Fronting
Elements which are usually found after the verb (i.e. in post-verbal position) can be moved forward to the beginning of a sentence to give them greater prominence. This stylistic device is called
"fronting". Here are some examples:
"A Welshman I was born and a Welshman I shall die." (fronted complement)
"Bloody awful that was." (fronted complement)
"Why don't you take up swimming for relaxation?" "Relaxation you call it." (fronted object)
Some things you forget. Other things you never do. (fronted object)
The main discourse functions of "fronting" are:
•organising information flow to achieve cohesion (i.e. linking directly back to something
that was said before)
•expression of contrast
•enabling particular elements to gain emphasis.
http://www.anglistik.unibonn.de/staff/o ... 1-Gram.pdf
Fronting prepositional phrases
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
lolwhites wrote:
Harzer wrote:
Any thoughts indeed
Wow Harzer, I think that you are on to something here. Not only does a fronted prepositional phrase on an intransitive verb link to the sentence before it, it also sets up anticipation for what is to follow. What a powerful retorical device this is.
I realised after reading your post, however, that intransitive verbs do not necessarily need a trailing prepositional phrase if they are fronted by another prepositional phrase - it doesn't matter very much what you put after the intransitive verb as long as you put something.
Adapting one of your examples:
Metal I like your post too, I can't add much to what you said, though, except that the website that you posted also mentions copular verbs. I think that the rules for fronting for copular verbs are the same for transitive verbs, they are a type of transitive verb, afterall (not sure about this, though, anyone disagree?). You put this thread nicely in context. Everyone should look at your post.
Actually, if two auxiliaries exist (such as with the future perfect), he keeps both at the front.Actually, from your sample it appears that Yoda breaks the sentence at the primary auxiliary (if one exists) or failing that the main verb, then fronts everything that comes after.
Harzer wrote:
For supper we sat in our caravan.
With our hands full, we couldn't move any faster.
I detect something innately contrastive in these sentences, which is what allows them to pass muster.
For three nights we stayed in the hotel, but for the rest of the time we .......
Although we had lunch in a four-star restaurant for supper ..... .
Emptyhanded, we would have managed fine but with our hands full ....
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts indeed

I realised after reading your post, however, that intransitive verbs do not necessarily need a trailing prepositional phrase if they are fronted by another prepositional phrase - it doesn't matter very much what you put after the intransitive verb as long as you put something.
Adapting one of your examples:
This seems easiest with a phrasal verb, but it is possible with a non phrasal verb:For three nights we stayed in, but for the rest of the time we...
This is a little strange because intransitive verbs without any prepositional phrase can quite happily leave a bare verb at the end. It is as if we have an equation that needs balancing.For three days he ran, not knowing where he was, or whether he had escaped his enemies.
Metal I like your post too, I can't add much to what you said, though, except that the website that you posted also mentions copular verbs. I think that the rules for fronting for copular verbs are the same for transitive verbs, they are a type of transitive verb, afterall (not sure about this, though, anyone disagree?). You put this thread nicely in context. Everyone should look at your post.