Re: USAGE: Verbs and verb compounds

> Date:         Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:44:25 -0700
> From: Sally Caves <scaves@...>
> In all fairness to Charles, I think what he meant is that the
> preposition in these constructions are also functioning
> adverbially... something that pleases me, because Teonaht is just as
> casual about its preps and its adverbs. How are you talking?
> "about." How are you looking? "at." The detachability comes about
> because we also think of them as prepositions. Is it "look at," a
> verb phrase, or "look" plus prepositional phrase?
I've read that the prepositions now found in the Indo-European
languages used to be adverbs. 'Extra' oblique arguments in a sentence
just got a suitable case, like locative, and the adverb was only
needed for precision. They were only grammaticalized as prepositions
later.

In that system, your two views of a detachable verb become the same.

(Classical Latin still has a trace of the old system, where you don't
use 'in' and 'to' with "names of cities and small islands," but just
case forms (depending on the noun class, since the locative has merged
with other cases in Latin). I think the point is that unlike houses,
hills, rivers, whatever, there's only one common way to be located at
or headed towards a city or small island, so the preposition is not
needed).

> This is the conundrum I think Churchill was addressing with his
> famous (putative) remark. (Was it Churchill? or is this a myth?)
> "The ending of a sentence with a preposition is a barbarism up with
> which I will not put." Or something like that.
The way I heard it: Someone corrected/criticized Churchill for using a
preposition to end a sentence with. To which he replied, "Arrant
nonsense, up with which I will not put."

Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour NOT marked)