3 ms·

It occurs to me that maybe this more abstract approach I've been taking isn't working. So let me try again, with a concrete example. I'll use "stand for", which

It occurs to me that maybe this more abstract approach I've been taking isn't working. So let me try again, with a concrete example. I'll use "stand for", which you seemed to have taken specific umbrage with. You state that you believe "stand for" is a verbal phrase ("stand") with a prepositional phrase ("for something"). Let's use a concrete sentence: A rainbow flag stands for LGBT pride. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, this is how you would analyze this sentence: (A rainbow flag)subject (stands)verb (for LGBT pride)prepositional I agree that, with this interpretation, the question form should be: For what does a rainbow flag stand? However, I don't agree with that interpretation. Here, the verb is simply "stand", with the prepositional phrase being the beneficiary of the standing. Well, a flag can't stand. And even if it could, I don't see how it could stand in benefit of LGBT pride, considering that it has no intrinsic motive. I propose the sentence be analyzed as follows: (A rainbow flag)subject (stands for)verb (LGBT pride)object In this analysis, "stands for" is a discrete lexical entry, a transitive verb that just happens to be written as two words. A flag can't "stand", but it can "stand for". And since it's now a transitive verb with a direct object, it's perfectly acceptable to ask: What does a rainbow flag (stand for)? Because that is how you ask for the direct object of a verb. It's exactly the same construction as: What does a lion (eat)? And all this is directly in line with German prefixed verbs -- both separable and inseparable -- where the prefixed verbs are analyzed as distinct verbs from their unprefixed forms. And I doubt you would argue against "understand" being a different verb than "stand", which is an example of an English inseparable verb. So why the strong stance against the same type of analysis for English separated verbs?

eridius 9y ago
You keep trying to say "what if we pretend that preopositional phrasal verbs are just regular verbs, then we can declare that they're the same as Germanic separable verbs". But the whole point is they're not the same thing. That's not how they're categorized.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  How do you think they were categorized and named in the first place? They were named by someone studying the language, examining how it works, and making a decision. Well, I'm studying the language, examining how this construct works, and making a decision. Did you know that there are some people that classify German as an SOV language? It actually makes a lot of sense in analysis; it drastically simplifies the otherwise complex rules around German verb placement. However, it takes the ability to step aside for a moment. To look at the common case (V2) and call it an exception. Well, reformulating "stand for" as a transitive verb also simplifies the rules. It does even more; it takes a very common construction ("dangling preposition") and not only explains it, but makes it perfectly grammatical. There's been a huge movement in linguistics away from what has been called "prescriptivism" towards "descriptivism". That is, that the users of a language are the ones who determine what is correct, and the best a linguist can do is take those constructs and describe them. Your approach to my comments so far has been extremely prescriptivist; that this construct has these words and therefore should be formed that way. And you do this in light of the fact that these types of constructions are extremely common and perfectly well understood. So I ask you, is grammar meant to be a description of the way a language works, or is it meant to be a prescription of the way a language is supposed to work? Because all you've given me is the latter, while I'm attempting to show you the former. And if you believe the latter, then I already know that we will not come to terms because we are at philosophical odds with each other.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > Your approach to my comments so far has been extremely prescriptivist Not at all correct. We're not talking about the correct way to form sentences. If I was saying "it's incorrect to have a dangling preposition" then I would be prescriptivist. But I'm not. What I am doing is telling you that you cannot simply reclassify one element of grammar as something else in order to pretend that there's no difference. Because there absolutely is a difference between prepositional phrasal verbs and particle phrasal verbs, both in how they're defined and how they're used. "stand up" and "stand for" are grammatically different, and pretending they're the same is simply wrong. I don't understand why you keep ignoring this, since I've said it several times. And your attempt to paint this as prescriptivism vs descriptivism is a straw man.

eridius 9y ago

You keep trying to say "what if we pretend that preopositional phrasal verbs are just regular verbs, then we can declare that they're the same as Germanic separable verbs". But the whole point is they're not the same thing. That's not how they're categorized.

jdmichal 9y ago
How do you think they were categorized and named in the first place? They were named by someone studying the language, examining how it works, and making a decision. Well, I'm studying the language, examining how this construct works, and making a decision. Did you know that there are some people that classify German as an SOV language? It actually makes a lot of sense in analysis; it drastically simplifies the otherwise complex rules around German verb placement. However, it takes the ability to step aside for a moment. To look at the common case (V2) and call it an exception. Well, reformulating "stand for" as a transitive verb also simplifies the rules. It does even more; it takes a very common construction ("dangling preposition") and not only explains it, but makes it perfectly grammatical. There's been a huge movement in linguistics away from what has been called "prescriptivism" towards "descriptivism". That is, that the users of a language are the ones who determine what is correct, and the best a linguist can do is take those constructs and describe them. Your approach to my comments so far has been extremely prescriptivist; that this construct has these words and therefore should be formed that way. And you do this in light of the fact that these types of constructions are extremely common and perfectly well understood. So I ask you, is grammar meant to be a description of the way a language works, or is it meant to be a prescription of the way a language is supposed to work? Because all you've given me is the latter, while I'm attempting to show you the former. And if you believe the latter, then I already know that we will not come to terms because we are at philosophical odds with each other.
- eridius 9y ago
  > Your approach to my comments so far has been extremely prescriptivist Not at all correct. We're not talking about the correct way to form sentences. If I was saying "it's incorrect to have a dangling preposition" then I would be prescriptivist. But I'm not. What I am doing is telling you that you cannot simply reclassify one element of grammar as something else in order to pretend that there's no difference. Because there absolutely is a difference between prepositional phrasal verbs and particle phrasal verbs, both in how they're defined and how they're used. "stand up" and "stand for" are grammatically different, and pretending they're the same is simply wrong. I don't understand why you keep ignoring this, since I've said it several times. And your attempt to paint this as prescriptivism vs descriptivism is a straw man.