[Grammar] Rule/Heuristic for Distinguishing Separable and Non-Separable Phrasal Verbs?

[Leslie1]

[FONT=Tahoma, Georgia, Arial, century gothic, verdana, sans-serif]I really appreciate the comment about the usefulness of reflecting on the concept of "living dead men," motivated I imagine by a consideration of Derrida: "Zombies are cinematic inscriptions of the failure of the life/death opposition. They show where classificatory order breaks down: they mark the limits of order. Like all undecidables, zombies infect the oppositions grouped around them."[/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma, Georgia, Arial, century gothic, verdana, sans-serif]It seems that Derrida's remark is substantially relevant to this issue of classification schemes associated with phrasal verbs. Every discussion of phrasal verbs seems to break down in some regard, but if we keep the conversation going, some principles will emerge. We just might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. That's my suspicion. There is an answer. We need a paradigm shift. We're looking at the sun and can't help but imagine it revolving around earth. We're looking at phrasal verbs and can't but help imagine that they are ... what?[/FONT]

 

[Tdol]

That would conflict with Rule 1, so it's not possible. There are no separable intransitive phrasal verbs. But if there is please show one. But an earlier helpfully pointed out that it is true by definition, an analytic a priori rule: separable intransitive verbs are a logical impossibility the previous writer can e interpreted as saying.

So I respectfully request that the editor please indicate one example of a separable intransitive phrasal verb.

I'm not trying to- I am trying to make sense of this second rule. I think it's wrong.

 

[Tdol]

Leslie, it's just not possible to give absolute rules about phrasal verbs, because, as I have said, there is no general agreement about which combinations are phrasal verbs.. There never will be.

We can't even agree (assuming we accept that 'take off' is a phrasal verb') on whether 'The plane took slowly off' is acceptable or not.

Or whether something like an adverb constitutes separability in the way that an object does.

 

[jutfrank]

Here's a summary, for Leslie1, of what I would attempt to demonstrate as far as any rules are concerned, just for the sake of argument. (I'm not sure how successful I'd be!)

1. Some PVs are Transitive.
2. Some PVs are Intransitive.
3. All TPVs are separable by objects. (TPVs which seem inseparable are not true PVs, and should be reclassified.)
4. All IPVs are inseparable by objects.
5. All PVs are separable by adverbial phrases.

My attempt at an argument would follow the lines that rules 3. and 5. are true in principle, not necessarily in practice. For example, I'd argue that although The plane took slowly off is neither natural nor does it have much sense, it is nevertheless possible in principle, in that it does not violate any syntactic rules and so remains intelligible.

By the way, I'm confident that Piscean was not thinking of Derrida when he wrote:

...your sentence above is as useful as "There are no living dead men".

He was merely pointing out that this proposition is true by definition, or as Kant might have said, analytically true, hence uninteresting in the sense that it doesn't tell us anything about anything other than the terms it employs.

 

[GoesStation]

Write I'm not sure how successful I'll be.

 

[GoesStation]

Not following 'Here's a summary, for Leslie1, of what I would attempt to demonstrate as far as any rules are concerned, just for the sake of argument. '.

I didn't read that part. You're right, of course.

 

[jutfrank]

Not following 'Here's a summary, for Leslie1, of what I would attempt to demonstrate as far as any rules are concerned, just for the sake of argument. '.

Notice my careful wording!

 

[Leslie1]

Leslie, it's just not possible to give absolute rules about phrasal verbs, because, as I have said, there is no general agreement about which combinations are phrasal verbs.. There never will be.

We can't even agree (assuming we accept that 'take off' is a phrasal verb') on whether 'The plane took slowly off' is acceptable or not.

Then this thread should be changed to have the following title: What is the exact definition of a phrasal verb?

 

[Leslie1]

According to this website, a phrasal verb is --
Phrasal verbs are idiomatic expressions, combining verbs and prepositions to make new verbs whose meaning is often not obvious from the dictionary definitions of the individual words. They are widely used in both written and spoken English, and new ones are formed all the time as they are a flexible way of creating new terms.

According to Piscean, "there is no general agreement about which combinations are phrasal verbs. There never will be."

Why? Are phrasal verbs essentially contested concept, such as justice and equality are in political philosophy?

Which aspect of phrasal verbs are essentially contested? The only aspect of the definition that looks essentially is the "idiomatic expression" aspect.

But please help me understand this: "it's just not possible to give absolute rules about phrasal verbs, because, as I have said, there is no general agreement about which combinations are phrasal verbs. There never will be."

But why? It's not true about many aspects of language. Many aspects of language there is agreement. Why can there never be agreement here?

 

[Tdol]

There are very few aspects of English about which there is universal agreement.

There are, however, some where the disagreement is pretty much universal.

 

[GoesStation]

There are, however, some where the disagreement is pretty much universal.

I can't agree. Do you have evidence to support that statement?

 

[Leslie1]

There is no such thing in real life as a 'phrasal verb'. 'Phrasal verb' is simply a label that people attach to some combinations of a verb and preposition(s)/adverb(s)/particle(s) that in their opinion have a meaning that is not immediately transparent from the meanings of the constituent parts. This is not surprising when you consider that the constituent parts, especially the preposition/adverb/particle part rarely have one, and only one, unambiguous meaning.
There are very few aspects of English about which there is universal agreement.

I’m glad we’re making progress
My question was: Which aspect of phrasal verbs are essentially contested? The only aspect of the definition that looks essentially is the "idiomatic expression" aspect.
Your response: A phrasal verb is … some combinations of a verb and preposition(s)/adverb(s)/particle(s) that in their opinion have a meaning that is not immediately transparent from the meanings of the constituent parts.”
Essentially your response is: a phrasal verb is an idiom (meaning that is not immediately transparent from the meanings of the constituent parts).
So you are agreeing with, that’s good. My question was essentially is it the "idiomatic expression" aspect.
You are saying yes, as the disagreement results as the meaning is not immediately transparent from the meanings of the constituent parts. That’s basically an idiom.

I have an idea: let’s abstract from the mundane reality and proceed in the direction of hypotheticals.
If we have agreement that “get on” is some combination of a verb and preposition(s)/adverb(s)/particle(s) that that is not immediately transparent from the meanings of the constituent parts, then what rules follow from this hypothetical example?
If you run through all the hypotheticals, then eventually you have a conclusion that bears on reality.
I’ve seen this a thousand time—people obstruct for the sake of obstructing: you been to 100s of faculty meeting, why do that here? As Madison wrote in Federalist10, the “latent causes of faction are sown in the nature of man”; including having “a zeal for a different opinion.” Kissinger allegedly quipped that academic politics is so vicious because the stakes are so low. I see echoes of Madison and Kissinger in our dear esteemed members.
Rather than taking an obstructionist view, let’s solve the problem. I propose (sort of) a paradigm shift in approach. Economists are often saying this: don’t let the empirical reality get in the way of your model-building.
That’s for us: don’t let the empirical reality get in the way of finding a rule. Who cares about the disagreement.
Establish the logical conditions under which PV x is true, and determine a rule.

 

[jutfrank]

Establish the logical conditions under which PV x is true, and determine a rule.

What logical conditions? How can a PV be said to be true?

It's not clear what exactly you're trying to do here. Are you looking for a clearer definition or some kind of rule? What kind of rule? Why?

 

[Tdol]

There are verbs that are so clearly idiomatic that it would be perverse to suggest that they're not- you cannot get the meaning of give up smoking from the individual words, but there are cases where the idiomatic nature is a matter of opinion.

 

[Leslie1]

Economists build models all the time that are not based on empirical data; we can do the same --
So what I mean is: take all the logical possibilities of PVs and find some interesting rules

Then later one compares it to empirical reality.

Sorry you had to check the dictionary for the meaning of empirical.

 

[Leslie1]

My error, apologies, didn't mean to say "true."

Looking for rules to explain the why some PV are sep an why PV are insep.

There's one person in this thread who understands the stakes:

Similar to what you have done above:

1. Some PVs are Transitive.
2. Some PVs are Intransitive.
3. All TPVs are separable by objects. (TPVs which seem inseparable are not true PVs, and should be reclassified.)
4. All IPVs are inseparable by objects.
5. All PVs are separable by adverbial phrases.

This is interesting: "TPVs which seem inseparable are not true PVs, and should be reclassified."
I think this is part of the confusion.
The field needs a reclassificatory project.

We tried to get in the car. get in. TPV needs reclassification?
We tried to get the letter in the envelope. TPV sep?

 

[Tdol]

I'm shutting the thread as it is generating more heat than light.