Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Prepositional verbs' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Prepositional verbs'

Re: Care about

MyShirley — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:12:29 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
care about is not a phrasal verb. It's a prepositional verb.

care about it, never care it about.

CJ

What is the difference between phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs?

Thanks

Re: Differ between a preposition and an adverb in a phrasal verb.

Hela — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:28:34 GMT

Sorry Jim, the term "unreal phrasal verb" doesn't exist I've just made it up. What I wanted to do is to make the difference between verbs with an idiomatic meaning (= phrasal verbs) and verbs with a straightforward meaning (name ??)

I know though that in grammar we call "phrasal verbs" verbs with an adverbial particle and "prepositional verbs" verbs with a prepositional particle. But this is not my point.

eg: to look into a subject matter / to come into a fortune (phrasal verbs = idiomatic meaning => inseparable, but I know that "into" is a preposition)

to look into the hole / to come into the room (prepositional verbs? = literal meaning = inseparable)

to talk someone into something = phrasal verb (idiomatic) or prepositional verb (literal)?

Have a nice Sunday

Re: Prepositional Object, Complement of Preposition and other confusing stuff.

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:54:27 GMT

MichalS wrote:
Hi, I'm a new member on the forum. My name's Michal and I'm from Poland.

I've been learning descriptive grammar of Enlgish lately. Reading LONGMAN Grammar of Spoken and Written English, I've come across a couple of problems which are hard for me to overcome. I hope that you will help me with that

A lot of my doubts arose after reading a short passage about Prepositional Objects in the book mentioned above. I'll quote it so you know better what I'm refering to.

"(...) Prepositional objects and indirect objects are alike in that they require a mediating element (a preposition or a direct object). The correspondence is particularly close with indirect objects and corresponding prepositional construction:

Indirect object
He [gave] Carrie a ring.
Prepositional object
Mr Evans [gave] it [to] me.

To stress the correspondence, it may be convenient the use the term oblique object (...)"

And here are my questions:
1) Does Prepositional Object always follow a Prepositional Verb or does it appear in other contexts? And what follows a Phrasal Verb?
2) What's the difference between Prepositional Object and Complement of a Preposition and which one is called 'Oblique Object'?
3) I always thought that Indirect Object stays an object in passive but the passage above shows that it becomes Prepositional Object in this case... Or maybe I just get it wrong???

Please, answer to these questions if you can because these things are haunting me all the time.
Thank you,
Michal

Prepositional Object, Complement of Preposition and other confusing stuff.

MichalS — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:24:18 GMT

Hi, I'm a new member on the forum. My name's Michal and I'm from Poland.

I've been learning descriptive grammar of Enlgish lately. Reading LONGMAN Grammar of Spoken and Written English, I've come across a couple of problems which are hard for me to overcome. I hope that you will help me with that

A lot of my doubts arose after reading a short passage about Prepositional Objects in the book mentioned above. I'll quote it so you know better what I'm refering to.

"(...) Prepositional objects and indirect objects are alike in that they require a mediating element (a preposition or a direct object). The correspondence is particularly close with indirect objects and corresponding prepositional construction:

Indirect object
He [gave] Carrie a ring.
Prepositional object
Mr Evans [gave] it [to] me.

To stress the correspondence, it may be convenient the use the term oblique object (...)"

And here are my questions:
1) Does Prepositional Object always follow a Prepositional Verb or does it appear in other contexts? And what follows a Phrasal Verb?
2) What's the difference between Prepositional Object and Complement of a Preposition and which one is called 'Oblique Object'?
3) I always thought that Indirect Object stays an object in passive but the passage above shows that it becomes Prepositional Object in this case... Or maybe I just get it wrong???

Please, answer to these questions if you can because these things are haunting me all the time.
Thank you,
Michal

I have a question about phrasal verbs too

Lana — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:55:30 GMT

I was going to open a new thread about phrasal verbs but then I saw this one and I thought that I could post my question here. I hope you'll be able to answer my question as well, here it is:

How can you tell the difference between phrasal and prepositional verbs? I know that phrasal verbs can be separated by a personal pronoun and that prepositional verbs can't be separated, but how do you know which one is phrasal and which one is prepositional in the first place if you don't know the verb and have never seen it before? Is there a rule or do you have to learn by heart?

A strange sentence?

miriam — Sat, 29 May 2004 03:52:39 GMT

Can anyone help, please?
Last Wednesday, we were talking about the passive voice in class, and we found something in a book called "English Syntax: A Grammar for English Language Professionals", by R. A. Jacobs, which surprised us.

In the chapter about passive voice, under the heading 'Prepositional verbs' we found the following examples, in which an intransitive verb is followed by a prepositional phrase:
"Seven monarchs have slept in that four-poster bed."
"A surveyor walked through the forest."

The author says about these sentences:
"The sentences make an assertion that includes a specification of the location in which the monarchs slept or through which the surveyor walked. Thus, syntactically and semantically, these sentences should not have passive voice counterparts. They have an intransitive verb plus a preposition, and they don't seem to have a suitable candidate for subject, since the subjects of passive voice clauses are prototypically the entities affected by the action expressed by the verb. Yet such counterparts exist:
'That four-poster bed has been slept in by seven monarchs.'
'The forest was walked through by a surveyor.'
We may not think of the bed as being affected by the sleeping, and certainly the forest seems unlikely to be affected by someone walking through it. But in fact we can envisage a slept-in bed with its rumpled sheets. We understand the bed to have ben somehow affected by having had so many high-ranking people sleep in it. Its value as an antique must surely have been enhanced. Notice that 'slept in' cannot be replaced by 'died in'. We don't normally visualise a 'died-in' bed."

My question here is: why is 'slept in' acceptable but 'died in' isn't?
Is there actually a grammatical rule to account for this? Or is it the author's personal opinion on the matter? What, if any, is the difference between both sentences?
If you ask *me*, I don't like 'slept in' any better than I do 'died in'.

I'll appreciate any help.

Miriam