Search results for 'tag:Prepositional verbs tag:Verbs' matching tags 'Prepositional verbs' and 'Verbs'

Re: please parse this sentence

Mister Micawber — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:59:45 GMT

1.-- I would guess that there are several ways to approach this; here's mine:

I - Subject

got - verb

used - predicate adjective

to - preposition

your - possessive adjective

being - gerund (object of preposition)

here - noun complement

2. Is 'used to' a prepositional verb?-- No, it is an adjectival structure; get is an informal copular verb.

3. How does 'here', which is an adverb, modify 'being', which is a gerund (noun)?-- Gerunds keep some of their verbal characteristics, including supporting objects or complements: Being a man is always difficult; Eating too many hamburgers may kill you.

4. What if 'your' was replaced with 'you', would the object of 'to' be a fused participle of you and being?-- You replaces your in casual English. I suppose that then you would be the object of the preposition and being here would be an object complement. This structure (without the possessive) is indeed sometimes called a fused participle.

please parse this sentence

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:39:26 GMT

I got used to your being here.

1. How would this sentence be parsed?

2. Is 'used to' a prepositional verb?

3. How does 'here', which is an adverb, modify 'being', which is a gerund (noun)?

4. What if 'your' was replaced with 'you', would the obect of 'to' be a fused participle of you and being?

Thank you in advance,

Donna

Re: phrasal verb

Mister Micawber — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:35:49 GMT

The tests are listed in this PDF on PHRASAL AND PREPOSiTIONAL VERBS. I'm afraid the tests don't get any simpler.

Re: would have already been dead & would have already been died

CalifJim — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:31:32 GMT

Love should be died for is a highly irregular turn of phrase that comes from One should die for love. It's treating die for as a prepositional verb. It's not the passive form of die, but of die for, which is a highly suspect "verb".
Note that love is not died in this construction. Nobody is "dying love", whatever that could possibly mean. You can throw a ball, but you can't die love.

Compare:

The mayor should be relied on.

Here, the mayor is not relied. Nobody is "relying the mayor". That would be meaningless.
Instead, One should rely on the mayor.

CJ

Re: Can a prepositional phrase function as a noun?

Mister Micawber — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:32:16 GMT

what is the role (or roles) of the word "about"? Clearly, it's part of the prepositional verb "told about". But is it also (and simultaneously) considered to be a separate entity - a preposition?

Given the sentence in isolation (i.e. outside this discussion), I'm sure we would call 'about the facts' a prepositional phrase with the preposition 'about' at its head. Some linguists may prefer to focus on 'tell about' + verb object-- I really don't know. It would be unwise, I think, to consider both simultaneously.

Re: Can a prepositional phrase function as a noun?

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:54:29 GMT

Thanks; that explanation was very informative.

There is one point I'm still unclear about. In the sentence "I told her about the facts," what is the role (or roles) of the word "about"? Clearly, it's part of the prepositional verb "told about". But is it also (and simultaneously) considered to be a separate entity - a preposition?

I ask this because it is my understanding that a prepositional complement cannot exist without a preposition. Since we have a prepositional complement ("the facts"), it would seem that we must also have a preposition ("about").

Does that make any sense?

Thanks again in advance!

Re: Can a prepositional phrase function as a noun?

Mister Micawber — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:23:56 GMT

Tell 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?

Re: Is "mention about" wrong?

CalifJim — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 06:08:24 GMT

I 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 'mentioning about' the restaurant.

Further, you will get hits where mention is not even a verb, but a noun.

The magazine gave a nice mention about the winner of the Nobel Prize.
This is not the act of 'mentioning about' the winner. This is saying something nice about the winner.

discuss about and mention about as prepositional verbs, followed by the object indicating what was discussed or mentioned, are incorrect.

CJ

Re: Separable & Inseparable Phrasal Verbs

CalifJim — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:51:44 GMT

This 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."

CJ

Re: Parse this sentence.

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:11:36 GMT

PHRASAL VERB = VERB + PREPOSITIONAL VERB