Talk:English phrasal verbs: Difference between revisions
Megaman en m (talk | contribs) Reverting edit(s) by 197.211.0.58 (talk) to rev. 1086712433 by Kent Dominic: non-constructive (RW 16.1) |
Kent Dominic (talk | contribs) →Shifting: new section |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
The current lede continues to be at odds with how I'd characterize phrasal verbs if left to my druthers, but it now more closely reflects current theory and practice. Feel free to add cites and/or editing tweaks, as needed. --[[User:Kent Dominic|Kent Dominic·(talk)]] 21:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC) |
The current lede continues to be at odds with how I'd characterize phrasal verbs if left to my druthers, but it now more closely reflects current theory and practice. Feel free to add cites and/or editing tweaks, as needed. --[[User:Kent Dominic|Kent Dominic·(talk)]] 21:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Shifting == |
|||
The section on '''Shifting''' characterizes its occurrence when objects "are very light." I know of no source for ''light'' objects. Indeed, the whole section describes ''tmesis'' rather than ''shifting'' since there's nothing "noncanonical" about a transitive object that immediately follows a transitive verb. Fair notice: I'm eventually gonna take a scalpel to the section unless someone beats me to it. --[[User:Kent Dominic|Kent Dominic·(talk)]] 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:57, 26 May 2022
Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
|
||
Phrasal verbs in other languages
There's a number of verbs that are originally made of a verb and a particle joined together, such as understand, undertake, forgive and so on. Supposedly, in English they were predecessors of phrasal verbs - there still are separable verbs in German, which work like something in between ('aufstehen' becomes 'stehen *** auf'). And the fact is, verbs made of a prefix particle and a verb are really often in Indo-European languages - I personally also know they are in Ancient Greek, Latin (and, consequently, French / Spanish / Italian / etc) and Russian.
I'm not a linguist, so it's just a piece of idea for someone who actually knows if that's a piece of information that worths adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.83.169 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your description of word compounding differs from the phrasing comprehended by phrasal verbs as construed in English. Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- As the article already says, English particle verbs and German separable verbs are independent but parallel developments of old verb prefixes. That much is true. However, the point of talking about "phrasal verbs" is to explain to language students why there are verb phrases containing extra words. There is really no merit in including verbs where the prefix is still a prefix. The use of prefixes is a basic element of all Indo-European languages, and in all the languages you mention, elements like "under" can be prefixes, prepositions, adverbs or particles, since they migrate easily from one part of speech to another in the course of a language's history. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Apology re recent change to lede definition
My edit from moments ago represents a lede that is hugely at odds with the definition in my own lexicon, which limits the concept of a phrasal verb to collocations excluding the following –
verb + adverb
e.g., talk fastverb + preposition
e.g., it comes in three colorsverb + particle + preposition
e.g., put up withverb + noun/pronoun + particle
e.g., piss them off; took the signs down
In short, I consider phrasal verbs as limited solely to verb + particle
as collocated without an intervening noun/pronoun. In my book, the four items ID'd above are verb phrases although #3 from above is a verb phrase that entails the put up phrasal verb followed by with (someone or something) as a predicative object. My apology: My edit to the lede leaves intact the adverb and preposition elements traditionally associated with phrasal verbs and as had been presented in the article. Please don't shoot the messenger for emending the lede's semantics without emending its substance. I'm just abiding by the WP:OR guidelines. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it is far better to restrict the term "phrasal verb" to the particle construction. As a teacher, that's what I do too. Unfortunately, the grammar books are inconsistent, so we have to do justice to a complicated situation. But I think we are at least beginning to become more precise about what types are meant. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- It boils down to swimming against a tide of traditional grammars that mix up terminology in naive ways. My challenge both here and in my own work: how to simply and effectively describe stuff without sacrificing precision. Soldier on! Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Apology re lede, Part II
The current lede continues to be at odds with how I'd characterize phrasal verbs if left to my druthers, but it now more closely reflects current theory and practice. Feel free to add cites and/or editing tweaks, as needed. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Shifting
The section on Shifting characterizes its occurrence when objects "are very light." I know of no source for light objects. Indeed, the whole section describes tmesis rather than shifting since there's nothing "noncanonical" about a transitive object that immediately follows a transitive verb. Fair notice: I'm eventually gonna take a scalpel to the section unless someone beats me to it. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)