Search results for 'tag:Phrasal verbs tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Phrasal verbs' and 'Constructions'

Re: It doesn't need to be open or opened?

CalifJim — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:39:28 GMT

Whew! Go easy on the colors!

There are no phrasal verbs here.

It doesn't need forms the main clause.

need governs infinitives, so an infinitive follows (to be).

be can act as a linking verb to a noun or adjective, so an adjective can follow. (open)

be can also govern past participles of verbs to form passive constructions. (opened)

So either of your two sentences is possible.

It doesn't need to be open. = There is no need for it to be in the state of being open. (You can close it if you wish.)

It doesn't need to be opened. = There is no need for someone to open it. (It can remain closed if you wish.)

Re: "English Phrasal Verbs in Use" by Cambridge University Press:

Marius Hancu — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:14:55 GMT

AmE
Several verbs (suggest, recommend, ask, etc) require the subjunctive after them:
I suggested she go to the library.

BrE
The subjunctive is avoided in such constructions, and the should + infinitive is used:
I suggested she should go to the library.
or ordinary present and past tenses:
I suggested she went to the library.

See: Swan, Practical English Usage, should (in subordinate clauses) and subjunctive.

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

CalifJim — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:19:40 GMT

I think maybe one of the other forum members would be better at this terminology. For example, I am not familiar with "unreal phrasal verbs". I would not call the b) sentences prepositional verbs.

I would call "to talk someone into something" a causative -- conceptually. The grammatical term "causative construction" may have other implications that I'm not familiar with.

I talked my mother into (buying / taking / wearing) the blue dress, depending on context.

went off on her

Bombs "go off"; they explode. The mother was very angry and made it clear by what she said to the daughter in an outburst.

Also,
gave her (the daughter) a piece of her (the mom's) mind
or, perhaps even more appropriately,
read her (the daughter) the riot act

CJ

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

Hela — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:21:49 GMT

Good morning Jim,

So should I call the verbs in sentences (b) "ordinary / plain verbs" or "prepositional verbs" (with a literal sense) as opposed to "phrasal verbs" (= with an idiomatic sense) ?

If the prepositional verbs in your list are separable is it not because they have a literal meaning and not an idiomatic one? Are they not "unreal" phrasal verbs and this is why we can place objects between them and the prepositions?

Having said that is the verb "to talk someone into something" an "unreal phrasal verb" / prepositional verb (?) or is it a true phrasal verb? Is this a causative construction?

Can a prepositional verb be intransitive?

Would you please give me the meaning of :

a) "I talked my mother into the blue dress"?

b) I know she got home late, but her mom just WENT OFF ON her, and now she's grounded for life.

All the best,

Hela

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

Hela — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:47:09 GMT

Dear teachers,

I've just realized that just as a phrasal verb can be a combination of a verb + preposition OR adverb, a ...... verb (which is not a phrasal verb) can also be followed by a preposition OR adverb. So I shouldn't call it a "prepositional verb". What do we call it then?

eg 1:
a) Charles came into a fortune = phrasal verb (= idiomatic)
b) Charles came into the room = prepositional verb (and not a phrasal verb since the preposition is not part of the verb, it's part of the adverbial, right?)

eg 2:
a) I've been running up debts these days = phrasal verb
b) I run up to get my Dady's wallet = (verb + adverb) â> "run up" here is neither a phrasal verb nor a prepositional verb, so what is it?

Something else, it is said that we can put an object between a verb and an adverb, but not between a verb and a preposition; so would you please explain the following construction?

"I TALKED my mother INTO letting me borrow the car."

Thank you in advance.
Hela

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

CalifJim — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:12:24 GMT

What you call a "phrasal verb with a preposition" doesn't seem correct.
A verb-plus-preposition structure like expand on is usually called a prepositional verb.
Only a verb-plus-adverb structure like catch on is usually called a phrasal verb.
These are the terms I'll use below.

In the case of an intransitive like catch on, nothing resembling an object follows on, so it can't be a prepositional verb. It's a phrasal verb, not a prepositional verb.

It didn't take long for the hula-hoop craze to catch on in the 1950's.

The more difficult cases are when the phrasal verb (if it is one) has an object.

How do we identify ~~that~~ whether the word following the verb in a phrasal verb is an adverb or a preposition?

Let's use the example found in Radford's book Transformational Grammar.

The drunks would get off the bus. (prepositional verb)
The drunks would put off the customers. (phrasal verb)

Here are some tests:

1. If you can substitute other PPs (prepositional phrases) and get a parallel meaning, it's a prepositional verb. If you get nonsense or a new idiomatic meaning, it's a phrasal verb.
If the verb component of the phrase has a more-or-less constant meaning no matter what follows, it's a prepositional verb. If the meaning changes unpredictably, it's a phrasal verb.

The drunks would get off the bus. The drunks would get on the bus.
The drunks would put off the customers. ???The drunks would put on the customers. The drunks would put on dirty clothes.

2. If the range of complements that go with the verb phrase are similar with different prepositions, it's a prepositional verb. If the complements that make sense with the verb phrase change when you change the particle, it's a phrasal verb.

The drunks would get off the bus, off the train, off the plane.
The drunks would get on the bus, on the train, on the plane.

The drunks would put off the customers, put off the shoppers, put off the people nearby.
The drunks would put on dirty clothes, strange hats, wild-looking ties.

3. If you can move the whole structure that looks like a PP to another part of the sentence, it's a prepositional verb. If you can't move the PP, then it's not really a PP, and you have a phrasal verb.

Off the bus the drunks would get.
*Off the customers the drunks would put.

4. If you can use the PP as a fragment in the answer to a question, it's a prepositional verb; else, it's a phrasal verb.

-- Did they get off the train?
-- No, off the bus.

-- Did they put off the waitresses?
-- *No, off the customers.

5. If you can insert a verb-phrase adverb like quickly, slowly, or completely between the verb and the particle, then it's a prepositional verb; else, it's a phrasal verb.

The drunks got slowly off the bus.
*The drunks put completely off the customers.

6. If you can use and to combine the PP with another PP just like it, it's a prepositional verb; else it's a phrasal verb.

They got off the bus and off the train.
*They put off the waitresses and off the customers.

7. If you can omit the verb, keeping the particle, in an elliptical construction, it's a prepositional verb; else it's a phrasal verb.

Drunks would get off the bus, and junkies off the train.
*Drunks would put off the customers, and junkies off the waitresses.

8. If you can use a pronomial object in the PP without placing the pronoun before the particle, it's a prepositional verb; else it's a phrasal verb.

The trouble with the bus was that drunks would want to get off it every few miles.
*What worries us about the customers is whether drunks would put off them.

(The reverse works as well. When you place the pronoun before the particle, only the phrasal verb will be correct in the intended reading.)

*The trouble with the bus was that drunks would want to get it off every few miles.
What worries us about the customers is whether drunks would put them off.

CJ

Re: Is by an adverb or a preposition in "laid by"?

Aperisic — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:42:34 GMT

Grammarian-bot wrote:

Well thats exactly my question. How would one know when a word like by is used as an adverb and when it's used as a preposition in a phrasal verb?

GB

Well that is what is the problem in the given example. The rule of thumb for phrasal verbs is

if you have an object after by then that is a preposition (or passive)
if no object is required after by, by is an adverb
if no object is used after by in a particular case that still does not mean that by is an adverb, the question is can you place an object after by or not
if there is an object after by but you can place it before by and have the same meaning then by is an adverb (in this case, as well, if you cannot place a corresponding pronoun after by then by is an adverb)

For example:

go by - meaning "the passing of time", by is an adverb
go by something - meaning "pass without stopping near something", by is a preposition
stand by - "not become involved" adverb
stand by someone - preposition
swear by something - preposition
scrape by - adverb
preface something by something - preposition
pass by - adverb
pass by something - preposition
pass something by - "to happen without affecting it" adverb
lay something by - adverb
flash by - adverb
flash by something - preposition

I give an example for the last, fourth, point

He sets off the bomb. FINE
He sets the bomb off. FINE
He sets it off. FINE
He sets off it. WRONG

=> off in set off is an adverb

(I have to admit that I did not find any example of similar kind with by, i.e. by is very clear either adverb or preposition, so your first example is definitely something someone wrote carelessly.)

In the example you gave, there is a total confusion, because we have an object after by so by is (by the rule given) a preposition. No one can say that in that example it is so obvious that by is an adverb and that it is some kind of an error to consider by in the sentence as a preposition. Absolutely not! It is very natural to understand by as a preposition there and in any similar cases I would always consider by as a preposition.

So you are right! Somebody messed up there.

However, I explained under what circumstances you can understand by in the first given sentence as an adverb. If the context is so strong that it is obvious that "lay by" means "set aside" I would not consider The farmer laid by his crops to be wrong, just unusual.

BUT, to use this example (The farmer laid by his crops.) in a grammar book without a context to explain the difference of using by as an adverb or as a preposition is such a crime, that there must be a separate place in the Hell for those who decided to use it to teach someone. Not to mention that anybody dared to claim that it is for some reason strictly an adverb and nothing but an adverb. It is not, strictly speaking it has to be a preposition.

So don't bother yourself with someone's carelessness any more. You, millions here and I know it better.

[With by, one has to be very careful because it is used in a passive construction, and I even explained that using your example.]

[That is why "lay by" with meaning "set aside" is used as "lay something by" - to avoid confusion.]

Re: had been blown out.

rvw — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:35:53 GMT

In #1, the verb is in the passive voice, the past perfect tense. In the active voice, it would be The gas explosion had blown out all the shop's windows. Blown out is a phrasal verb; had been blown out is a verb with auxiliaries.

In #2, had is the (whole) verb and blown out is a past participle used as an adjective. They are part of a construction called an objective complement. Their windows is the direct object of had, and blown out adjectivally complements their windows.

The reason #2 is wrong is that one doesn't have their windows blown out as one would have their teeth drilled or their car serviced. The definition of have here is essentially to change:

-I had my teeth drilled. I changed my teeth so that they were drilled.
-I had my car serviced. I changed my car so that it was serviced.
-I'll have you better in no time. I'll change you so that you are better in no time.

-but not: I had my windows changed so that they were blown out. The passive voice (had been blown out) is what is wanted.

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

Re: stepped

CalifJim — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:27:38 GMT

hanuman,

If you want to learn British English you should follow the advice in British dictionaries.
I'm sorry if my American English confused you!

My American dictionary, which shows onto as a single word, has this note:

To indicate motion to a position the prepositions on and onto are frequently used interchangeably, though onto more strongly conveys movement toward: jumped on the table; jumped onto the table. In constructions where on is an adverb and to is a preposition they must not be joined as one word: ... hold on to (not onto) our gains ... In such cases on may be considered part of the verb....

It also mentions that onto is sometimes written on to. (I suspect they were referencing British usage here.)

"step on" is not a phrasal verb like "hold on", so in American English we prefer "step onto".

CJ