Teacher Discussion Forums

The various forms of phrasal verbs

Phrasal verbs can be transitive or intransitive, separable or inseparable.
The object or accusative can in the cases of separable phrasal verbs be placed before or after the particle.
With inseparable phrases, the object/accusative is fixed and its position either before or after the particle cannot be changed by the speaker.
Our analysis has shown that the position of the object/accusative assigns an importance, diminished importance, or a complete lack of importance from the speakers point of view.
If the particle is followed by the object/accusative then the importance is clearly shown.
If the object/accusative precedes the particle it has a diminished or lack of importance.
If the object/accusative can go before or after the particle, as is the case in separable phrases, then the importance assigned to it is decided by position the speaker places it.
The separable phrases are commonly described as having the same meaning, no matter where the object/accusative is placed, either before or after the particle and in general this may be true, however there is a difference, so small as to be unnoticed.
There nevertheless occasions when the object/accusative sounds to be misplaced to the ears of a native speaker.
There are in many phrases a word order that is generally accepted to be the norm, and a diversion from this order would immediately be noticed by a native speaker and not necessarily by a non-native.
For example, the colours of the Union Jack (the British national flag), are red, white and blue. If somebody described them as blue red and white, they are technically correct, but the native speaker would sense an uncomfortable feeling that the speaker was not quite right, or had spoken incorrectly.

There are many example of this: bacon and eggs (correct) eggs and bacon (uncomfortable). Black and white films (correct) white and black films (uncomfortable). Cup and saucer (correct) saucer and cup (uncomfortable).
There is nothing in English grammar that rules the order of these words and to a non-native speaker the fact that all the information is there, is all that matters, but the uncomfortable sensation felt by the native demonstrates that something very subtle is going on.
The same applies to the separable phrasal verbs. In most instances the subtle difference is unnoticed even by the native, yet in speaking the word order used demonstrates a particular importance or diminished importance that has subconsciously been attached by the speaker.
For example. “that man is chatting my girl-friend up”, in this phrase, I have given a diminished importance to my “girl-friend” and there is a subtle sense of indifference to the situation. Whereas “that man is chatting up my girl-friend”, in this phrase ‘my girl-friend’ is after the particle and is subtly stressed. “My girl-friend” is shown to have more importance in this phrase and there is an implied sense of indignation as opposed to indifference.

When we use a pronoun instead of naming the object/accusative, the pronoun always goes before the particle. The reason being that once the object has been named the attached importance to the person or thing is slightly diminished, but the importance can be restated by the repetition of the name.
For example, “Is your girl-friend called Sarah?” “Yes why?” “Well, that man is chatting her up ”. “Bloody hell, you’re right, he’s chatting up my Sarah”.
Here the indignation is obvious because of the naming of the girl a second time. If the phrase was “yes he’s chatting her up” the indignation felt by the speaker and heard by the listener would depend on the inflection of the voice, whereas in “my Sarah”, there is no doubt how the speaker feels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our analysis on the origins and the logic behind phrasal verbs is in the final stages and we shall be publishing in the very near future, any comments are welcome and you may contact me or my colleague at the following
[email protected]

but the uncomfortable sensation felt by the native demonstrates that something very subtle is going on.

In the collocations you quote - I don't see anything at all subtle. It's simply a question of the lexical item being a single unit.

There is also the fact that languages that have the adjective after the noun, such as Spanish, often have many of these phrases reversed "blanco y negro", "ni pies ni cabeza"; this is however not a rule and there are many cases where the order is the same "beicon con huevos" "sal y pimienta".

As you don't give any hint as to what your theory regarding phrasal verbs is, it is hard to comment. The adverb comes after the pronoun subject because it is short "I chatted her up" , but tends to stay with the verb when the object is longer; I for one do not see any difference between "he's chatting up Sara" and "he's chatting Sara up".

I suspect that where the meaning of the compound verb is significantly different from that of the constituent parts then there is a tendency to keep the two parts of the verb together. For example, compare,
The night they brought old Dixie down
with
The riots that brought down Nikolai Ceaucescu..

"Now he's chatting up Jane. Now he's chatting Sue up. Look, now he's trying to chat up Mary, or is he trying to chat her friend up?"

Sorry, I just don't detect any different degrees of indignation.

kvinchuca wrote:The various forms of phrasal verbs

Phrasal verbs can be transitive or intransitive, separable or inseparable.
The object or accusative can in the cases of separable phrasal verbs be placed before or after the particle.
With inseparable phrases, the object/accusative is fixed and its position either before or after the particle cannot be changed by the speaker.
Our analysis has shown that the position of the object/accusative assigns an importance, diminished importance, or a complete lack of importance from the speakers point of view.
If the particle is followed by the object/accusative then the importance is clearly shown.
If the object/accusative precedes the particle it has a diminished or lack of importance.
If the object/accusative can go before or after the particle, as is the case in separable phrases, then the importance assigned to it is decided by position the speaker places it.
The separable phrases are commonly described as having the same meaning, no matter where the object/accusative is placed, either before or after the particle and in general this may be true, however there is a difference, so small as to be unnoticed.
There nevertheless occasions when the object/accusative sounds to be misplaced to the ears of a native speaker.
There are in many phrases a word order that is generally accepted to be the norm, and a diversion from this order would immediately be noticed by a native speaker and not necessarily by a non-native.
For example, the colours of the Union Jack (the British national flag), are red, white and blue. If somebody described them as blue red and white, they are technically correct, but the native speaker would sense an uncomfortable feeling that the speaker was not quite right, or had spoken incorrectly.

There are many example of this: bacon and eggs (correct) eggs and bacon (uncomfortable). Black and white films (correct) white and black films (uncomfortable). Cup and saucer (correct) saucer and cup (uncomfortable).
There is nothing in English grammar that rules the order of these words and to a non-native speaker the fact that all the information is there, is all that matters, but the uncomfortable sensation felt by the native demonstrates that something very subtle is going on.
The same applies to the separable phrasal verbs. In most instances the subtle difference is unnoticed even by the native, yet in speaking the word order used demonstrates a particular importance or diminished importance that has subconsciously been attached by the speaker.
For example. “that man is chatting my girl-friend up”, in this phrase, I have given a diminished importance to my “girl-friend” and there is a subtle sense of indifference to the situation. Whereas “that man is chatting up my girl-friend”, in this phrase ‘my girl-friend’ is after the particle and is subtly stressed. “My girl-friend” is shown to have more importance in this phrase and there is an implied sense of indignation as opposed to indifference.

When we use a pronoun instead of naming the object/accusative, the pronoun always goes before the particle. The reason being that once the object has been named the attached importance to the person or thing is slightly diminished, but the importance can be restated by the repetition of the name.
For example, “Is your girl-friend called Sarah?” “Yes why?” “Well, that man is chatting her up ”. “Bloody hell, you’re right, he’s chatting up my Sarah”.
Here the indignation is obvious because of the naming of the girl a second time. If the phrase was “yes he’s chatting her up” the indignation felt by the speaker and heard by the listener would depend on the inflection of the voice, whereas in “my Sarah”, there is no doubt how the speaker feels.

You need to go back to the drawing board, tio.

I have presented a small titbit for viewers ro read.
I have not given any explanation as to why my article says what it does, that will be divulged in the publication.
It is easy to deny the article as rubbish, but since I have not presented the analysis, only the result, any criticism may appear to be shallow when the reasoning behind the article is demonstrated.
Until then, keep on memorizing, there are thousands of verbs to keep you busy.

Let's look at this.

You don't present any reasoning, or methodology or anything. Just a 'tidbit' which you call the result of your analysis, which is either hopelessly vague or hopelessly wrong.

But we should all wait with bated breath for "publication" as if it were the latest Harry Potter saga.

My dear Steven,
Yes I'm afraid you do have to wait with bated breath, but like Harry Potter, there is magic coming.
"Patience is the companion of wisdom" ...Saint Augustine

kvinchuca wrote:I have presented a small titbit for viewers ro read.
I have not given any explanation as to why my article says what it does, that will be divulged in the publication.
It is easy to deny the article as rubbish, but since I have not presented the analysis, only the result, any criticism may appear to be shallow when the reasoning behind the article is demonstrated.
Until then, keep on memorizing, there are thousands of verbs to keep you busy.

Please tell me something. Which of these are phrasal verbs, in your opinion?

turn down
believe in
get up
look forward to
have faith in
look after
get on with
talk about
put up with
break down
run out of
wait for
get off

kvinchuca wrote:My dear Steven,
Yes I'm afraid you do have to wait with bated breath, but like Harry Potter, there is magic coming.
"Patience is the companion of wisdom" ...Saint Augustine

And "bullsh*t precedes even the best of us"... M56

For example. “that man is chatting my girl-friend up”

Equal stress possible:

“that man is chatting my girl-friend up”

This is the poster who claimed that, based on learner dictionaries (!), there were 41 particles and told ME to check out whether the 20 or more particles that I thought of off the top of my head formed PV's or not.

So I never got an answer to my question whether:

"Plans to unite the companies have run aground although many investors had come alongside."


contained two PV's or not.

Nor was there any reply to my comment that PV's are far older than Medieval England so couldn't have been coined at that time. A huge proportion of the Dutch PV system is cognate with the English (eg give up/upgeven, put on/aan setten) but they certainly didn't visit Stratford-on-Avon and borrow the whole thing. Obviously they have a common Germanic if not Indo-European root.

Again no answer. Maybe the learner dictionaries don't have etymologies.

Now we have another theory (Who remembers Anne Elk?). It seems to be based on rightward shifting (Chomsky 1957).

I am confused by:

"Phrasal verbs can be transitive or intransitive, separable or inseparable.
The object or accusative can in the cases of separable phrasal verbs be placed before or after the particle.
With inseparable phrases, the object/accusative is fixed and its position either before or after the particle cannot be changed by the speaker."

As I commented before:

"Many would disagree with your inclusion of verbs plus preposition in the category of PVs. "

This is often the litmus paper of a rigorous approach to the question of PV's. It's one thing to slip in a few verb+prep when teaching PV's but it's quite another to include them in the category of "inseparable" PV's if you're being serious.

In answer to your question, there are many words that that can be mistaken for preposition and adverbs which appear in the formation of phrasal verbs. They are not however prepositions, not adverbs, but should be regarded as particles. The confusion lies in the fact that they are better known in their preposition or adverb form, but there are words that verbs, nouns and adjectives, depending on the context.
Aground is an adverb, as is ashore.
"Aground" and "ashore" are not to be found in phrasal verbs.
Please check the following links to the Cambridge On-line Dictionary

aground/ ashore
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD

across:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD

away:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD

I suspect you are misinforming your students, as you appear to be sadly misinformed yourself as to what constitutes a phrasal verb and the particles that are elemental in their formation.

But do not despair, all will be revealed in the near future.

Kind regards

kvinchuca

So the particles that make up the second part of two and three part verbs are not usually adverbs ?

The "on" of "you're having me on, Kevin" is not an adverb?

Gosh, I had no idea. Silly me. Still, I expect I'm not the only one feeling a bit silly:


www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/viewtopi ... ght=#19277

will show how many deluded fools there are, quite reputable ones too.

Need help?

In answer to your question, there are many words that that can be mistaken for prepositions and adverbs which appear in the formation of phrasal verbs.

The whole sentence needs work.

This one also:

The confusion lies in the fact that they are better known in their preposition or adverb form, but there are words that verbs, nouns and adjectives, depending on the context.