Re: OT: Who said it?

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

> Harry Binswanger wrote:
> > Interesting. Is that illustrated by the fact that you can substitute
> > "abide" (no preposition) for "put up with"? On the other hand, "get a
> > kick out of" seems to call for a preposition, as long as you keep the
> > passive voice: "get enjoyment from" or "get enjoyment from."
Ooops. I didn't mean to repeat myself. The second time it was to be "get
exhilarated by" but I wasn't sure I was spelling "exhilarated" right, so I
looked for another word, not realizing it was the same I'd just used.
The below is interesting. I'd never heard of phrasal verbs. And the split
infinitive issue is one to which I've more or less succumbed. And what
would I do with:
"It's an issue to which I've, in conformity with modern practice to which
I've, in my dotage, on which others on the list have commented, attained
become accustomed succumbed."

--Harry
> No, it isn't the existence of the one-word synonym. It's rather a result
> of English's being, in its structure at least, a Germanic language. Both
> Germanic and romance languages employ prefixes and suffixes to form new
> words, but German at least has two different systems when forming verbs
> with "prefixes": some prefixes are separable: in certain syntactic
> situations, the "prefix" is transposed from the beginning of the verb and
> placed at the end of the expression. Thus the verb for "to close" (e.g., a
> door) is zumachen. But if you want to ask someone to close the door,
> please, you would say "Machen sie dir Tür zu, bitte" (Literally, Make You
> the door to, please.)
> I was once trying to explain why the "Never end a sentence with a
> preposition" rule is rather a superstition, and recalled that bit of
> German syntax. It cast considerable light on the English pattern: certain
> apparent "prepositions" in English are parts of what are called phrasal
> verbs, and those verbs appear to operate much as verbs with separable
> prefixes do in German (except that in English the "prefix" always trails
> the verb): to lay out, to bring up, to put down, to make up (in any of
> several senses), to go over, and dozens of others are not verbs plus
> prepositions, but phrasal verbs, and in many cases attempting to avoid the
> final placement of the adverbial element would result in balderdash: "why
> did you have to up that bring?" (Anybody here know Dutch? That is closer
> to English than German is, and I would be curious to know if there is any
> support for this thesis in Dutch syntax.)
> On the other hand, many adverbs in English function much as inseparable
> prefixes do in German, and such an adverb often must go between the "to"
> and the rest of the infinitive; "thoroughly" (which in German often is
> represented by a new verb beginning "ver-") is one such. "They were unable
> to thoroughly resolve the complex problems that..." Where else could you
> put "thoroughly"? If you plunk it down between "unable" and "to", it
> squints: does it modify "unable" or "resolve"? "To resolve thoroughly the
> complex problems" is not English. We don't normally separate finite action
> verbs from their objects; no one would write or say, "We must resolve
> throughly the problems." And the defining relative clause beginning "that"
> must come right after its antecedent.
>
> --
> Patricia M. Godfrey
> PriscaMG@xxxxxxxx


Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx