Comments on: Editing Chicago http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2007/01/02/editing-chicago/ Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:42:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Jonathon http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2007/01/02/editing-chicago/#comment-1213 Jonathon Fri, 15 Aug 2008 03:50:08 +0000 http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=12#comment-1213 Do you mean the <i><a href="http://www.cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel/" rel="nofollow">CGEL</a></i>? I don't own a copy, so I don't know what it says about phrasal verbs, but I do think it's pretty clear that Bryan Garner doesn't know what he's talking about. Given how much he's allegedly studied language and usage, he really should know better. Do you mean the CGEL? I don’t own a copy, so I don’t know what it says about phrasal verbs, but I do think it’s pretty clear that Bryan Garner doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Given how much he’s allegedly studied language and usage, he really should know better.

]]> By: The Ridger http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2007/01/02/editing-chicago/#comment-1210 The Ridger Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:55:16 +0000 http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=12#comment-1210 CEGL doesn't like "phrasal verb". If you do think of "act on" as a verb, then you've got a transitive "act on it" and a passive "it is acted on". If you don't, you have an intransitive + prepositional complement "acted on it" and a pseudo-passive "it is acted on". They're essentially the same thing, and of course "acted" is the past-participle form regardless, so the Garner guy is talking through his hat there. Would he argue "the advice is not being followed" isn't passive? CEGL doesn’t like “phrasal verb”. If you do think of “act on” as a verb, then you’ve got a transitive “act on it” and a passive “it is acted on”. If you don’t, you have an intransitive + prepositional complement “acted on it” and a pseudo-passive “it is acted on”.

They’re essentially the same thing, and of course “acted” is the past-participle form regardless, so the Garner guy is talking through his hat there. Would he argue “the advice is not being followed” isn’t passive?

]]> By: Jonathon http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2007/01/02/editing-chicago/#comment-72 Jonathon Sun, 07 Oct 2007 03:16:39 +0000 http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=12#comment-72 Well, I wasn't able the find the e-mail. Yes, I'd call it a phrasal verb, too. Unfortunately, syntax was never my strong point, so I really don't know the value in the distinction. Google turned up some promising hits for "pseudo-passive preposition," but I haven't had time to look through them yet. Well, I wasn’t able the find the e-mail. Yes, I’d call it a phrasal verb, too. Unfortunately, syntax was never my strong point, so I really don’t know the value in the distinction. Google turned up some promising hits for “pseudo-passive preposition,” but I haven’t had time to look through them yet.

]]> By: goofy http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2007/01/02/editing-chicago/#comment-70 goofy Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:13:42 +0000 http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=12#comment-70 Isn't "act on" a phrasal verb? How is different than: I made up the story The story was made up by me you added up the numbers were the numbers added up right? Isn’t “act on” a phrasal verb? How is different than:
I made up the story
The story was made up by me

you added up the numbers
were the numbers added up right?

]]> By: Jonathon http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2007/01/02/editing-chicago/#comment-69 Jonathon Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:06:44 +0000 http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=12#comment-69 I would've simply called it a passive too, but when I wrote to Geoffrey Pullum about it, he called it a pseudo-passive because of the "on." It's not a distinction I've heard elsewhere. Perhaps it's peculiar to Pullum and <i>The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language</i>. I'll see if I can find the original e-mail from him. I would’ve simply called it a passive too, but when I wrote to Geoffrey Pullum about it, he called it a pseudo-passive because of the “on.” It’s not a distinction I’ve heard elsewhere. Perhaps it’s peculiar to Pullum and The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. I’ll see if I can find the original e-mail from him.

]]> By: Brinestone http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2007/01/02/editing-chicago/#comment-68 Brinestone Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:25:46 +0000 http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=12#comment-68 Basically, it would be a true passive if you left out the <i>on</i>: something is acting* the subject* the subject is being acted* Since <i>act</i> can't take a direct object like that, and since the subject is actually the object of a preposition, it's not a true passive. Basically, it would be a true passive if you left out the on:

something is acting* the subject*
the subject is being acted*

Since act can’t take a direct object like that, and since the subject is actually the object of a preposition, it’s not a true passive.

]]> By: goofy http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2007/01/02/editing-chicago/#comment-67 goofy Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:53:44 +0000 http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=12#comment-67 I don't see how "being acted on" is intransitive. It looks passive to me. something is acting on the subject the subject is being acted on I don’t see how “being acted on” is intransitive. It looks passive to me.

something is acting on the subject
the subject is being acted on

]]>