In language, a clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. A typical clause consists of a subject and a predicate, the latter a verb phrase, a verb with any objects and other modifiers. However, the subject is sometimes not said or explicit the case in null-subject languages if the subject is retrievable from context, but it sometimes occurs in other languages such as English. A simple sentence consists of a single finite clause with a finite verb, independent. More complex sentences may contain multiple clauses. Main clauses are those. Subordinate clauses are those that would be incomplete if they were alone. A primary division for the discussion of clauses is the distinction between main clauses and subordinate clauses. A main clause can stand alone, i.e. it can constitute a complete sentence by itself. A subordinate clause, in contrast, is reliant on the appearance of a main clause. A second major distinction concerns the difference between non-finite clauses.
A finite clause contains a structurally central finite verb, whereas the structurally central word of a non-finite clause is a non-finite verb. Traditional grammar focuses on finite clauses, the awareness of non-finite clauses having arisen much in connection with the modern study of syntax; the discussion here focuses on finite clauses, although some aspects of non-finite clauses are considered further below. Clauses can be classified according to a distinctive trait, a prominent characteristic of their syntactic form; the position of the finite verb is one major trait used for classification, the appearance of a specific type of focusing word is another. These two criteria overlap to an extent, which means that no single aspect of syntactic form is always decisive in determining how the clause functions. There are, strong tendencies. Standard SV-clauses are the norm in English, they are declarative. The pig has not yet been fed. - Declarative clause, standard SV order I've been hungry for two hours.
- Declarative clause, standard SV order...that I've been hungry for two hours. - Declarative clause, standard SV order, but functioning as a subordinate clause due to the appearance of the subordinator thatDeclarative clauses like these are by far the most occurring type of clause in any language. They can be viewed as other clause types being derived from them. Standard SV-clauses can be interrogative or exclamative, given the appropriate intonation contour and/or the appearance of a question word, e.g. a. The pig has not yet been fed? - Rising intonation on fed makes the clause a yes/no-question.b. The pig has not yet been fed! - Spoken forcefully, this clause is exclamative.c. You've been hungry for how long? - Appearance of interrogative word how and rising intonation make the clause a constituent questionExamples like these demonstrate that how a clause functions cannot be known based on a single distinctive syntactic criterion. SV-clauses are declarative, but intonation and/or the appearance of a question word can render them interrogative or exclamative.
Verb first clauses in English play one of three roles: 1. They express a yes/no-question via subject–auxiliary inversion, 2, they express a condition as an embedded clause, or 3. They express a command via e.g. a. He must stop laughing. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Should he stop laughing? - Yes/no-question expressed by verb first order c. Had he stopped laughing... - Condition expressed by verb first order d. Stop laughing! - Imperative formed with verb first ordera. They have done the job. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Have they done the job? - Yes/no-question expressed by verb first order c. Had they done the job... - Condition expressed by verb first order d. Do the job! - Imperative formed with verb first orderMost verb first clauses are main clauses. Verb first conditional clauses, must be classified as embedded clauses because they cannot stand alone. Wh-clauses contain a wh-word. Wh-words serve to help express a constituent question, they are prevalent, though, as relative pronouns, in which case they serve to introduce a relative clause and are not part of a question.
The wh-word focuses a particular constituent and most of the time, it appears in clause-initial position. The following examples illustrate standard interrogative wh-clauses; the b-sentences are direct questions, the c-sentences contain the corresponding indirect questions: a. Sam likes the meat. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Who likes the meat? - Matrix interrogative wh-clause focusing on the subject c. They asked. - Embedded interrogative wh-clause focusing on the subjecta. Larry sent Susan to the store. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Whom did Larry send to the store? - Matrix interrogative wh-clause focusing on the object, subject-auxiliary inversion present c. We know. - Embedded wh-clause focusing on the object, subject-auxiliary inversion absenta. Larry sent Susan to the store. - Standard declarative SV-clause b. Where did Larry send Susan? - Matrix interrogative wh-clause focusing on the ob
In linguistics, a copula is a term for a word that links the subject of a sentence to a subject complement, such as the word is in the sentence "The sky is blue." The word copula derives from the Latin noun for a "link" or "tie" that connects two different things. A copula is a verb or a verb-like word, though this is not universally the case. A verb, a copula is sometimes called a copulative or copular verb. In English primary education grammar courses, a copula is called a linking verb. In other languages, copulas show more resemblances to pronouns, as in Classical Chinese and Guarani, or may take the form of suffixes attached to a noun, as in Korean and Inuit languages. Most languages have one main copula, although some have more than one, some have none. In the case of English, this is the verb to be. While the term copula is used to refer to such principal forms, it may be used to refer to some other verbs with similar functions, like become, get and seem in English; the principal use of a copula is to link the subject of a clause to a subject complement.
A copular verb is considered to be part of the predicate, the remainder being called a predicative expression. A simple clause containing a copula is illustrated below: The book is on the table. In that sentence, the noun phrase the book is the subject, the verb is serves as the copula, the prepositional phrase on the table is the predicative expression; the whole expression is on the table may be called a verb phrase. The predicative expression accompanying the copula known as the complement of the copula, may take any of several possible forms: it may be a noun or noun phrase, an adjective or adjective phrase, a prepositional phrase or another adverb or adverbial phrase expressing time or location. Examples are given below: Mary and John are my friends; the sky was blue. I am taller than most people; the birds and the beasts were there. The three components do not appear in that order: their positioning depends on the rules for word order applicable to the language in question. In English the ordering given is the normal one, but here too, certain variation is possible: In many questions and other clauses with subject–auxiliary inversion, the copula moves in front of the subject: Are you happy?
In inverse copular constructions the predicative expression precedes the copula, but the subject follows it: In the room were three men. It is possible, in certain circumstances, for one of the three components to be absent: In null-subject languages, the subject may be omitted, as it may from other types of sentence. In Italian, sono stanco means "I am tired" "am tired". In non-finite clauses in languages like English, the subject is absent, as in the participial phrase being tired or the infinitive phrase to be tired; the same applies to most imperative sentences like Be good! For cases in which no copula appears, see § Zero copula below. Any of the three components may be omitted as a result of various general types of ellipsis. In particular, in English, the predicative expression may be elided in a construction similar to verb phrase ellipsis, as in short sentences like I am. Inverse copular constructions, in which the positions of the predicative expression and the subject are reversed, are found in various languages.
They have been the subject of much theoretical analysis in regard to the difficulty of maintaining, in the case of such sentences, the usual division into a subject noun phrase and a predicate verb phrase. Another issue is verb agreement when both subject and predicative expression are noun phrases: in English, the copula agrees with the preceding phrase if it is not logically the subject, as in the cause of the riot is these pictures of the wall. Compare Italian la causa della rivolta sono queste foto del muro; the precise definition and scope of the concept of a copula is not precise in any language. For example, in English though the concept of the copula is most associated with the verb be, there are many other verbs that can be used in a copular sense as well. For example, The boy became a man; the girl got excited by her new toy. The dog grew tired from the activity, and more tenuously The milk turned sour. The food smells good. You seem upset. Predicates formed using a copula may express identity: that the two noun phrases have the same referent or express an identical concept: I want only to be myself.
The Morning Star is the Evening Star. They may express membership of a class or a subset relationship: She was a nurse. Dogs are carnivorous mammals, they may express some property, relation or position, permanent or temporary: The trees are green. I am your boss; the hen is next to the cockerel. The children are confused. Other special uses of copular verbs are described in some of the following sections; some languages use different copulas, or different syntax, when denoting a permanent, essential characteristic of something and when denoting a temporary state. For examples, see the sections on the Romance languages, Slavic languages and Irish. In many languages the principal copula is a verb, like English be, German sein, Mixtec kuu, Touareg emous, etc, it may inflect for grammatical categories like tense, aspect a
In linguistics, morphology is the study of words, how they are formed, their relationship to other words in the same language. It analyzes the structure of words and parts of words, such as stems, root words and suffixes. Morphology looks at parts of speech and stress, the ways context can change a word's pronunciation and meaning. Morphology differs from morphological typology, the classification of languages based on their use of words, lexicology, the study of words and how they make up a language's vocabulary. While words, along with clitics, are accepted as being the smallest units of syntax, in most languages, if not all, many words can be related to other words by rules that collectively describe the grammar for that language. For example, English speakers recognize that the words dog and dogs are related, differentiated only by the plurality morpheme "-s", only found bound to noun phrases. Speakers of English, a fusional language, recognize these relations from their innate knowledge of English's rules of word formation.
They infer intuitively. By contrast, Classical Chinese has little morphology, using exclusively unbound morphemes and depending on word order to convey meaning; these are understood as grammars. The rules understood by a speaker reflect specific patterns or regularities in the way words are formed from smaller units in the language they are using, how those smaller units interact in speech. In this way, morphology is the branch of linguistics that studies patterns of word formation within and across languages and attempts to formulate rules that model the knowledge of the speakers of those languages. Phonological and orthographic modifications between a base word and its origin may be partial to literacy skills. Studies have indicated that the presence of modification in phonology and orthography makes morphologically complex words harder to understand and that the absence of modification between a base word and its origin makes morphologically complex words easier to understand. Morphologically complex words are easier to comprehend.
Polysynthetic languages, such as Chukchi, have words composed of many morphemes. The Chukchi word "təmeyŋəlevtpəγtərkən", for example, meaning "I have a fierce headache", is composed of eight morphemes t-ə-meyŋ-ə-levt-pəγt-ə-rkən that may be glossed; the morphology of such languages allows for each consonant and vowel to be understood as morphemes, while the grammar of the language indicates the usage and understanding of each morpheme. The discipline that deals with the sound changes occurring within morphemes is morphophonology; the history of morphological analysis dates back to the ancient Indian linguist Pāṇini, who formulated the 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology in the text Aṣṭādhyāyī by using a constituency grammar. The Greco-Roman grammatical tradition engaged in morphological analysis. Studies in Arabic morphology, conducted by Marāḥ al-arwāḥ and Aḥmad b. ‘alī Mas‘ūd, date back to at least 1200 CE. The linguistic term "morphology" was coined by August Schleicher in 1859; the term "word" has no well-defined meaning.
Instead, two related terms are used in morphology: word-form. A lexeme is a set of inflected word-forms, represented with the citation form in small capitals. For instance, the lexeme eat contains the word-forms eat, eats and ate. Eat and eats are thus considered. Eat and Eater, on the other hand, are different lexemes. Thus, there are three rather different notions of ‘word’. Here are examples from other languages of the failure of a single phonological word to coincide with a single morphological word form. In Latin, one way to express the concept of'NOUN-PHRASE1 and NOUN-PHRASE2' is to suffix'-que' to the second noun phrase: "apples oranges-and", as it were. An extreme level of this theoretical quandary posed by some phonological words is provided by the Kwak'wala language. In Kwak'wala, as in a great many other languages, meaning relations between nouns, including possession and "semantic case", are formulated by affixes instead of by independent "words"; the three-word English phrase, "with his club", where'with' identifies its dependent noun phrase as an instrument and'his' denotes a possession relation, would consist of two words or just one word in many languages.
Unlike most languages, Kwak'wala semantic affixes phonologically attach not to the lexeme they pertain to semantically, but to the preceding lexeme. Consider the following example:kwixʔid-i-da bəgwanəmai-χ-a q'asa-s-isi t'alwagwayu Morpheme by morpheme translation: kwixʔid-i-da = clubbed-PIVOT-DETERMINERbəgwanəma-χ-a = man-ACCUSATIVE-DETERMINERq'asa-s-is = otter-INSTRUMENTAL-3SG-POSSESSIVEt'alwagwayu = club"the man clubbed the otter with his club."That is, to the speaker of Kwak'wala, the sentence does not contain the "words"'him-the-otter' or'with-his-club' Instead, the markers -i-da, referring to "man", attaches not to the noun bəgwanəma but to the verb.
An abbreviation is a shortened form of a word or phrase. It consists of a group of letters taken from the phrase. For example, the word abbreviation can itself be represented by the abbreviation abbr. abbrv. or abbrev. In strict analysis, abbreviations should not be confused with contractions, acronyms, or initialisms, with which they share some semantic and phonetic functions, though all four are connected by the term "abbreviation" in loose parlance. An abbreviation is a shortening by any method. A contraction of a word is made by omitting certain letters or syllables and bringing together the first and last letters or elements. A contraction is an abbreviation, but an abbreviation is not a contraction. Acronyms and initialisms are regarded as subsets of abbreviations, they are abbreviations that consist of the initial parts of words. Abbreviations have a long history, created; this might be done to save time and space, to provide secrecy. Shortened words were used and initial letters were used to represent words in specific applications.
In classical Greece and Rome, the reduction of words to single letters was common. In Roman inscriptions, "Words were abbreviated by using the initial letter or letters of words, most inscriptions have at least one abbreviation." However, "some could have more than one meaning, depending on their context."Abbreviations in English were used from its earliest days. Manuscripts of copies of the old English poem Beowulf used many abbreviations, for example 7 or & for and, y for since, so that "not much space is wasted"; the standardisation of English in the 15th through 17th centuries included such a growth in the use of abbreviations. At first, abbreviations were sometimes represented with various suspension signs, not only periods. For example, sequences like ‹er› were replaced with ‹ɔ›, as in ‹mastɔ› for master and ‹exacɔbate› for exacerbate. While this may seem trivial, it was symptomatic of an attempt by people manually reproducing academic texts to reduce the copy time. An example from the Oxford University Register, 1503: Mastɔ subwardenɔ y ɔmēde me to you.
And wherɔ y wrot to you the last wyke that y trouyde itt good to differrɔ thelectionɔ ovɔ to quīdenaɔ tinitatis y have be thougħt me synɔ that itt woll be thenɔ a bowte mydsomɔ. The Early Modern English period, between the 15th and 17th centuries, had abbreviations like ye for Þe, used for the word the: "hence, by misunderstanding, Ye Olde Tea Shoppe."During the growth of philological linguistic theory in academic Britain, abbreviating became fashionable. The use of abbreviation for the names of J. R. R. Tolkien and his friend C. S. Lewis, other members of the Oxford literary group known as the Inklings, are sometimes cited as symptomatic of this. A century earlier in Boston, a fad of abbreviation started that swept the United States, with the globally popular term OK credited as a remnant of its influence. After World War II, the British reduced the use of the full stop and other punctuation points after abbreviations in at least semi-formal writing, while the Americans more kept such use until more and still maintain it more than Britons.
The classic example, considered by their American counterparts quite curious, was the maintenance of the internal comma in a British organisation of secret agents called the "Special Operations, Executive"—"S. O. E"—which is not found in histories written after about 1960, but before that, many Britons were more scrupulous at maintaining the French form. In French, the period only follows an abbreviation if the last letter in the abbreviation is not the last letter of its antecedent: "M." is the abbreviation for "monsieur" while "Mme" is that for "madame". Like many other cross-channel linguistic acquisitions, many Britons took this up and followed this rule themselves, while the Americans took a simpler rule and applied it rigorously. Over the years, the lack of convention in some style guides has made it difficult to determine which two-word abbreviations should be abbreviated with periods and which should not; the U. S. media tend to use periods in two-word abbreviations like United States, but not personal computer or television.
Many British publications have done away with the use of periods in abbreviations. Minimization of punctuation in typewritten material became economically desirable in the 1960s and 1970s for the many users of carbon-film ribbons since a period or comma consumed the same length of non-reusable expensive ribbon as did a capital letter. Widespread use of electronic communication through mobile phones and the Internet during the 1990s allowed for a marked rise in colloquial abbreviation; this was due to increasing popularity of textual communication services such as instant- and text messaging. SMS, for instance, supports message lengths of 160 characters at most; this brevity gave rise to an informal abbreviation scheme sometimes called Textese, with which 10% or more of the words in a typical SMS message are abbreviated. More Twitter, a popular social networking service, began driving abbreviation use with 140 character message limits. In modern English, there are several conventions for abbreviations, the choice may be confusing.
The only rule universally accepted is th
In English grammar, a flat adverb or bare adverb is an adverb that has the same form as a related adjective. It does not end in -ly, e.g. "drive slow", "drive fast". A flat adverb is sometimes called simple adverb. Flat adverbs were once quite common but have been replaced by their -ly counterparts. In the 18th century, grammarians believed flat adverbs to be adjectives, insisted that adverbs needed to end in -ly. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "It's these grammarians we have to thank for... the sad lack of flat adverbs today". There are now only a few flat adverbs, some are thought of as incorrect. Despite bare adverbs being grammatically correct and used by respected authors, they are incorrectly stigmatized. There have been public campaigns against street signs with the traditional text "go slow" and the innovative text "drive friendly". For most bare adverbs, an alternative form exists ending in -ly. Sometimes the -ly form has a different meaning, sometimes the -ly form is not used for certain meanings.
The adverb'seldom' is a curious example. It dates back to Anglo-Saxon times, but starting in the 1960s the same word began appearing in English books as'seldomly', it has been hypothesized that the decline in usage of'seldom' in English, combined with the 18th century insistence on adverbs ending in -ly, resulted in its used -ly form. Usage of the word'thus' has fallen since 1800 – while usage of an -ly form,'thusly', has spiked recently. Numerical adjectives are used in an -ly form despite having a valid alternative. While words like firstly and lastly exist, their flat form is much more used. Here, in contrast to other flat adverbs such as'good', the flat form is universally accepted in English as proper speech; some bare adverbs don't alternate. In addition, the ending -ly is found on some words that are both adverbs and adjectives and some words that are only adjectives. Nearly all irregular comparative adjectives in English can take on adverbial form and never use the -ly; some examples are good, little and far – and their comparative forms.
My best number was the one. Which one hurt more? You did good. Steel and coal companies were the ones worst affected by tariffs; the adverbs'surely' and'really' would be grammatical in this figure, while only'sure' maintains its meaning after becoming flat. Each flat adverb modifies specific type of words: Flat adverbs work as intensifiers that modify specific words. Again, consider sentences containing real and really: I like the pie. I real like the pie.*Here, real becomes to become an adverb to the verb like, while real cannot do the same and remain flat. According to data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English, real was followed by a verb only 657 times. For comparison, real was followed by an adjective 12,813 times, with good being the most common adjective collocated. In this case, real can only modify adjectives; this pie tastes good. This pie tastes real good; this pie tastes good. This pie real tastes good.*Alternatively, the flat adverb sure can only modify verbs. Citing data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English, sure was followed by a verb 7,396 times, but it was followed by an adjective at only 470 times.
Compare:We sure had a great time. We had a great time. We had a sure great time.* We had a great time. This can be explained by the differing uses of the suffix -ly, another adverbial suffix, -e. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, there are two different uses of the suffix -ly: when the suffix transforms a word into an adjective, when it forms an adverb; the suffix's origins are in Old English, coming from -lice, in turn derived from the German -lich. Due to its use in history, many verbs and adverbs have been formed from roots that are harder to recognizable today. Before -ly, -e was the most common adverbial suffix in Old English; the suffixes were not competing and could be used interchangeably. Examinations of texts from the time period show that the -e form was more common in poetry, while the -lice form was more common in prose; as English developed as a language, it began weakening its vowels, as such the -e suffix disappeared, making the adverbs bare. Some words retained adverbial use such as long, fast, or hard.
The adverbs did not die out entirely. At this point in Old English, the adverbial system was still not as developed as it would become in stages. Sentential adverbs were beginning to be developed and adverbs became used in more specific ways, the vowel weakening -e in tandem with more expressed -ly forms caused -ly to become the dominant adverbial form. Although there was no categorical changes between flat adverbs and the new adverbs, their use was limited. More and more adverbs took on this form for greater homogeneity among the class. John Earle wrote that a flat adverb was "simply a substantive or an adjective placed in the adverbial position." However, he found that flat adverbs are not suitable for many of the advanced uses that a modern adverb might be. An example of a more advanced adverb would be the sentential as in we got along; the term'flat adve
In English, possessive words or phrases exist for nouns and most pronouns, as well as some noun phrases. These can play the roles of nouns. For historical reasons, this case is misleadingly called the possessive, it was called the genitive in fact expresses much more than possession. Most disagreements about the use of possessive forms of nouns and of the apostrophe are due to the erroneous belief that a term should not use an apostrophe if it does not express possession. In the words of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage: The argument is a case of fooling oneself with one’s own terminology. After the 18th-century grammarians began to refer to the genitive case as the possessive case and other commentators got it into their heads that the only use of the case was to show possession.... This dictionary cites a study in whose samples only 40% of the possessive forms were used to indicate actual possession. Nouns, noun phrases, some pronouns form a possessive with the suffix -'s; this form is sometimes called the Saxon genitive, reflecting the suffix's derivation from Old English or Anglo-Saxon.
Personal pronouns, have irregular possessives, most of them have different forms for possessive determiners and possessive pronouns, such as my and mine or your and yours. Possessives are one of the means by which genitive constructions are formed in modern English, the other principal one being the use of the preposition of, it is sometimes stated that the possessives represent a grammatical case, called the genitive or possessive case, though some linguists do not accept this view, regarding the's ending, variously, as a phrasal affix, an edge affix, or a clitic, rather than as a case ending. The possessive form of an English noun, or more a noun phrase, is made by suffixing a morpheme, represented orthographically as's, is pronounced in the same way as the regular English plural ending s: namely as when following a sibilant sound, as /s/ when following any other voiceless consonant, as /z/ otherwise. For example: Mitch /mɪtʃ/ has the possessive Mitch's luck /lʌk/ has the possessive luck's /lʌks/ man /mæn/ has the singular possessive man's /mænz/ and the plural possessive men'sNote the distinction from the plural in nouns whose plural is irregular: man's vs. men, wife's vs. wives, etc.
In the case of plural nouns ending in -s, the possessive is spelled by only adding an apostrophe and is pronounced the same. In the case of singular nouns ending in -s, the possessive was traditionally spelled by adding only an apostrophe, but this is now discouraged in American and Canadian English: the possessive of cats is cats', both words being pronounced /kæts/ the possessive of James is nowadays most spelled James's and pronounced -, but the possessive of Jesus is still spelled according to the older tradition of adding only an apostrophe and is and was pronounced the same. Singular nouns ending in s can form a possessive by adding's, as in Charles's; the Chicago Manual of Style recommends this more modern style, while stating that adding just an apostrophe is correct. The Elements of Style and the Canadian Press Stylebook prefer the form of s's with the exception of Biblical and classical proper names and common phrases that do not take the extra syllabic s. For more on style guidance for this and other issues relating to the construction of possessives in English, see possessive apostrophe.
More the's morpheme can be attached to the last word of a noun phrase if the head noun does not end the phrase. For example, the phrase the king of Spain can form the possessive the king of Spain's, – in informal style – the phrase the man we saw yesterday can form the man we saw yesterday's. Both John's and Laura's house and John and Laura's house are correct, though the latter is more common in idiomatic speech. See § Status of the possessive as a grammatical case below. Scientific terminology, in particular the Latin names for stars, uses the Latin genitive form of the name of the constellation. Unlike with other noun phrases which only have a single possessive form, personal pronouns in English have two possessive forms: possessive determiners and possessive pronouns. In most cases these are different from each other. For example, the pronoun I has possessive determiner my and possessive pronoun mine; the archaic thou has thine. For a full table and further details, see English personal pronouns.
Note that possessive its has no apostrophe, although it is sometimes written with one in error by confusion with the common possessive ending -'s and the contraction it's used for it is and it has. Possessive its was formed with an apostrophe in the 17th century, but it had been dropped by the early 19th century to make it more similar to the other personal pronoun possessives; the interrogative and relative pronoun who h
In English, a phrasal verb is a phrase such as turn down or ran into which combines two or three words from different grammatical categories: a verb and a particle and/or a preposition together form a single semantic unit. This semantic unit cannot be understood based upon the meanings of the individual parts, but must be taken as a whole. In other words, the meaning is non-compositional and thus unpredictable. Phrasal verbs that include a preposition are known as prepositional verbs and phrasal verbs that include a particle are known as particle verbs. Additional alternative terms for phrasal verb are compound verb, verb-adverb combination, verb-particle construction, two-part word/verb or three-part word/verb and multi-word verb. There are at least three main types of phrasal verb constructions depending on whether the verb combines with a preposition, a particle, or both; the phrasal verb constructions in the following examples are in bold. Verb + preposition When the element is a preposition, it is the head of a full prepositional phrase and the phrasal verb is thus prepositional.
These phrasal verbs can be thought of as transitive and non-separable. Who is looking after the kids? – after is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase after the kids. B, they picked on nobody. – on is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase on nobody. C. I ran into an old friend. -- into is a preposition. D, she takes after her mother. – after is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase after her mother. E. Sam passes for a linguist. -- for is a preposition. F. You should stand by your friend. – by is a preposition that introduces the prepositional phrase by your friend Verb + particle When the element is a particle, it can not be construed as a preposition, but rather is a particle because it does not take a complement. These verbs can be intransitive. If they are transitive, they are separable. A, they brought that up twice. – up is a particle, not a preposition. B. You should think it over. – over is a particle, not a preposition. C. Why does he always dress down?
– down is a particle, not a preposition. D. You should not give in so quickly. – in is a particle, not a preposition. E. Where do they want to hang out? – out is a particle, not a preposition. F, she handed it in. – in is a particle, not a preposition. Verb + particle + preposition Many phrasal verbs combine a preposition. Just as for prepositional verbs, particle-prepositional verbs are not separable. A. Who can put up with that? – up is a particle and with is a preposition. B, she is looking forward to a rest. – forward is a particle and to is a preposition. C; the other tanks were bearing down on my Panther. – down is a particle and on is a preposition. D, they were teeing off on me. – off is a particle and on is a preposition. E. We loaded up on Mountain Doritos. – up is a particle and on is a preposition f. Susan has been sitting in for me. – in is a particle and for is a preposition. The aspect of these types of verbs that unifies them under the single banner phrasal verb is the fact that their meaning cannot be understood based upon the meaning of their parts taken in isolation: the meaning of pick up is distinct from pick.
When a particle verb is transitive, it can look just like a prepositional verb. This similarity is source of confusion, since it obscures the difference between prepositional and particle verbs. A simple diagnostic distinguishes between the two, however; when the object of a particle verb is a definite pronoun, it can and does precede the particle. In contrast, the object of a preposition can never precede the preposition. A. You can bank on Susan. – on is a preposition. B. *You can bank Susan on. – The object of the preposition cannot precede the preposition.a. You can take on Susan. – on is a particle. B. You can take Susan on. – The object of the particle verb can precede the particle.a. He is getting over the situation. – over is a preposition. B. *He is getting the situation over. – The object of the preposition cannot precede the preposition in the phrasal verb.a. He is thinking over the situation. – over is a particle. B, he is thinking the situation over. – The object of the particle verb can precede the particleThus the distinction between particles and prepositions is made by function, because the same word can function sometimes as a particles and sometimes as a preposition.
The terminology of phrasal verbs is inconsistent. Modern theories of syntax tend to use the term phrasal verb to denote particle verbs only. In contrast, literature in English as a second or foreign language ESL/EFL, tends to employ the term phrasal verb to encompass both prepositional and particle verbs. Note that prepositions and adverbs can have a literal meaning, spatial or orientational. Many English verbs interact with a preposition or an adverb to yield a meaning that can be understood from the constiuent elements, he walked across the square. She looked outside; these more understandable combinations are not phrasal verbs, although EFL/ESL books and dictionaries may include them in lists of phrasal verbs. Furthermore, the same words that occur as a genuine phrasal verb can appear in other contexts, as in 1 She looked up his address. Phrasal verb. 1 She looked his address up. Phrasal verb. 2 When he heard the crash, he looked up. Not a phrasal verb. 2 When he heard the c