Re: OT: ago

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:17:54 -0600, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

>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.
Surely you are not claiming that it is correct for a preposition to not
be complimented by a noun. These constructions are idiomatic in that e.g.
"for long" is a simplification of "for a long time".............
...............................................
...............................................
Well................since English allows for these types of expressions
.........you are right!

One could consider "long ago" as a simplification of "a long time ago"
So I changed my mind. I agree with you that it is best described
as a postposition.

I don't think you even need to qualify that statement with "the
nearest thing in English to a.....".

So The Colombia Guide should have read: "ago---postposition"