3 ms·

This is a good starting point from someone who studies language: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4487 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4487 For

This is a good starting point from someone who studies language: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4487 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4487 For fun, let's see if she breaks her own rule in the first sentence of that article. As if trying to provide a good anecdote to open this very article, one of the students in my Fiction Writing Workshop got caught up in the adverb conundrum recently. Almost made it, but fucked up at the end there with "recently".

kenko 12y ago
Also the locative adverb "up".
- psychometry 12y ago
  No, the "up" in "caught up" is part of a phrasal verb. It's not an adverb.
- cema 12y ago
  It's not locative but part of a phrase verb "catch up with".
kenko 12y ago
Further easily-caught sins: What EXACTLY is the problem with adverbs? you've SURELY been told try to explain better THE NEXT TIME we were together. (adverbial phrase) and SURELY takes longer to write we get to the destination [...] much more QUICKLY I mean, lots of the uses of the dreaded -ly adverbs the author identifies are also instances of bad writing, but so what? Are they bad writing because they contain adverbs? Surely (!!!) one could easily (!!!) find plenty of instances of good adverb-containing writing. This sounds like a very ad-hoc justification of a rule that the author admits to never have even examined!
- baddox 12y ago
  > try to explain better THE NEXT TIME we were together. (adverbial phrase) Is that an adverbial phrase? The sentence doesn't work if you remove "the next time," but I don't know if that is a requirement. Normally adverbs and adverbial phrases can be removed without breaking the grammar of the sentence.
  - kenko 12y ago
    The whole phrase would really be "the next time we were together" but I wanted to give the ol' shifting finger a rest. (My caps lock is unmapped.)
kelukelugames 12y ago
I also don't like the "up" in "caught up". Claude Shannon is rolling in his grave.
- psychometry 12y ago
  What's wrong with "caught up"? It's perfectly grammatical. And what does that have to do with Claude Shannon?

kenko 12y ago

Also the locative adverb "up".

psychometry 12y ago
No, the "up" in "caught up" is part of a phrasal verb. It's not an adverb.
cema 12y ago
It's not locative but part of a phrase verb "catch up with".

kenko 12y ago

Further easily-caught sins: What EXACTLY is the problem with adverbs? you've SURELY been told try to explain better THE NEXT TIME we were together. (adverbial phrase) and SURELY takes longer to write we get to the destination [...] much more QUICKLY I mean, lots of the uses of the dreaded -ly adverbs the author identifies are also instances of bad writing, but so what? Are they bad writing because they contain adverbs? Surely (!!!) one could easily (!!!) find plenty of instances of good adverb-containing writing. This sounds like a very ad-hoc justification of a rule that the author admits to never have even examined!

baddox 12y ago
> try to explain better THE NEXT TIME we were together. (adverbial phrase) Is that an adverbial phrase? The sentence doesn't work if you remove "the next time," but I don't know if that is a requirement. Normally adverbs and adverbial phrases can be removed without breaking the grammar of the sentence.
- kenko 12y ago
  The whole phrase would really be "the next time we were together" but I wanted to give the ol' shifting finger a rest. (My caps lock is unmapped.)

kelukelugames 12y ago

I also don't like the "up" in "caught up". Claude Shannon is rolling in his grave.

psychometry 12y ago
What's wrong with "caught up"? It's perfectly grammatical. And what does that have to do with Claude Shannon?