Search results for 'tag:Phrasal verbs tag:Word order' matching tags 'Phrasal verbs' and 'Word order'

Re: Turn or Turn in

Yankee — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:33:36 GMT

Teo wrote:
1. Turn your student book to the pronunciation guide on page 4.

2. Turn in your student book to the pronunciation guide on page 4.

Which of the above sentences is acceptable?

I also think both sentences are OK. To lessen the possibility of misunderstanding turn as the phrasal verb turn in, you could change the word order of sentence 2:
2a. Turn to the pronunciation guide on page 4 in your student book.

Re: translation from French into English (phrasal verbs)

Annvan — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:28:34 GMT

Sorry my French isn't good enough to check your answers thoroughly, but I would say - watch out for the word order in your first two sentences. References to time are usually either at the end or beginning of sentences or phrases, e.g.
1. I came across Brandon at the cinema yesterday.
2. Let's meet in front of the library at 10 o'clock.

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

CalifJim — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:15:17 GMT

They set a riot off seems acceptable, even though our preference seems to be for They set off a riot. (Note the article.) Here it is the selectional criteria that may be interfering. Substitute bomb for riot, and both They set off a bomb and They set a bomb off are fine, neither seeming to be necessarily much preferred over the other. In many cases, however, there is a preferred word order even when two different possibilities are present.

It is almost the mark of a truly phrasal verb (transitive) that it is separable.
It is almost the mark of a truly prepositional verb that it is inseparable.

Yet, there are indeterminate, shadowy cases - cases where the verb seems more phrasal (and idiomatic) than prepositional and yet is inseparable and acts in some ways like a prepositional verb.

How did he come by that fortune? How did he come by it? *How did he come it by?

There are a number of particles (up, down, in, out, on, off, away, back) which should make us very suspicious that we are dealing with a separable phrasal verb, and a number of them (with, without, by, for, at, across, of, from, to, into) which almost certainly indicate a prepositional verb. But there are some strange cases!

CJ

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

CalifJim — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:12:59 GMT

phrasal verbs decoded. The placement of the object.

Kvinchuca — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 02:04:16 GMT

The various forms of phrasal verbs

Phrasal verbs can be transitive or intransitive, separable or inseparable.
The object or accusative can in the cases of separable phrasal verbs be placed before or after the particle.
With inseparable phrases, the object/accusative is fixed and its position either before or after the particle cannot be changed by the speaker.
Our analysis has shown that the position of the object/accusative assigns an importance, diminished importance, or a complete lack of importance from the speakers point of view.
If the particle is followed by the object/accusative then the importance is clearly shown.
If the object/accusative precedes the particle it has a diminished or lack of importance.
If the object/accusative can go before or after the particle, as is the case in separable phrases, then the importance assigned to it is decided by position the speaker places it.
The separable phrases are commonly described as having the same meaning, no matter where the object/accusative is placed, either before or after the particle and in general this may be true, however there is a difference, so small as to be unnoticed.
There nevertheless occasions when the object/accusative sounds to be misplaced to the ears of a native speaker.
There are in many phrases a word order that is generally accepted to be the norm, and a diversion from this order would immediately be noticed by a native speaker and not necessarily by a non-native.
For example, the colours of the Union Jack (the British national flag), are red, white and blue. If somebody described them as blue red and white, they are technically correct, but the native speaker would sense an uncomfortable feeling that the speaker was not quite right, or had spoken incorrectly.

There are many example of this: bacon and eggs (correct) eggs and bacon (uncomfortable). Black and white films (correct) white and black films (uncomfortable). Cup and saucer (correct) saucer and cup (uncomfortable).
There is nothing in English grammar that rules the order of these words and to a non-native speaker the fact that all the information is there, is all that matters, but the uncomfortable sensation felt by the native demonstrates that something very subtle is going on.
The same applies to the separable phrasal verbs. In most instances the subtle difference is unnoticed even by the native, yet in speaking the word order used demonstrates a particular importance or diminished importance that has subconsciously been attached by the speaker.
For example. âthat man is chatting my girl-friend upâ, in this phrase, I have given a diminished importance to my âgirl-friendâ and there is a subtle sense of indifference to the situation. Whereas âthat man is chatting up my girl-friendâ, in this phrase âmy girl-friendâ is after the particle and is subtly stressed. âMy girl-friendâ is shown to have more importance in this phrase and there is an implied sense of indignation as opposed to indifference.

When we use a pronoun instead of naming the object/accusative, the pronoun always goes before the particle. The reason being that once the object has been named the attached importance to the person or thing is slightly diminished, but the importance can be restated by the repetition of the name.
For example, âIs your girl-friend called Sarah?â âYes why?â âWell, that man is chatting her up â. âBloody hell, youâre right, heâs chatting up my Sarahâ.
Here the indignation is obvious because of the naming of the girl a second time. If the phrase was âyes heâs chatting her upâ the indignation felt by the speaker and heard by the listener would depend on the inflection of the voice, whereas in âmy Sarahâ, there is no doubt how the speaker feels.

Re: Word order

Agnus — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:37:29 GMT

rvw, you're right. The other day I saw get to as a phrasal verb as well.

The problem was the context in which the sentence was in. Although it was an exercise on word order, it asked for verb + object. It didn't make sense.

Speaking English as a second language, I can't rely completly on what sounds best. So thank you very much for your help!

Re: VERBAL PHRASE (POSITION OF WORDS)

CalifJim — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:27:08 GMT

"to hem in" is the phrasal verb. "in" is the adverbial particle that completes the phrasal verb. It is not used in the typical way a preposition is used, no. "hemmed in the glacier on both sides" is another correct word order, yes.
______

[And the question you want to ask is:
Why is the object 'the glacier' used between 'hemmed' and 'in'?
Not "Why the object 'the glacier' is used ...?" ]

CJ

Re: Help with English Grammar Exam (

Mister Micawber — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:49:14 GMT

My guesses:

(1) 'Queen' is the fifth noun, acting as an adjective; 'guests' is subject of the dependent clause.

(2) Subject preceding verb is normal word order in an affirmative statement.

(3) 'Answers' is the head-- it is modified by the other words.

(4) In ( a ) 'book' is the direct object and can become the subject; in ( c ) 'station' is a prepositional object, part of an adverbial, which cannot become the subject.

(5) The particles of phrasal verbs ( f ) cannot be fronted.

(6) In ( a ) 'an elephant' is generic; in ( b ) it is a specific elephant.