Timeline for What word is used when some elements split two related parts? Interleaving?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2016 at 6:32 | vote | accept | Ahmad | ||
| Aug 6, 2016 at 18:30 | comment | added | BillJ | Ah, when you said "subordinate clauses are now prepositions", I took you literally! You do of course mean PPs. No matter, the re-analysis of many adverbs and subordinating conjunctions as preps actually makes life so much simpler. All those problems that students had with a multitude of adverbs and conjunctions simply melt away when they're reanalysed as preps. Yes, it is controversial and dictionary publishers would probably never go for it (except Wiktionary - e.g. their entry for "below": link. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 18:17 | comment | added | fjack | @BillJ Please look at H&P, chapter 7 (Prepositions and Preposition Phrases), page 600, where they very unambiguously say, "We therefore include in the preposition category all of the subordinating conjunctions of traditional grammar, with three exceptions." How much clearer can they be that (in their view) subordinate clauses are really prepositional phrases? Are they wrong? As you say, they provide sound evidence and reasoning. But they're certainly against the common understanding. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 17:58 | comment | added | BillJ | @fjack I am very familiar with H&P's grammar, and they do not say that subordinate clauses are prepositions. That's an absurd assertion. What they do claim is that many adverbs and conjunctions are best analysed as intransitive prepositions and they provide very sound evidence for their claim. You are right about Huddleston - he's probably the finest grammarian alive today. Btw, CUP did not replace CGEL with C&M's - what makes you think that? Incidentally, H&P's Cambridge Grammar won the Leonard Bloomfield Book Award of the Linguistic Society of America in 2004. And rightly too.. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 17:48 | comment | added | fjack | @BillJ I've found Carter & McCarthy to be quite useful, as have other reviewers (e.g., Foley in RELC Journal, 37.3). Huddleston's own grammar, the 2002 Cambridge he co-edited with Pullum, is (in)famous for controversial positions such as subordinate clauses are really prepositions. (Yes, he and Pullum really advocate this.) Huddleston is a great grammarian, but he is also an idiosyncratic one, and Cambridge UP replaced his grammar with Carter & McCarthy's after only four years. | |
| Aug 6, 2016 at 17:36 | comment | added | BillJ | @fjack. McCarthy & Carter's Cambridge Grammar of English is an extremely confused and contradictory mess, with some allegiance to Halliday and to Quirk. Rodney Huddleston reviewed it in the journal English Language and Linguistics, and he very politely excoriated it as the most self-contradictory and theoretically confused work he had ever seen. My advice to you is to bin it and get something half-decent. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 23:28 | comment | added | TimR | This type of verb for was known as a "separable-prefix verb" for a century or so. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 23:24 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackEnglishLL/status/761704335722119168 | ||
| Aug 5, 2016 at 21:49 | comment | added | P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica | @Cardinal That is wise - but do discredit mine above. I was wrong! | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 21:39 | comment | added | Cardinal | @P.E.Dant to be honest, I do not have time to engage with the terminologies or to try to find the best terminology. I have bigger concerns about basics and I am not in a position that I can ignore or discredit a native person's statements. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 21:23 | comment | added | P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica | @BillJ This equine may be deceased, but in "turn on the radio," isn't "turn on" a phrasal (or "two part") verb? It fails the adverb insertion test: "turn quickly on the radio" doesn't make sense except as a call to action against talk show hosts. (None of this is relevant to OP's question of course. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:57 | comment | added | P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica | @Cardinal I know you're in the midst of study and I hope by now you have completely discredited my rant above. Of course "brush up" is a phrasal - er, multi-part verb, and the Cambridge book is an excellent resource. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:52 | comment | added | P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica | @fjack From phrasal to multi-part to multi-word; by 2025 we may be referring to verbs with lotsa words. Mr Kornbluth's prescience may be validated, but time also marches, in this case on. (By the way, "march on" is not phrasal in that it passes the adverb insertion test.) | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:29 | comment | added | fjack | I wish I could copy a picture into a comment, because I'm looking at the relevant section (section 235) of my copy of the Cambridge Grammar of English (McCarthy & Carter, 2006), which is called... wait for it... "Multi-Word Verbs." | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:25 | comment | added | P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica | @Cardinal Yes, I see the reference there. I suppose multi-part is easier to understand than phrasal, and if that's the reigning terminology, I bend the knee. I still think it's a dumbing-down, though. I think a Question is in order... | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:25 | comment | added | Cardinal | @P.E.Dant (+1) I stuck at this dilemma, what is a two-word verb and which is a phrasal verb. However, as a learner, those are beyond my current concerns. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:21 | comment | added | P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica | @fjack I didn't recognize "multi-part" as "phrasal," which perhaps speaks to the ancient nature of my education. My instructor would have broken his eyebrows if I had dared to refer to "brush up" as a "multi-part" verb. He would have diagrammed "up" as an adverb modifying "to brush," and then delivered a peroration on "phrasals," even then with a gimlet eye. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:16 | comment | added | Cardinal | @P.E.Dant See section D : books.google.com/… | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:14 | comment | added | fjack | Of course English has multi-part verbs. They're called phrasal verbs, and they're incredibly common. "LOOK UP a word in a dictionary" is a phrasal verb, and is quite different from "LOOK UP at the clouds" learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/verbs/… | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:05 | answer | added | P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 20:00 | comment | added | Damkerng T. | The first thing came to my mind: in-between. If you have A-B-C, you can say that B is an in-between letter (i.e., it's between A and C). | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 19:59 | comment | added | Cardinal | @BillJ I think OP needs a word which describes the action or process in which something comes between two end points. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 19:52 | comment | added | Cardinal | @P.E.Dant My grammar book refers to "brush up on" as a three-words-verb | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 19:09 | history | edited | Ahmad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 82 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2016 at 19:09 | comment | added | Ahmad | @BillJ thanks but I don't care what it is, my question is about "interleaving", in fact I want it for a Persian construction, but couldn't bring my own example | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 19:03 | comment | added | BillJ | Your example is best described as 'a clause with a transitive verb and an intransitive preposition "on" which can either be 'stranded' or inserted between the verb and its direct object. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 18:59 | comment | added | Ahmad | @BillJ Ok then please bring an example of a two-part verb. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 18:59 | comment | added | BillJ | The verb "turn" and the preposition "on" are not a two-part (or compound) verb. They are two quite separate constituents. | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 18:58 | comment | added | Ahmad | @BillJ Thanks, but that's not my question. it's just an example | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 18:57 | comment | added | BillJ | The preposition "on" is a particle here. It's one of a few words that can come between the verb and its direct object. So you can say "I turned the radio on", or "I turned on the radio". | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 18:56 | comment | added | Ahmad | @BillJ I don't know what they are called in English, I mean turn on as a two part verb | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 18:52 | comment | added | BillJ | There is no compound verb in "I turned the radio on". What makes you think there is? | |
| Aug 5, 2016 at 18:47 | history | asked | Ahmad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |