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

[Leslie1]

I often hear that there is no rule for distinguishing separable and non-separable phrasal verbs.

a. The airplane took off at noon. (inseparable)

b. The airplane flew too low and took the antenna off (separable) the roof as it took off.

a. intransitive

b. transitive

Therefore (I wish) intransitive phrasal verbs were inseparable; transitive phrasal verbs were separable.

Would appreciate any insight.
Thanks.

 

[jutfrank]

Intransitive phrasal verbs are by definition inseparable. If they have no object, there is nothing to separate.

 

[Leslie1]

That seems eminently logical --
so do we have an analytically a priori rule:

All intransitive phrasal verbs are inseparable (based on the meaning of intransitive: "If they have no object, there is nothing to separate").

 

[Leslie1]

Yes, as you write, they seem to be "not natural" (or conventional, as I would prefer to say).

You write: Adverbs can separate a verb and and adverb: The man walked quickly past. If it's an unconventional way of speaking, to make it conventional it would be: The man walked quickly past us. Then there is an object. This raises the question for whether this is a phrasal verb. I propose "walk past" is not a phrasal verb. It is simply a verb and a preposition. Not all verbs and prepositions are phrasal verbs.

In theory, the verb part of a phrasal verb could be separated from its adverb/particle by an adverb: The plane took slowly off, but this is not natural. Agreed, not natural, so does it exist for speakers? If not, it doesn't make sense as a counter-example?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It's natural enough in BrE.

Yes, which is why it's so interesting that Leslie's "the plane took slowly off" isn't.

Is there a rule in the house? I don't think so.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't want to be on a plane that takes off slowly, regardless of the word order. ;-)

 

[Tdol]

Is there a rule in the house? I don't think so.

No because you could also say that the plane took slowly off.

 

[jutfrank]

I believe there are some rules.

I think that the term 'separable' is generally understood to mean 'separable by an object'. If agreed, there's an obvious rule that intransitive verbs are inseparable.

When it comes to interesting examples such as in post #2

She got over her illness.

I see over as the head of a preposition phrase over her illness, and not as a particle of get, (if particles are adverbial by nature). I myself do not deem got over to be a true phrasal verb in the pure sense, though it seems many people do.

In the example

The plane took slowly off.

both slowly and off are adverbial. This is why it is grammatical (if unnatural) to separate the particle (off) from the verb.

 

[Leslie1]

How does one distinguish between "a true phrasal verb in the pure sense" and a phrasal verb that is not true in the pure sense?

In this thread above, there is an example of the "walk past" as a phrasal verb, which takes no object, and is separable (walk quickly past).

It seem that "walk past" is not a phrasal verb in the true sense; I would say simply it is not a phrasal verb, arguing by analogy as follows: a phrasal verb differs from a verb - preposition collocation. "Look at" is a collocation because the meaning does not change.

 

[Leslie1]

A search of https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/phrasal-verbs/w.html shows that "walk past" is not a phrasal verb.

Because "walk past" is not a phrasal verb, the rule still holds until a counter-example can be given:

Phrasal Verb Rule 1: All intransitive phrasal verbs are inseparable

(based on the meaning of intransitive: "If they have no object, there is nothing to separate").

 

[jutfrank]

How does one distinguish between "a true phrasal verb in the pure sense" and a phrasal verb that is not true in the pure sense?

I suppose just by defining very closely what is meant. When I state "All intransitive phrasal verbs are inseparable," I'm defining the term 'inseparable' to mean, more precisely, inseparable by an object. Only now is the statement really true by definition. Since my own definition of ''a phrasal verb in the pure sense'' requires that it consist of a verb and an adverbial particle, (never a preposition), the verb and particle may be separable by another adverbial. This is then also true by definition. (In this case, my definition -- not everyone would agree with me!)

Another thing to point out is that one should be careful when declaring any piece of language as belonging to a certain class, without grammatical context. Always analyse the language in use, in context (as part of a meaningful sentence.) The past in to walk past could be either adverbial or adjectival, depending on the context.

 

[jutfrank]

Piscean - Your clear presentation explains well the differences in such a fuzzy area. I hope you will allow me to share my views.

I disagree that it's useful to class 1.1 and 1.2 as phrasal verbs or multi-word verbs since only one of the elements is a verb, the other being a preposition phrase. If learners analysed in this way, there would be no need to introduce the misleading idea of inseparability -- the word order follows the normal pattern, i.e., the preposition appears only at the beginning of the preposition phrase, which comes after the verb. (For similar reasons, I don't accept 1.6 as a class, either.)

There is nothing unusual or especially difficult about the grammar of these patterns, which is often, unfortunately, the idea that learners get from how it is explained in text books.

It seems to me that this may be one way in which a lexical approach (phrasal verbs being high-frequency lexical 'chunks') conflicts with a grammatical approach, in that multi-word verbs are presented ungrammaticised.

 

[Tdol]

A search of https://www.usingenglish.com/reference/phrasal-verbs/w.html shows that "walk past" is not a phrasal verb.

Because "walk past" is not a phrasal verb, the rule still holds until a counter-example can be given:

Phrasal Verb Rule 1: All intransitive phrasal verbs are inseparable

(based on the meaning of intransitive: "If they have no object, there is nothing to separate").

Firstly, the list is not definitive- there is no such thing. It is a work in progress and the fact that a verb is not there does not mean that the verb does not exist. Walk past is not a phrasal verb to me because there is no idiomatic meaning to it. For the purposes of the list, we generally take a generous definition of the term and would allow verbs that greater purists might not allow, but I would not include it simply on the grounds that walk + past do not combine to a meaning that the dictionary definitions of the individual words do not cover.

 

[Leslie1]

Yes, of course, I agree, walk past is not a phrasal verb because there is not an idiomatic meaning to it, which could be defined as (tongue-in-cheek) the sum of the parts does not equal the whole-- one knows what "walk" means, one knows what "past" means, one automatically knows what "walk past" means (the sum of the parts equals the whole); one knows what "eat" means, one knows what "out" means, one does not automatically know what "eat out" means (the sum of the parts doe not equal the whole).


So what does an editor think--is there or is there not a rule for distinguishing separable and non-separable verbs?

I think there are two points of inquiry.
1. If the phrasal verb is inseparable, is it intransitive?
No, e.g. Call on. The teacher called on me. Call on takes an object. It is inseparable.
Come across. I thought I came across a rule. Came across takes an object. It is inseparable.

Question -- is this a direct object? No, it is an object of the preposition? So does the notion of intransitive apply here?

2. If the phrasal verb is intransitive, is it inseparable? Yes, by definition.
3. If it is separable, it must be transitive. Call up. I called her up. I called up Mary.

 

[Tdol]

3, however, does not take into account inseparable transitive verbs, so I am not sure what the conclusion would be. If it is inseparable, it may be intransitive. How does that distinguish anything? This may be further complicated by finding optionally separable verbs in context. I don't see how the rule that can be synthesised would lead to a greater understanding. Transitive verbs may be separable, inseparable or optionally separable, with restrictions when pronouns are used. Given this, then I don't see that separability is a great tool for distinguishing transitive verbs from intransitive ones. It will work in some cases, but it is far from universal.

 

[jutfrank]

I agree that it was not helpful to put my group 1.1, Verbs followed by a preposition, under the overall title of 'Multi-word verbs'. I did, in that paragraph, write 'We are not dealing with multi-word verbs here'

Okay, I missed that.

It is also unfortunately the case that some dictionaries and course books class at least some of these verbs as 'phrasal verbs'.

Yes, this is my main point. I feel that some publications, in the way they carelessly present language, do more harm than good. This is particularly true in the area of multi-word verbs.

Thank you.

 

[Leslie1]

Inconsistency in terminology is a problem.Murphy's Grammar in Use(Cambridge) is clear for students: the sections of Verb + Preposition isfollowed by Phrasal Verbs. The distinction can be: Verb + Preposition -- [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]the sum of the parts equal the whole; Phrasal Verb -- one knows what "eat" means, one knows what "out" means, one does not automatically know what "eat out" means (the sum of the parts does not equal the whole).[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I think the author of this thread was interested in a rule distinguishing separable and non-separable phrasal verbs. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1. If the phrasal verb is inseparable, it is intransitive. TRUE Rule 1 Tempers seem to be boiling over (inseparable and intransitive)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2. If the phrasal verb is intransitive, it is either separable or inseparable. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Tempers seem to be boiling over ([/FONT]inseparable and intransitive)

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The teacher called on me. Call on takes an object. It is inseparable but transitive.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]3. If it is separable, it must be transitive. I called her up. I called up Mary. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]TRUE Rule 2[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But this all useless, as one is looking for a rule about what is separable and what is inseparable; not what is transitive and what is intransitive.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]So a clearer definition of what is a phrasal verb is in order?[/FONT]

 

[Tdol]

Are you sure about rule 2? Wouldn't you have to confirm rule 2 by showing a separable intransitive verb?

 

[Leslie1]

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.

Thank you.

 

[Leslie1]

So let's assume that one should not restrict the meaning of 'separable' to 'separable by a direct object.'

Then it would be helpful if you would clearly specify the meaning and concept and provide and example of a separable intransitive phrasal verb from your perspective.