---------------------

Are these, using your meaning of "look in the direction of the departing X", acceptable?

The boy was looked after.
Who looked after the boy.

Is this acceptable to you?

A: Where did he look?
B: After the boy.

-----------------------------
And for you, these also have no semantic cohesion between the verb and particle, right?

Go/run/call after him and tell him you're sorry.
They chased after the robber.
The boogeyman is coming after you!
Her records are quite sought after.

[Bridget]

Can we say "Look after (i.e. watch) him as he leaves. It looks like he may shoplift"?

[Bridget]

Similar root meanings in all these?

Look after/watch/keep an eye on X as he departs.
Look after/watch/keep an eye on X while I pop out, will you?

[MrPedantic]

Ye shall not go / after other gods. Deut. vi. 14.

Ye shall not / go after / other gods. Deut. vi. 14.



Simply "go" + "after" [verb + preposition]. (It is a processional image, of course.)

Cf. the Vulgate: " non ibitis post deos alienos".

MrP

[Bridget]

Are you saying that English behaves as Latin, MrP?

BTW, folks round the forums seem not to recognise your use of "look after". Could you link me to some real/used examples of that use?


He looks | after the boy. [verb + preposition]


???

[MrPedantic]

folks round the forums seem not to recognise your use of "look after".


Which threads do you refer to?

MrP

[MrPedantic]

As for examples, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives:

3 behind sb when they have left; following sb: Shut the door after you. I’m always having to clean up after the children (= clean the place after they have left it dirty and untidy). He ran after her with the book. She was left staring after him.


MrP

[Bridget]

As for examples, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives:

3 behind sb when they have left; following sb: Shut the door after you. I’m always having to clean up after the children (= clean the place after they have left it dirty and untidy). He ran after her with the book. She was left staring after him.


MrP

Not that common, right? And still no proof of its status.

[Bridget]

As MrP is avoiding giving answers...

For you, have these no semantic cohesion between the verb and particle?

Go/run/call after him and tell him you're sorry.
They chased after the robber.
The boogeyman is coming after you!
Her records are quite sought after.

[MrPedantic]

Not that common, right?

Why would that matter, old boy?

[Bridget]

Why would that matter, old boy?

It might prove difficult to get opinions on its phrasal status.

BTW, I suppose you know there's this real sourpuss of a guy using your member name over at anti-moon.

He posting whingeing, stalking, incendiary nonsense such as this:

<<MikeyC wrote:

<MollyB, Pam, Mufti, Nancy, Dan, xBix, Guests in MollyB threads, some of these MrPedantics, and many others in MollyB's threads are all the same person...Yes; cf.

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t8013-0.htm (http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t8013-0.htm)

for some of his earlier sock puppets ( Bridget / M56 / Pos / Position ).

MrP > >>

Seems like a man, if we can call him such, with a real problem. Someone should put a stop to his childish antics, don't you think?

[Bridget]

Lest we forget:

"The second reason why multi-word verbs are treated as a group thus lies in
their stable syntactic patterns and the fact that their constituents always
retain at least a tiny bit of individuality."

http://books.google.com/books?id=8kfvotMI5hYC&pg=PA26&dq=Multi-word+Verbs+as+a+Group&ei=HFE3SqazDIGuyATmztj-BQ

[MrPedantic]

Are you saying that English behaves as Latin

On the contrary. I'm saying that the Latin behaves as the English.

Remember that we are dealing with a translation; and the translators had the Vulgate much in mind.

MrP

[Bridget]

On the contrary. I'm saying that the Latin behaves as the English.

Remember that we are dealing with a translation; and the translators had the Vulgate much in mind.

MrP

Problem is, that translation was made a long time ago. We need to know how the item is seen today. We need to know whether lexicalization and/or grammaticalization has taken place.

[MrPedantic]

And still no proof of its status.

What would constitute proof, in your view?

MrP

[Bridget]

What would constitute proof, in your view?

MrP


Of the type "these opinions prove that most speakers see it in this way", for one. What would constitute proof for you?

[MrPedantic]

For you, have these no semantic cohesion between the verb and particle?

<examples>



1. Go after him and tell him you're sorry.

"After him" is simply an adverbial phrase here; it qualifies "go".

MrP

[Bridget]

1. Go after him and tell him you're sorry.

"After him" is simply an adverbial phrase here; it qualifies "go".

MrP

But how can you be sure?