next problem

[jirikoo]

and next problem with a phrasal verb:

on this web is one example of phrasal verbs quoted "let in" (see http://www.usingenglish.com/referenc...bs/let-in.html)

example according that reference: "The doorstaff didn't LET him IN the nightclub because he was wearing jeans"

Notes: it an Separable [optional] phrasal verb
---------------
It does not sound right to me, because I would expect: "The doorstaff didn't LET him IN TO[!] the nightclub because he was wearing jeans"
In a nutshell I did not know that a particle [prepositon "in"] belonging to phrasal verb can subtitute also a preposition that is an element of sentence (in nightclub)
--------------


HOWEVER WHAT IF I PUT an object behind the preposition - "The doorstaff didn't LET IN the couple the nightclub because they were wearing jeans", which seems even less worse there are two nouns side-by-side. So what is OK?

[Humble]

Hi Jiri,
I guess you can't have this sequence: "in"-the object-the place. If the place is indicated, it must follow "in". Of course if it's not mentioned, "in" becomes an adverbial particle as in
Let the sunshine in.
Rgs

[Coffa]

and next problem with a phrasal verb:
on this web is one example of phrasal verbs quoted "let in" (see http://www.usingenglish.com/referenc...bs/let-in.html)
example according that reference: "The doorstaff didn't LET him IN the nightclub because he was wearing jeans"
Notes: it an Separable [optional] phrasal verb
---------------
It does not sound right to me, because I would expect: "The doorstaff didn't LET him IN TO[!] the nightclub because he was wearing jeans"
In a nutshell I did not know that a particle [prepositon "in"] belonging to phrasal verb can subtitute also a preposition that is an element of sentence (in nightclub)
--------------
HOWEVER WHAT IF I PUT an object behind the preposition - "The doorstaff didn't LET IN the couple the nightclub because they were wearing jeans", which seems even less worse there are two nouns side-by-side. So what is OK?

"Let in" is a phrasal verb that follows the pattern: EITHER verb-prep-object OR verb-object-prep. In these cases, only the latter form may be used if the object is a pronoun.

So:

"The doorstaff didn't LET HIM IN ..." - Correct
"The doorstaff didn't LET IN HIM ..." - Incorrect
"The doorstaff didn't LET THE COUPLE IN..." - Correct
"The doorstaff didn't LET IN THE COUPLE..." - Correct

Now, 'the nightclub' is an indirect dative object, and an indirect dative object is normally preceded by 'to' or 'for'.

So:

"The doorstaff didn't LET HIM INTO the nightclub..." - Correct
"The doorstaff didn't LET THE COUPLE INTO the nightclub..." - Correct
"The doorstaff didn't LET IN THE COUPLE TO the nightclub..." - Correct

Note, the two prepositions are run together here - 'into' rather than 'in to'. This is done UNLESS the meaning is changed. For example, the phrasal verbs 'turn in' and 'turn into' have different meanings: "I turned myself in to the police", and "I turned myself into a caterpillar" are quite different in meaning .

But it would always be "He LET HIMSELF IN FOR a big surprise." 'In' and 'for' never run together.

The final nuance is that the dative preposition 'to' can be omitted when the indirect object immediately follows the verb. For example:

"I give (to) Joe all my belongings."
BUT NOT:
"I give all my belongings Joe."

So:

"The doorstaff didn't LET HIM IN the nightclub..." - Correct
"The doorstaff didn't LET THE COUPLE IN the nightclub..." - Correct
"The doorstaff didn't LET IN THE COUPLE the nightclub..." - Incorrect

As observed above, we couldn't have:
"The doorstaff didn't LET IN HIM the nightclub..." - Incorrect both because 'him' can't follow the phrasal preposition 'in', and because 'to' cannot be omitted when the indirect object does not follow the phrasal verb immediately.