Re: OT: ago

Harold Ensle wrote:
> Now I think saying it a postposition is not a bad idea. Since it
> requires an additional word, I seems it could be defined like a
> preposition.  Pre/postpositions are similar to adverbs, e.g. I went
> into the house, I went into*. the only difference being the requirement
> of an additional word. The reason I did not follow this idea is because
> pre/postpositions are invariably complimented by a noun, which in the
> case of the second sentence at top "long" is not a noun.
Hmm, but we can say "before long" in English, although you could argue
that "before" is an adverb in this case, or that "before long" is an
idiomatic compound which acts as an adverb. A better example might be
"for far too long", where "for" is clearly a preposition and "far too
long" doesn't seem much like a noun.

  It seems that
> any additional description is sufficient to allow the usage of "ago".
> Since that is contrary to the function of a postposition...and given
> the general nature of English as a prepositional language, I think the
> best definition (which covers all its uses) would be an adverb with
> some limitation on its usage.
>
> Of course "best" is just my opinion....but the Columbia Guide is
> definitely messed up.
>
I agree; whatever it is, it certainly isn't an adjective.