USAGE: Verbs and verb compounds (was: Metaconlinguistic terminology)

Tom Wier wrote:

> (1) "Jack and Jill ran up the hill"
> (2) "Jack and Jill ran up the bill"
> (3) *"Jack and Jill ran the hill up"
> (4) "Jack and Jill ran the bill up"
>
> Now why is that?  That's a pretty mysterious rule, if you ask me.
Not a bit.  The sentences parse as:

1) (Jack and Jill) ran (up the hill)
2) (Jack and Jill) (ran up) (the bill)

Postposing "up" to the end is possible only if it is part
of the verb, not if it is a true preposition governing a noun
phrase.  (Apologies for mongrel terminology here.)

> There's no way you can explain why a metaphorical
> treatment of a verb should be syntacticly encoded differently
> than a concrete one.
Not metaphor vs. literal, but simple verb vs. verb-prep compound.
Such compounds in English fit into classes that are unconnected
with the classes of the underlying verbs:  "put", "put up", and
"put up with" are not interchangeable:

        I'll put the bag up in the loft with the other bags.
        I'll put up John for the night with Frank.
        I'll put up with Henry for the time being.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)