Re: Cases and Prepositions (amongst others)

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Raymond Brown wrote:

>At 2:10 am -0500 15/6/00, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
>>Raymond Brown wrote:
>>
>>> >> "From here"?
>>> >
>>> >Of course, "here" in this case is used substantively, not adverbially.
>>>
>>> Sorry, gentleman, but this looks to mean horribly like a "vicious circle"
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> "here" is normally classed as an adverb.
>>> So what are we saying?
>>> (a) prepositions never govern adverbs;
>>> (b) so in the phrase 'from here', 'here' is a substantive.
>>> (c) why is it a substantive here?
>>> (d) because it is governed by a preposition.
>>
>>Except, who's saying "here" was originally an adverb?
>
>Chamber's English Dictionary.
>
>I haven't checked, but I'm 100% certain that I'd find the Oxford English
>Dictionary does the same - and I'd be surprised if Webster's didn't also.
Oxford calls it an adv. (Though it also gives an obsolescent noun
and an obs. adj.; which now that I know about them, will be sure
to use at some point).

>Some 50 or more years ago at school I was taught that "here" is an adverb
>of place.
>
>"here" corresponds almost exactly, as far as I can see, with words
>classified as adverbs in other languages, e.g.
>Latin: ibi; Fr. ici; Sp. aquí; Port. aqui; It. qui; Rom. aici; Germ. &
>Dutch: hier; Dan. & Nor: her; Sw. här; Gr. eDó; Pol. tutaj; Czech: zde;
>SerboCroat: ovde;
>
>etc. etc. etc.
>
>>Why not say 'here' originally
>>referred simply to a substantive relation,
>
>..because it's governed by a preposition?  But by the very same criterion
>Spanish 'aquí' becomes a substantive in the phrase 'por aquí' (here;
>colloquial Eng. "by here"), Italian 'qui' becomes a substantive in 'da qui'
>(hence, from here) etc.
>
>>and by means of the derivational 'null-morpheme'
>>(such as when we get:  "It's a hit!"  from "to hit"), it *can* be used
>>adverbially?
>
>'hit' *cannot* be used adverbially - and one cannot say "It's a here" nor,
>indeed, is there a verb "to here".  Therefore IMHO 'hit' is not comparable
>to 'here'
For what it's worth: as far as I'm concerned, it can be used as
a noun.

>
>>I realize that sounds ad hoc;
>
>I agree   :)
>
>[snip]
>>
>>> I've never seem either the Vulgar Latin phrases nor the Spanish one so
>>> described before - rather I've seen them called 'composite adverbs'.  So
>>> why ain't 'from here' a composite adverb also?
>>
>>I'm not saying they're impossible;  only, that I don't think that
>>describes English
>>syntax.
>
>And now, how does one analyze the common South Walian colloquialism: "from
>over by here" ?  Does the preposition 'from' make 'over' into a
>substantive?  If so, we then have 'by' linking one substantive with another
>which must surely make 'by here' and adjectival phrase, qualifying the
>substantive 'over'.
I would have no problems in substantival 'here' governed by a
compound emphatic preposition 'over by' governed by a preposition
'from'. But then again, I aint a grammarian. ;) Neither a
Southwallian.

Regardless of how we might deal with 'from over by'; I'd say the
'here' is now a substantive: either a noun (like "Here is where
I am.") or a pronoun (also like "Here is where I am.").

Padraic.

>Somehow, I still feel that treating both 'from here' and 'from over by
>here' as composite adverbs somewhat easier.
>
>Ray.
>
>
>
>
>=========================================
>A mind which thinks at its own expense
>will always interfere with language.
>                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
>=========================================
>