Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Cooklava is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    48
    Post Thanks / Like

    A number as the object of a preposition

    She died in 1980.

    When a number functions as a noun (as 1980 above), what is it called? Is there a grammatical term for it?

    Thank you.

  2. #2
    Anglika is offline No Longer With Us
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    19,448
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A number as the object of a preposition

    How about "date" or "year" in this context?

  3. #3
    Buddhaheart is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Retired English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Canada
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    434
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A number as the object of a preposition

    The preposition phrase ‘in 1980’ functions as an adverbial modifying the verb ‘died’.

    ‘1980’ is the object of the preposition ‘in’. It’s a noun, name of the year indicated.

  4. #4
    velimir is offline Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Serbian
      • Home Country:
      • Montenegro
      • Current Location:
      • Montenegro
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    153
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A number as the object of a preposition

    Hello everybody,

    This question really attracted my attention and I can't help posting some observations,since I've been reading about this point lately.I hope I'll be forgiven for venturing to discuss topic in spite of being still a learner.(Also I hope that,this being my first time to post "explanation",it will be considered as an extenuating circumstance ).And,of course,I'M NOT A TEACHER,I'M NOT EVEN AN ADVANCED LEARNER
    There is a great deal of different terms for the element which follows a preposition in the prepositional phrase,but through reading of Quirk/Greenbaum grammar(mostly) and with a great help of Soup,here on the forum,I think I've managed to get their point on this.This two authors use the term "prepositional object" for the element of the sentence structure,putting it in the same level with the direct and indirect object.They indicate the term "oblique object" as an alternative term.When analysing structure of a prepositional phrase they use the term "prepositional complement"for the element that follows a preposition in the prepositional phrase (saving the term "object" exclusively for the element of the sentence structure,and with that terminology I suppose they keep a distinction between phrase constituents and sentence constituents in the analysis of the sentence structure.So,a noun or noun phrase which follows a preposition in the prepositional phrase is called a prepositional complement which may be part of an adverbial ,as in the sentence which Cooklava has posted,or it may be a prepositional object as in the following sentences taken again from Quirk/Greenbaum grammar :

    1. I applied for a grant ("applied for"- monotransitive prepositional verb, "a grant" - prepositional object)

    2. Nobody will blame you for the mistake ("you" - direct object,"blame"- doubly transitive prepositional verb (i.e takes two objects) ,"the mistake"- prepositional object introduced by the preposition "for")

    As far as I could understand,for the correct structural analysis of this part of the sentence,it is a crucial point to grasp the notion of "prepositional verb" as a more or less idiomatic part (not a free combination of a verb and preposition) of the sentence ,analogue to "phrasal verb".I've found also that,in the analysis of the sentence(sentences similar to those quoted above),the whole prepositional phrase is analysed by some grammarians as a separate part and is termed just like that,or alternatively as a "prepositional complement",and the verb is analysed separately,as a lexical verb,without a preposition.However,I find(after a good deal of hard thinking ) Quirks explanation quite understandable and logical.
    I want to say in addition that I think that a good grasp of some basic terms in grammar is very convinient if not necessary element in acquiring more vocabulary and the language as a whole.

    Best regards

    Velimir
    Last edited by velimir; 27-Jan-2008 at 19:44.

Similar Threads

  1. The Pronunciation Rules and The Writing System
    By M.Mozaffary in forum Pronunciation and Phonetics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-Mar-2009, 22:27
  2. preposition "to" + indirect object
    By Lenka in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19-Aug-2007, 21:33
  3. "to" or "for"?
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-Jun-2006, 12:11
  4. interpetation
    By Anonymous in forum Analysing and Diagramming Sentences
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24-May-2005, 23:57

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •