Korean Job Discussion Forums

[greedy_bones]

While teaching phrasal verbs, something struck me as odd. Why is it that when using a pronoun as the direct object, the phrasal verb has to be split, but it's ok not to when using other nouns?

For example: I take out the trash/I take it out.
I put on a jacket/I put it on.

Is there a historical reason for this, or is it some sort of grammatical logic I'm missing?

[shantaram]

For a start, it is OK to split the phrasal verb and use the noun even if it is not a pronoun. For example, I put the jacket on.

But of course, as you stated, pronouns must come between the verb and the particle.

In French, if you use a pronoun to replace a noun, it comes before the verb. Maybe English has evolved from this, or maybe this rule evolves from Latin? I don't know any Latin. But let me give you an example from French.

Vous prendrez le petit d�jeuner? (You + take + breakfast?)
Oui nous le prendrons (Yes + we + it + take)

Note that 'le petit d�jeuner' is the compound noun in the first sentence and 'le' is the replacement pronoun in the second sentence.

See how the pronoun has been repositioned?

As I said, perhaps the common evolutions of the languages has something to do with it? It still doesn't explain why the pronoun comes before the particle and not before the verb in English, but it comes reasonably close.

[jadarite]

For every phrasal verb, we have the first word which means something else alone, but might be related in some way.

For example: "Put it on" and ".....put on it, ....."

Here we have "Put on" and "Put". I don't see anything grammatically wrong with saying, "I went to the basement, brought up a table, and put on it my new computer.

If you reject that one, because it probably sounds awkward, then try a simple question, "What will you put on it?"

Maybe this is just matter of being too close to the trees to see the forest.