Results 1 to 3 of 3
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Czech
      • Home Country:
      • Czech Republic
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Sep 2006
    • Posts: 262
    #1

    next problem

    and next problem with a phrasal verb:

    on this web is one example of phrasal verbs quoted "let in" (see https://www.usingenglish.com/referen...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?


    • Join Date: May 2006
    • Posts: 1,335
    #2

    Re: next problem

    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


    • Join Date: Mar 2006
    • Posts: 671
    #3

    Re: next problem

    Quote Originally Posted by jirikoo View Post
    and next problem with a phrasal verb:
    on this web is one example of phrasal verbs quoted "let in" (see https://www.usingenglish.com/referen...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.

Similar Threads

  1. Four tenses problem
    By ben9108 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 29-Mar-2010, 03:49
  2. Much problem
    By My Secrets Keeper in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15-Jun-2005, 06:18
  3. No Problem / No Problems
    By jack in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-Dec-2004, 12:05
  4. Problem / Uncountable
    By jack in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 27-Nov-2004, 13:29
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24-Nov-2004, 09:24

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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