+0
Hi 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 have a meaning of their own should be regarded as only one phrasal. Indeed, in The Cambridge Dictionary they appear as a unit. Besides, if we were to replace these phrasals with a word or a phrase, these would stand for all three words, namely VERB + ADVERBIAL PARTICLE + PREPOSITION, and not just for the first two. That is to say, when rephrasing, we do not need to replace the phrasal by a word or phrase and add the preposition the verb carries. The preposition "belongs" to the phrasal.

Examples:

1a. He's so moody - I don't know why she puts up with him.

1b. He's so moody - I don't know why she tolerates him.

2a. It's high time we all stood up for our rights around here.

2b. It's high time we all defended our rights around here.

3a. They had been selling stolen cars for years before the police caught up with them.

3b. They had been selling stolen cars for years before the police found out and punished them.

4a. I wonder what those two got up to yesterday.

4b. I wonder what those two did yesterday.

Now, I think they are different from other verbal constructions, such as: keep up (with) = STAY LEVEL OR EQUAL, since, in this case, we can do without the preposition "with", as this sentence shows:

5a. He started to walk faster and the children had to run to keep up.

Here, an example with the same phrasal, but including the preposition and, of course, we can't omit it in this case:

6a. Wages are failing to keep up with inflation.(All examples taken from The Cambridge Dictionary).

Now, if we were to replace this phrasal by another word or expression, the preposition would still be needed.

E.g.,

5b. He started to walk faster and the children had to run to stay level with him.

6b. Wages are failing to stay level with / stay equal to inflation.

What do you think?

Thanks a lot!

Mara.
+0
Hello Mara
RiglosWhat 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.
RiglosIn 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 phrases? What would you call each of the elements by which they are composed? Here's my view: verb + adverb + preposition
I understand what you mean. I too feel they could be parsed as <a two-word phrasal verb + a preposition> because we can insert a manner adverb in-between. For examples, "However, I had seen him nurse a sick man himself and put up patiently with the inconveniences of the situation" (Mark Twain), "Timothy Leary stood up bravely for freedom of speech and behavior and deserves to be remembered for that"(Winona Ryder), and "Both companies had been depending on Intel to catch up finally with rivals IBM and Sun Microsystems"(Channel Register). But if we parse them in such a way, the two word phrasal verbs should belong to intransitive verbs. "Stand up" actually is an intransitive verb, but "put up" is commonly used as a transitive verb to mean "pocket something" and from which the phrase "put up with" derived. "Catch up" is used intransitively, but it is said to be an elided form of "catch up (with you)".

paco
+0

It depends on which of the standard test patterns you want to accept as grammatical.

*Yesterday we had to put up with mosquitoes, 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 mosquitoes, and the day before with flies.
?Yesterday we had to put up with mosquitoes, 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 Republicans, so up for them he stood. ["stand up" is a unit.]
*?Paul wanted to stand up for the Republicans, so for them he stood up. ["stand up for" is a unit. (?)]

*Mary stood up for the Democrats, and Paul up for the Republicans. ["stand up" is a unit.]
?Mary stood up for the Democrats, and Paul for the Republicans. ["stand up for" is not necessarily a unit.]

Depending on the tests applied and the individual speaker's judgments of grammaticality, the three-word groups seem to combine in different ways. Because of this I'm not sure there is a definite, all-purpose answer to the question. Yet, without pursuing the question further, I believe that many of them are two-word phrasal verbs followed by a preposition in most contexts.

CJ

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Comments  
Hi 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". "[1368 Chaucer] I have put my complaint up again, for to my foes my bill (= broad-bladed sword) I dare not show." Then, "[1573 Harvey.] All this I put up quietly. [1600 Watson] He can never put up abuses at their hands". The addition of "with" started only as late as in 18th century; "[1755 Harvey] All these indignities I very patiently put up with." To my feel, "put up something" is kind of transitive or object-oriented, but the insertion of "with" sounds to change it into an intransitive or subjected-oriented activity. The same argument could apply to the relationship between "catch someone" and "catch up with someone".

The frequent use of phrasal verbs in English comes from the fact that the language is basically Teutonic (German has many separable complex verbs), but what I strongly feel is that in the course of history English has been developing the use more and more, almost to kind of chaos.

paco
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Hi Paco!

I don't think "put up" has the same meaning as "put up with" = TOLERATE, in this sentence:

"[1368 Chaucer] 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.
"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".

paco