http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aPrepositional+VerbsSearch results for 'tag:Prepositional Verbs' matching tag 'Prepositional Verbs'en-USXMOD (Build: 3614.32638)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Verbs/zxkld/post.htmSun, 16 Mar 2008 09:38:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:489467ganesh77The list isn't meant to be exhaustive or carefully arranged. Any additions, corrections or further examples would be welcomed. 1 main verbs; lexical verbs (all verbs which are not auxiliaries or modals) 2 action verbs; event verbs; dynamic verbs (a verb which can be used in continuous tenses) i.e. eat, run, talk 3 state of being verbs; existence verbs; state verbs; stative verbs; static verbs (a verb which describes a state and is not usually used in a continuous tense) i.e. be, own, know 4 regular verbs (a verb that has four forms and follows the normal rules) 5 irregular verbs; strong verbs (a verb not following the normal rules for inflection) 6 auxiliary and...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalVerb/zlcwb/post.htm#472434Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:35:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:472434mister micawberThe tests are listed in this PDF on PHRASAL AND PREPOSiTIONAL VERBS . I'm afraid the tests don't get any simpler.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CanPrepositionalPhraseFunctionNoun/zzkhc/post.htm#445366Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:23:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:445366mister micawberTell about is one of the 'prepositional verbs', where the prepositional phrase is considered an alternative 'paraphrase' of the direct object . I told her (IO) the facts (DO) I told the facts (DO) to her (prepositional complement) I told her (IO) about the facts (prepostional complement) I understand your reasoning, but this is the way it is explained in CGEL. Does that help?http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsMentionAboutWrong/zdvjw/post.htm#433728Tue, 23 Oct 2007 06:08:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:433728califjimI checked the first couple of pages of Google hits for "mention about" and "discuss about" and most of them are totally wrong. Apparently it is a common mistake. However, note that you will get hits on these combinations which are correct because mention (or discuss ) goes in one phrase or clause and about goes in another. There are many things to discuss | about this new software. = There are many things about this new software to discuss. You are discussing things (about the software), not 'discussing about' the software. There is something I forgot to mention | about the restaurant. = There is something about the restaurant that I forgot to mention. You are mentioning something (that you forgot), not...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SeparableInseparablePhrasal-Verbs/ccggr/post.htm#433514Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:51:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:433514califjimThis Post:256204 may or may not be useful, as it is on a similar topic, but not the exact same one. Check it out, noting later in the same thread: "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." CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DistinguishingObjectSeparate-Noun/vnpnz/post.htm#405488Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:30:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:405488califjimHere's the relevant definition from that first link. intr.v. verged , verg·ing , verg·es To approach the nature or condition of something specified; come close. Used with on: a brilliance verging on genius. Note the abbreviation intr. This means intransitive . That is, the verb does not take an object. (A transitive verb can take an object.) In the second link, three kinds of objects are described. The first two (direct and indirect) are objects of verbs; the third is the object of a preposition. Now the verb verge , we see above, cannot take an object, so the only object possible in your example is the third type -- object of a preposition. And the preposition is on . verged - on -...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CareAbout/vnbdv/post.htm#398724Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:30:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:398724califjimI have summarized various ways of distinguishing between phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs at Post:256204 . CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CareAbout/vnbdv/post.htm#398678Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:12:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:398678myshirleyCalifJim 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? Thankshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ProficiencyAlongsidePoverty/2/vmcnm/Post.htm#395153Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:39:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:395153forbesHi Cool Breeze I thought that might be what you were getting at. I think it is a mistake to equate complexity solely with the degree of inflectional morphology of a language. I have never studied Finnish, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of the following is true: 1. that a language with at least 30 cases has a corresponding lack of prepositions 2. that word order is fairly free and is used to express different emphases 3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular 4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it I have to say that I have met one or two Finns and they do seem to relish the idea that Finnish is a "difficult" language. I have...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PassivesPrepositionalVerbs/vwdhj/post.htm#374407Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:35:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:374407yankeeHi Peta I don't know that there is any "official" list of which prepositional verbs can/should be made passive. As is always the case with passives, however, you should first ask yourself if turning an object into the subject of a sentence (which is always what the passive does) is really justified. Turning the object into the subject puts more focus (or strength) on the original object and relegates the original subject of the sentence to a position of lesser importance. In the case of your "these caves" sentence, the caves are much more specific than "primitive men" and the caves are obviously a focus of the on-going conversation. In your tunnel sentence, you wrote "a tunnel", which is very non-specific. I assume the end of the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AreTheseSentencesCorrect/vwbdz/post.htm#373742Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:32:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:373742matejaI am sorry for sending the thread twice, it was by mistake. The examples ˝The stadium was arrived at.˝ indicates the wrong use of the passive, because you can only say that you arrived at stadium, but you cannot say that stadium was arrived at. But you can say ˝The expected result was arrived at.˝, because the meaning is idiomatic. And I need now examples of other prepositional verbs which I would be able to use in the same way. I wanted to do this with the verb: go down The ideas were gone down at the meeting.(correct)-meaning rejected She was gone down the stairs.(wrong) And now I'm wondering whether I provided good examples or not, and if not I would like you to help me with some. Thank youhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AreTheseSentencesCorrect/vwbcg/post.htm#373740Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:12:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:373740goodmanMateja wrote: thank you for your answers...so I used these sentences completely wrong then.I would like to ask you now to form some sentences for me,please. I will explain what I mean exactly. We said at our lectures that passive can be used with prepositional verbs only when they have idiomatic or metaphorical meaning. For example: The problem was gone into by the ingeneers.(correct) The tunnel was gone into by the ingeneers.(wrong) or The expected result was arrived at.(correct) The splendid stadium was arrived at.(wrong) Now we have to provide sentences of our own and this is what I tried with the previous sentences. I obviously did them completely wrong. Could you provide some examples for me, please. ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AreTheseSentencesCorrect/vwbcg/post.htm#373739Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:07:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:373739matejathank you for your answers...so I used these sentences completely wrong then.I would like to ask you now to form some sentences for me,please. I will explain what I mean exactly. We said at our lectures that passive can be used with prepositional verbs only when they have idiomatic or metaphorical meaning. For example: The problem was gone into by the ingeneers.(correct) The tunnel was gone into by the ingeneers.(wrong) or The expected result was arrived at.(correct) The splendid stadium was arrived at.(wrong) Now we have to provide sentences of our own and this is what I tried with the previous sentences. I obviously did them completely wrong. Could you provide some examples for me, please. Thank youhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferBetweenPrepositionAdverb-PhrasalVerb/2/dbbnl/Post.htm#324789Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:59:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:324789califjimI'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? A phrasal verb is a verb and an adverb (also called a particle). If it is composed of a verb and a preposition (followed by the object of the preposition), then it is not a phrasal verb. Among the verbs which are not phrasal verbs are the majority of verbs - ordinary verbs. Some phrasal verbs and some non-phrasal verbs have the property that they are virtually always followed by the same preposition (followed by an object of that preposition). This kind...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferBetweenPrepositionAdverb-PhrasalVerb/2/dbbnl/Post.htm#323898Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:28:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:323898helaSorry 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferBetweenPrepositionAdverb-PhrasalVerb/2/dbbnl/Post.htm#323876Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:19:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:323876califjimI 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferBetweenPrepositionAdverb-PhrasalVerb/2/dbbnl/Post.htm#323506Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:21:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:323506helaGood 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DifferBetweenPrepositionAdverb-PhrasalVerb/2/dbbnl/Post.htm#323319Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:37:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:323319califjimYour b) examples are just plain sentences with ordinary verbs. If a verb is not a phrasal verb and not a prepositional verb, then it's "a verb", just like the thousands of them we see in sentences every day! ... we can ... not between a verb and a preposition ... This is false. There are about 50 million counterexamples! Put the letter on the table. Take this letter to Peter. I forced my clothes into the suitcase. I helped your mother into the car. I talked my mother into the blue dress. I talked my mother into wearing the blue dress. I talked my mother into letting me borrow the car. They took me for a fool. They took me for a ride. We drove over the bridge. We drove the car over the bridge. We...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalVerbs/dncnk/post.htm#315365Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:33:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:315365califjimHow to generalize? In the intransitive case there's no choice about placement of the object because there is no object. In the transitive case there are three correct ways to structure the words. pick up the pencil; pick the pencil up; pick it up throw out the trash; throw the trash out; throw it out Basically, the intransitives are inseparable and are prepositional verbs; the transitives are separable and are true phrasal verbs. You might be interested in this. Post:256515 Note in particular: 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,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AllTheWayHome/cphwz/post.htm#263052Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:13:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:263052califjimall the way home is an adverbial phrase indicating during/along the entire trip/path/way to their home . It is a curious mix of adverb of place (path, actually) and adverb of time (period, actually). Individually, all is an adverb of degree (how much of the way ?), the way is an article and noun used adverbially, and home is a noun used adverbially (to where?). There was a fly in my soup. ( A fly was in my soup. ) I that this was a fact (was true). Hence, I saw that (there was a fly in my soup). You can leave out the complementizer that : I saw there was a fly in my soup. to get to in to get to school is not a phrasal verb. It's a prepositional verb. to get to (school) = to go to and successfully arrive at (school). (to...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceAnalysis2/3/bmdng/Post.htm#190692Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:24:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:190692milkyPaco2004 wrote: Hello MrP I'm sorry for the ambiguous writing. I meant "a prepositional phrasal verb" by "a phrasal", not "an adverbial phrasal verb". paco Is there suchy a thing as a "prepositional phrasal verb"? I thought there were phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs only.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceAnalysis2/2/bmdng/Post.htm#190613Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:46:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:190613paco2004Hello MrP I'm sorry for the ambiguous writing. I meant "a prepositional phrasal verb" by "a phrasal", not "an adverbial phrasal verb". What I am wondering is whether "shine on" in "shine on X" is always an transitive prepositional verbs like "look after". I rather think some people use it as a prepositional verb and some people use it as <"shine" + "on X">. So woulndn't it be better to conclude that Hela's "shone on us" can be parsed in two ways? pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalVerbs/2/bxplb/Post.htm#164285Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:02:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:164285klavierI've found this, from Martin Hewings, Advanced Grammar in Use , he says: Some verbs are commonly used with a particular particle (preposition or adverb). We can call these two-word verb. Some verbs are commonly used with an adverb + preposition. These are three-word verbs. These are also called phrasal and prepositional verbs. It is often difficult to understand what they mean form the meaning of their separate parts. What I understand is that he joins two concepts to consider a verb as phrasal: its different meaning and its common use with an specific 'particle'. But this is also confusing though He gives this example of a verb + preposition: I'm afraid that Simon met with an accident as he was driving home. ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalPrepositionalVerbsThreeWord-PhrasalVerbs/bprzx/post.htm#157704Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:44:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:157704paco2004"Yes you are right. The Chaucer's use of "put up" was "put up (=pocket) one's complaint or resentment", that is, the object of the verb was not what one should tolerate. Then they began use the phrase with the thing to tolerate as the object (Harvey). By the way thank you for informing the source of the meanings. I didn't say that learning informal usage is wrong. But I just said that "catch up with" is used most frequently in the sense of "overtake". pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalPrepositionalVerbsThreeWord-PhrasalVerbs/bprzx/post.htm#157702Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:15:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:157702riglosHi Paco! I don't think "put up" has the same meaning as "put up with" = TOLERATE, in this sentence: " I have put my complaint up again, for to my foes my bill (= broad-bladed sword) I dare not show." I interpreat "put up" here as "I have refrained from complaining again, for to my foes my bill I dare not show.", which is definitely not the same as "tolerate". Regards, Mara. BTW, the meanings of the phrasals were taken from the Cambridge Dictionary. I wonder what the problem is with their being used informally.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalPrepositionalVerbsThreeWord-PhrasalVerbs/bprzx/post.htm#157594Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:08:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:157594paco2004Hi CJ How about :"Mary stood up for the Democrats, and Paul stood for the Republicans" and "Mary stood up for the Democrats, and Paul against the Democrats" ? I feel "stand up for" is not a phrasal verb. I feel "stand" itself has a meaning of "get oneself ready to fight" just like "rise". "Up" is just a manner adverb to mean "upward" and "for X" is nothing but a purpose adverbial. As for "put up with", I agree with you that this is a phrasal verb. Etymologically "put up" with no "with" itself had the meaning of "tolerate". It was used to say literally "pocket one's complaint or resentment". " I have put my complaint up again, for to my foes my bill (= broad-bladed sword) I dare not show." Then, " All this I put up quietly. He can...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalPrepositionalVerbsThreeWord-PhrasalVerbs/bprzx/post.htm#157570Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:31:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:157570califjimIt depends on which of the standard test patterns you want to accept as grammatical. *Yesterday we had to put up with mostquitos, and the day before up with flies. Here the clear ungrammaticality of the sentence shows that "put up" is a unit. ?Yesterday we had to put up with mosquitos, and the day before with flies. ?Yesterday we had to put up with mosquitos, and the day before flies. Here if you find the first phrasing ungrammatical (I don't), then you feel instinctively that "put up with" is a unit, i.e., "with" is not a preposition. If you find the second ungrammatical (I'm undecided!), then you feel that "put up" is one unit (a phrasal verb) and "with" is a preposition. *Paul wanted to stand up for the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeedHelpWithSomeQuestions/bpbck/post.htmFri, 11 Nov 2005 17:58:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:157549confused againI need a few of the regulars out there to help me out again, could you please check what I've answered so far and tell me if I'm right? If I'm wrong please simply point me in the right direction and I'll try again. Unfortunately questions B and C have stumped me, so I'd be grateful if anyone could direct me to a grammar point which I can look up in a book. Thanks for any help you can throw my way. Why can you say……..? A 'a car' but not 'a water'? Because 'a car' is a countable noun, whereas ‘water’ is an uncountable noun. B 'I'm having a bath' but not 'I'm having long hair'? ? C 'He raised the prices' but not 'he rose the prices'? ? D 'I waited' but not 'I goed'? Because 'wait' is a regular...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalVerbs/bxplb/post.htm#157405Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:49:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:157405califjimthe issue of phrasals that are 'verb + prep' aren't an issue for me One point I was trying to make is that (the way I look at it) there is no such thing as "a phrasal that is 'verb + prep'". If a preposition is involved, then the verb plus that preposition cannot be considered a phrasal verb. AS LONG AS the same form in another context WOULD bring about a different meaning No. I didn't intend to leave that impression. But, as you said, I did intend to say that 'verb + adverb' can be a phrasal verb even the combination does not have a particularly idiosyncratic meaning. terms like 'operating as a unit' are meaningless unless there is some element which defines what makes a 'unit' Yes. This is what I found...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalPrepositionalVerbsThreeWord-PhrasalVerbs/bprzx/post.htm#157394Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:05:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:157394paco2004Hello Mara Riglos wrote: What would you call the following verbs? Phrasal prepositional verbs, phrasal verbs, three word phrasal verbs, or just phrasals plus a preposition? put up with = tolerate. stand up for = defend. catch up with = discover some wrongness and punish it / cause problems to someone get up to = do something, often something that other people would disapprove Where did you get the meanings? I think "catch up with" is commonly used to mean "overtake". The meaning you put is used only in informal speech. The use of "get up to" in the sense of "do something wrong" is also of informal use. It means "approach" in more formal use. Anyway I have learned they are called phrasal verbs or multiple-word verbs. ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalPrepositionalVerbsThreeWord-PhrasalVerbs/bprzx/post.htmFri, 11 Nov 2005 00:50:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:157315riglosHi people! What would you call the following verbs? Phrasal prepositional verbs, phrasal verbs, three word phrasal verbs, or just phrasals plus a preposition? Put up with = TOLERATE. Stand up for = DEFEND.. Catch up with = DISCOVER SOME WRONGDOING AND PUNISH IT / CAUSE PROBLEMS TO SOMEONE.. Get up to = TO DO SOMETHING, OFTEN SOMETHING THAT OTHER PEOPLE WOULD DISAPPROVE OF. In fact, my question is: do you consider each of these verbs to be a unit or would you say they are a phrasal verb + a preposition? How would you parse these phrasals? What would you call each of the elements by which they are composed? Here's my view: VERB + ADVERBIAL PARTICLE + PREPOSITION. In my opinion, they constitute a unit, and since they...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepositionPartInfinitive/bxvxw/post.htm#153734Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:28:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:153734riglosThanks a lot MM! Your explanations were really helpful! Now, could you give some examples of the prepositional verbs used in context (i.e. in a sentence)? Thanks a lot!! Mara.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepositionPartInfinitive/bxvxw/post.htm#153725Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:51:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:153725mister micawberYour comments re gerunds are correct. You need to separate prepositional verbs from free verbs + infinitive. To a large extent, it is a matter of learning the prepositional verbs: look forward to be used to object to attend to drink to conform to You can try checking by putting them into the passive: most prepositional verbs should transform, while verb+infinitive will not: The committee objected to voting immediately. Voting immediately was objected to by the committee. The committee refused to vote. ( X ) Vote was refused to by the committee. But: To vote was refused by the committee Obviously, the to of the infinitive should travel with it, while the to of the prepositional verb remains...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SentenceAnalysisPhrasal-Verbs/bmjbz/post.htmThu, 06 Oct 2005 08:41:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:145100helaDear teachers, Would you please help me to solve this problem? Example 1 : I have been looking for you everywhere. "Parsing" = sentence analysis (correct use ?) Form + Function : I = Noun Phrase = subject have been looking = Verb Phrase = transitive verb for you = Prepositional Phrase you = object of the prep. "for" everywhere = Adverb Phrase = adverbial of place OR have been looking for = Verb Phrase = transitive verb you = Noun Phrase = direct object Example 2 : The building opposite our school is being pulled down. Form + Function: The building ... shcool = NP = subject is being pulled down = VP = intransitive verb OR is being pulled = Verb Phrase = intransitive verb down = Adverb Phrase = adverbial of place ?? Do you...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WithOrWithoutMe/bdxrl/post.htm#102333Tue, 24 May 2005 09:59:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:102333mister micawberWell, I didn't say it was a rule. Maybe only some prepositions are no good without their objects. Greenbaum mentions an odd class of prepositional verbs that 'sound awkward' with stranded prepositions-- 'keep pace with', 'catch sight of', 'give way to', etc. Maybe someone else has a more definitive answer. PS: I like #3 better than #2. I can't see anything wrong with #3.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/2/pqkp/Post.htm#78903Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:01:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78903casiPhrasal Verbs are easily distinguished from prepositional verbs. I'm not all that convinced it's so cut 'n dried. Meaning plays a vital role. She looked over the fence . (adverb; she looked where?) ?The fence was looked over. She looked over the fence . (direct object) The fence was looked over. (given the once over, inspected) Moreover, for the majority of non-native speakers, the acceptability of a passivized sentence is difficult to determine: She dropped by the house . (adverb; reflexive: she dropped herself by the house) ?The house was dropped by. She dropped off the keys . (direct object) The keys were dropped off. And then there's insertion, and movement to contend with: She dropped me off the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/2/pqkp/Post.htm#78850Sun, 06 Mar 2005 07:43:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78850cacarrIntersting. There is much ambiguity in this area. Phrasal Verbs are easily distinguished from prepositional verbs. Whether or not something is a prepositional verb, as opposed to a freely combined structure, though, can often be debatable. I like this: Prepositional passive test: The teacher called on the student. The student was called on. We called after the game. The game was called after. * The preposition is stranded in its post verbal position. Also, prepositional verbs can have idiomatic meanings that can't be discerned from thier parts. There are, of course, phrasal-prepositional verbs and other kinds of multi-word verb constructions that are none of the above.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/pqkp/post.htm#78843Sun, 06 Mar 2005 06:31:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78843casiAll prepositional verbs take prepositional objects. True. But what do we do with ambi-structural "looked after"? They looked (DO) They looked after (DO) What evidence is there that speakers don't parse "look after" as a unit and "the sheep" as its direct object? It seems all too neat 'n tidy to lump verbs of phrase into two categories. The distinction between phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs is based on modification, or rather determining whether the bits that follow the verb are an integral part of the verb's meaning (i.e., DO) or modification (i.e., Adverb). Going back to our example "after the sheep", it definitely does not function as an adverb; it's an object of some sort, we know that, and whether it's a DO...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/pqkp/post.htm#78830Sun, 06 Mar 2005 04:27:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78830cacarr"It's still a noun phrase so a direct object." It's a prepositional object NP. Technically, it is not a direct object. I've looked this up recently. All prepositional verbs take prepositional objects.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/pqkp/post.htm#78821Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:33:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78821equivocalMy point was that "looked after" is a prepositional verb, not a phrasal verb as was suggested in the thread. I've been trying to understand the difference. It seems that many people are not aware that there is one. My error, I misunderstood. I know prepositional verbs as inseperable phrasal verbs which is "terminologically" erroneous. As far as I know, phrasal verbs then are seperable with particle movement ("I looked it up") and prepositional verbs are not. But I wouldn't say "the sheep" in your original sentence is a prepositional object. It's still a noun phrase so a direct object. eqhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepVerbPrepObjectAdverbial/pqkp/post.htm#78757Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:30:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78757cacarrMy point was that "looked after" is a prepositional verb, not a phrasal verb as was suggested in the thread. I've been trying to understand the difference. It seems that many people are not aware that there is one. I think this is correct: Prepositional verb Type 1 - np+lexical verb+prep+prepositional object NP Prepositional verb Type 2 - np+lexical verb+direct object NP+prep+prepositional object NP Prep. verbs are always transitive. Phrasal verbs can be either. Phrasal verb= lexical verb+ adverbial particle (in the form of a prep) Transitive Phrasal verbs: take on make up Intransitive Phrasal verbs: Shut up Stand up Prepositional verbs: go for waiting for stared at Ah...I think I feel better now....http://www.englishforums.com/English/Monkeys/qrrr/post.htm#78610Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:44:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:78610cacarrAs a verb, "monkey" occurs in at least a few multi-word verbs. "monkey around" - (intransitive)- This is, I suppose, a phrasal verb that means to be doing something in a careless, ineffectual or silly way. Tell the kids to quit monkeying around. "monkey with" - (transitive)- I'm not positive, but I think that this must be a prepositional verb. It means something like to tinker with or mess with something. I think it can also mean to flirt with or make a pass at someone. Quit monkeying with that engine. You'll never fix it. "Monkeying around with" -(transitive)- Hmm. This is to play with something in a joking or possibly sexual (in some idioms) manner. It seems to me that this is a phrasal-prepositional verb. Bob,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Preposition/xlcj/post.htm#72067Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:07:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:72067mister micawberFirst, allow me to redefine for clarity, Hanuman: Multi-word verbs (verb + particle) are divided into (1) phrasal verbs (verb+adverb) and (2) prepositional verbs (verb + preposition). In both, the particle can be followed by a noun, so you may have trouble distinguishing them that way: They set up a new corporation. They ran into a legal problem. I. The object can, and a pronoun object must, go before the particle of a phrasal verb, but this is not possible for a prepositional verb: They set the corporation up; They set it up. X They ran a legal problem into; They ran it into. II. Only the preposition of a prepositional verb can be fronted: Into what did they run? X Up what did they set?http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrespondToVerbIng/xkvd/post.htm#71775Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:49:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:71775mister micawberNot rare exceptions, Enemorales, but often idiomatic. 'To' + dictionary form of the verb occurs whenever we are using the infinitive: I want to see you. I like to ski. My intention is to find gold. When 'to' is a preposition or a part of a phrasal/prepositional verb, then it is followed by a noun instead (and '-ing' verbs can act as nouns): I am used to seeing him every Tuesday. He agreed to my taking ski lessons. The discovery of money on the street corresponds to finding gold.http://www.englishforums.com/English/NeedHelp/mkrj/post.htm#61863Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:13:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:61863teacher eric1. "Worse" is the comparative of "bad" while "worst" is the superlative. bad-worse-the worst His new movie is worse than his last. Your cooking is getting worse! (compared to before) Among his movies, the newest one is the worst. This is the worst of all! 2. I'm reproducing Taiwandave's post in its entirety. The article mainly reflects British English usage. As follows: Rules for using hyphens Posted: 24 Jun 2004 01:11 AM There have been a number of recent questions concerning when to use hypens. The following is an excerpt from The Economist magazine's style guide. © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2004 Use hyphens for: 1. FRACTIONS (whether nouns or adjectives): two-thirds, four-fifths, one-sixth, etc. ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalVerbs/2/kpzv/Post.htm#54496Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:21:15 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:54496adomiHi Mister Micawber, Here I am again, with something that gave me a sleepless night, though I used it in my previous post : Make it/up. What is the difeerence? I used to hear of "making up" as : 1-)putting powder in the face and ...anyway the kind of stuff women usually do whenever they are to go out, or before one appears on T.V 2-) or taking a decision. Am I right for those two meanings? If no, please enlighten me. what about make it!(if you have time, check my previous post (phrasal/prepositional verbs)..I tried to use it there. I hope I didn't mess up. I do not like misusing delicate expression, and doing grammatical mistakes )http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalVerbs/kpzv/post.htm#54201Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:10:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:54201mister micawberI guess if you don't know the verb at all, you're stuck, Lana. There are no prescriptive rules, only guidelines. Greenbaum & Quirk list five differences: (1) The particle of a prepositional verb must precede the object, but the particle of a phrasal verb can either precede or follow the d.o. (2) When the object is a personal pronoun, it follows the particle of a prepositonal verb but precedes that of a phrasal verb. (3) An adverb adjunct can often be inserted between verb and particle of a prepositional verb, but not in the case of a phrasal. (4) The particle of a phrasal cannot precede a relative pronoun or wh-interrogative. (5) The particle of a phrasal is normally stressed; that of the prepositional normally...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PhrasalVerbs/kpzv/post.htm#54197Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:55:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:54197lanaI 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?http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsWrittenUpSlang/jdvp/post.htm#45230Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:13:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:45230matthewgThe verb+up couple is an American habit, but it is also finding its way into common usage in many other countries. Here is an extract from The Times Guide to English Style and Usage: "Beware superfluous use in prepositional verbs, as in meet up, rest up, end up. Drop it. Give up, used idiomatically, is acceptable." Always use prepositional verbs with caution.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrepositionalPhrases/hqnz/post.htm#40090Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:58:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:40090miriamHi again, Lupa. You don't seem to have any problems with it! You got it right. You're right that in a), "turn on" is a transitive phrasal verb; the adverbial particle "belongs" to the verb, so to speak. In b), on the other hand, you have an intransitive verb followed by a prepositional phrase ("on a spit"), which is not a direct object but an adverbial adjunct of place. What is an object, as you said, is "a spit"; but it isn't a direct object, it is the object of the preposition, also called "oblique object", and it has nothing to do with direct objects in this case (the verb "turn" is intransitive here). I'm not sure what exactly you're being asked in #2, but let's give it a try. - "Verb + preposition" can be either a...