|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| rainism wrote: |
so you're saying Cambridge English Grammar in Use now is mistaken?
I'm perfectly willing to accept what they say  |
How does what I wrote contradict the information in the grammar you cite? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
�Rather� - in your example...is not being used as an adverb...as you already surmised.
'Would rather'...is considered a modal-like form.
As far as splitting the modal-like form�so far I am unable to find any prescriptive rule on the subject. |
Whether 'would rather' functions as a quasi-modal here is irrelevant to this discussion, because 'rather' would still be an adverb(ial particle). Phrasal verbs function in the same manner, two/three words form a single grammatical unit, but the adverbial particles can still move, as in (4).
(4) Peter turned off the light in the living room.
(a) Peter turned the light in the living room off.
(b) Peter turned the light off.
More food for thought:
(5) She would really rather have been playing.
(6) She would have much rather been playing. |
...hmm...irrelevant...really? 
It would appear it is quite relevant...especially if you are going to use it to compare this structure with phrasal verbs. Actually, it is a logical step for comparing lexical units of divisibility. I did the same - which is where the modal-like comparison comes from.
As we are both fully aware, phrasal verbs are a complicated structure, but offer a solution to decide whether or not this modal-like structure can be divided(perhaps even prescriptively so).
There are both separable and inseparable phrasal verbs.
You have provided us with an example of a separable one.
Peter turned off the lights.
Peter turned the lights off.
Inseparable:
I came across an interesting grammar construction.
I ran into this complicated grammar question on a test.
(get over, look into, go for...etc.)
The rules for phrasal verbs are far too extensive to discuss in this thread...suffice to say:
Some are always separable, some never, some both...some change meaning when separated...some don't.
Using this information gives us greater flexibility to decide upon the divisibility of the initial post.
As the grammar point in question is not in any way idiomatic, the meaning remains the same in either sentence (as meangradin and others have also noted in previous posts.) This builds a stronger case as to the divisibility of this construction.
As I stated in my initial post on this thread, it would appear this is a construction that can be both.
However, the more educated reader/writer may find the informality of the division too informal...as many find phrasal verbs to be too informal for formal essays.
hmm...beating a dead horse here maybe.
In any case, the OP was looking for more information on this specific grammatical structure and now has a broader view than he did previously...perhaps we all do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
