4 ms·

> where the verb is actually "to come from". I'm not sure what you mean by this, because "to come from" isn't a verb, and you can't simply declare that it is.

> where the verb is actually "to come from". I'm not sure what you mean by this, because "to come from" isn't a verb, and you can't simply declare that it is. Also FWIW, upon re-reading the article, it says Danish actually also has this (more specifically, it said Old Norse allowed for this, "which Danish retains"). So I guess it's 4 languages, not 3. Not that that really makes any difference here, since the whole point is that dangling prepositions are rather exceptional and nearly all languages don't allow them.

jdmichal 9y ago
> I'm not sure what you mean by this, because "to come from" isn't a verb, and you can't simply declare that it is. "ab·fahren" is analyzed as a verb in German, even though it is clearly a verb with a detachable prepositional particle which modifies that verb. Let's look at some English examples: stand up, stand out, stand in, stand down, stand by, stand back, stand for These all have drastically different meanings from both each other and from the verb "stand". I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be analyzed as individual verbs, same as the German ones. Do you have an actual reasoning behind not analyzing them in that way? And this isn't just some strange idea that I, random internet person, am spouting either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separable_verb#Analogy_to_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separable_verb#Analogy_to_Engl...
- eridius 9y ago
  For all of your examples except "stand for", you have a verb and an adverbial particle. "stand for" (and "come from") is a verb and a preposition. So all of your examples except for "stand for" are already something different. For example, with "come from", "where did you come from?" is the same as "from where did you come?", but there's no equivalent with e.g. "stand up". And conversely, you can "screw things up", but you can't "come <object> from". Anyway, simply put, they aren't verbs. They're "phrasal verbs". Or more specifically, most of them are particle phrasal verbs, and two (stand for and come from) are prepositional phrasal verbs. And you can't just pretend they're the same thing as normal verbs. The Wikipedia page also says particle phrasal verbs (e.g. "stand in") are in the same general category as the separable verbs of other Germanic languages, the implication here being that prepositional phrasal verbs aren't. And in the link you provided, it explicitly says adverbial particles can be separated from the verb. So the point here is that ab·fahren is analogous to particle phrasal verbs in English, and not to prepositional phrasal verbs. So it's like "stand up", but it's not like "come from".
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    I think this is all your interpretation of how to analyze these entities. I mean, I could just as easily call German separable verbs "particle phrasal verbs", but they are still analyzed as a single lexical entity. I don't see how you can treat the English examples any differently, given that they are basically idiomatic combinations. And the defining point of an idiomatic expression is that it must be analyzed as a singular entity with its own distinct meaning.
    - eridius 9y ago
      > I mean, I could just as easily call German separable verbs "particle phrasal verbs" Not really, because particle phrasal verbs exists primarily in English, with apparently a small handful of occurrences in some Romance languages (such as Lombard or Italian). Your argument is basically "if I call this one thing by another name, I can pretend it's actually something else", but you can't actually do that because that's complete nonsense.
      - jdmichal 9y ago
        You lead me down a path, then expertly knock down the strawman. Read what you just wrote in comparison to my original statement, and you'll see they have nothing in common. Also, that's a bit rich considering that your argument basically consists of them obviously not being the same thing, because they have different names! Which is a bit like saying that physics and math obviously have nothing to share with each other, because they have different names... All I ever said is that the English use of these constructions is descended from Germanic, and can be analyzed in a similar way to the parallel constructions in modern German. And all I've ever said is that perhaps we can learn something by seeing how this other construction is analyzed. Much how physics and math heavily informed each other.
        eridius 9y ago
        > All I ever said is that the English use of these constructions is descended from Germanic, and can be analyzed in a similar way to the parallel constructions in modern German. You're saying that a prepositional phrasal verb is like a Germanic separable verb. But it's not. A particle phrasal verb is, but not a prepositional phrasal verb. You're deliberately trying to erase the difference in order to pretend that there is no difference.

jdmichal 9y ago

> I'm not sure what you mean by this, because "to come from" isn't a verb, and you can't simply declare that it is. "ab·fahren" is analyzed as a verb in German, even though it is clearly a verb with a detachable prepositional particle which modifies that verb. Let's look at some English examples: stand up, stand out, stand in, stand down, stand by, stand back, stand for These all have drastically different meanings from both each other and from the verb "stand". I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be analyzed as individual verbs, same as the German ones. Do you have an actual reasoning behind not analyzing them in that way? And this isn't just some strange idea that I, random internet person, am spouting either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separable_verb#Analogy_to_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separable_verb#Analogy_to_Engl...

eridius 9y ago
For all of your examples except "stand for", you have a verb and an adverbial particle. "stand for" (and "come from") is a verb and a preposition. So all of your examples except for "stand for" are already something different. For example, with "come from", "where did you come from?" is the same as "from where did you come?", but there's no equivalent with e.g. "stand up". And conversely, you can "screw things up", but you can't "come <object> from". Anyway, simply put, they aren't verbs. They're "phrasal verbs". Or more specifically, most of them are particle phrasal verbs, and two (stand for and come from) are prepositional phrasal verbs. And you can't just pretend they're the same thing as normal verbs. The Wikipedia page also says particle phrasal verbs (e.g. "stand in") are in the same general category as the separable verbs of other Germanic languages, the implication here being that prepositional phrasal verbs aren't. And in the link you provided, it explicitly says adverbial particles can be separated from the verb. So the point here is that ab·fahren is analogous to particle phrasal verbs in English, and not to prepositional phrasal verbs. So it's like "stand up", but it's not like "come from".
- jdmichal 9y ago
  I think this is all your interpretation of how to analyze these entities. I mean, I could just as easily call German separable verbs "particle phrasal verbs", but they are still analyzed as a single lexical entity. I don't see how you can treat the English examples any differently, given that they are basically idiomatic combinations. And the defining point of an idiomatic expression is that it must be analyzed as a singular entity with its own distinct meaning.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > I mean, I could just as easily call German separable verbs "particle phrasal verbs" Not really, because particle phrasal verbs exists primarily in English, with apparently a small handful of occurrences in some Romance languages (such as Lombard or Italian). Your argument is basically "if I call this one thing by another name, I can pretend it's actually something else", but you can't actually do that because that's complete nonsense.
    - jdmichal 9y ago
      You lead me down a path, then expertly knock down the strawman. Read what you just wrote in comparison to my original statement, and you'll see they have nothing in common. Also, that's a bit rich considering that your argument basically consists of them obviously not being the same thing, because they have different names! Which is a bit like saying that physics and math obviously have nothing to share with each other, because they have different names... All I ever said is that the English use of these constructions is descended from Germanic, and can be analyzed in a similar way to the parallel constructions in modern German. And all I've ever said is that perhaps we can learn something by seeing how this other construction is analyzed. Much how physics and math heavily informed each other.
      - eridius 9y ago
        > All I ever said is that the English use of these constructions is descended from Germanic, and can be analyzed in a similar way to the parallel constructions in modern German. You're saying that a prepositional phrasal verb is like a Germanic separable verb. But it's not. A particle phrasal verb is, but not a prepositional phrasal verb. You're deliberately trying to erase the difference in order to pretend that there is no difference.