A preposition after a preposition??

Question

In English grammar, we learned that after a preposition, there is a noun. However, almost every native speaker would not deny the fact that

"He rose from under the bed."
this sentence sounds correct with no mistake concerning grammar. (right?) Then is there any explanation for this sentence?
In other words, is this sentence merely an unusual exception, or is there a possible rule to such a happening?

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]In English grammar, we learned that after a preposition, there is a noun. However, almost every native speaker would not ... In other words, is this sentence merely an unusual exception, or is there a possible rule to such a happening?[/nq]
From

(quote)
Preposition* A *preposition combines with a following noun phrase to make a larger phrase, a prepositional phrase. Examples are of, to, on, with, under, beside, without, beyond, next to, in front of, on top of and in spite of.
Typical prepositional phrases are of the book, to London, under the bridge, next to
the bed and in front of the house.
A very few prepositions can be followed by a complete prepositional phrase. An example is from, as in The cat ran out from under the bed.

(end quote)
That article is also available in pdf format at
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/essay - parts of speech.pdf

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]In English grammar, we learned that after a preposition, there is a noun. However, almost every native speaker would not ... In other words, is this sentence merely an unusual exception, or is there a possible rule to such a happening?[/nq]
It's not an exception: the rule you were taught is too narrow, that's all.

Mike.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]In English grammar, we learned that after a preposition, there ... or is there a possible rule to such a happening?[/nq]
[nq:1]It's not an exception: the rule you were taught is too narrow, that's all.[/nq]
I'm not sure Anna needs to widen the scope of her rule at all.

Anna's subject line suggests that, in her example, she regards "from" and "under" as separate prepositions do I understand that right?

One way to analyse the sentence syntactically on that basis involves regarding "from" as governing "under the bed". This has awkward consequences. The immediate consequence is that "under the bed" is a noun phrase, and rather a peculiar one it is, too.

* it can't take a determiner (and the reason isn't that it is a noun phrase already qualified by a determiner)
* it has no head noun
There are noun phrases like that (e.g. infinitive phrases), but it's unusual, nonetheless.
Here's another suggestion which IMHO doesn't create so much difficulty.

The following sentences are idiomatic and grammatically OK, don't you think?
The cat slept on top of the bed.
The creature came out of the lake.
These show that a preposition can consist of two or more words. So how about regarding "from under" in Anna's example sentence as a two-word preposition? No preposition after a preposition. No unusual noun phrase. No need for Anna to make an unusual exception to her rule.
Is it so difficult for "from under" to be a two-word preposition? There's very little grammatical difference between these sentences:

The creature came out of the lake.
The creature came from out of the lake.
If you accept "out of" as a two-word preposition, it's no great leap to accepting "from out of" as a three-word preposition.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]It's not an exception: the rule you were taught is too narrow, that's all.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm not sure Anna needs to widen the scope of her rule at all. Anna's subject line suggests that, in ... accept "out of" as a two-word preposition, it's no great leap to accepting "from out of" as a three-word preposition.[/nq]
But she's a learner, for heaven's sake! She thought a single preposition had to be followed immediately by a noun, so it threw her to see one followed immediately by another preposition. You're right, of course, but all she needs to know just now is that the rule she had was a bit too restrictive.
Mike.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I'm not sure Anna needs to widen the scope of ... "under" as separate prepositions do I understand that right?[/nq]
[nq:2]If you accept "out of" as a two-word preposition, it's no great leap to accepting "from out of" as a three-word preposition.[/nq]
[nq:1]But she's a learner, for heaven's sake! She thought a single preposition had to be followed immediately by ... but all she needs to know just now is that the rule she had was a bit too restrictive. Mike.[/nq]
Thank you, Mike, for worrying about me being confused about Richard's answer, and thank you, Richard, for such a thorough explanation~! Actually that was the kind of answer I was searching for and I've got soo much help~
This is the first time ever using a newsgroup
and I never imagined what a great help it could be~ Well, thanks!

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]But she's a learner, for heaven's sake! She thought a ... the rule she had was a bit too restrictive. Mike.[/nq]
[nq:1]Thank you, Mike, for worrying about me being confused about Richard's answer, and thank you, Richard, for such a thorough ... the first time ever using a newsgroup and I never imagined what a great help it could be~ Well, thanks![/nq]
You're lucky: we were in a good mood. And sorry, Richard: your aim was better.

Mike.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]It's not an exception: the rule you were taught is too narrow, that's all.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm not sure Anna needs to widen the scope of her rule at all. Anna's subject line suggests that, in ... The immediate consequence is that "under the bed" is a noun phrase, and rather a peculiar one it is, too.[/nq]
That's a consequence only if you agree with Anna's rule that prepositions must govern noun phrases. If instead you have the rule that a preposition governs noun phrases, but "from" can also govern certain prepositional phrases, then the difficulties don't arise. Not being an expert, I don't see any reason for choosing one over the other.
...
[nq:1]Here's another suggestion which IMHO doesn't create so much difficulty. The following sentences are idiomatic and grammatically OK, don't you ... accept "out of" as a two-word preposition, it's no great leap to accepting "from out of" as a three-word preposition.[/nq]
I see two significant differences between "from under the bed" and "out of the lake". One is that "from" can be followed by a long list of prepositions ("over", "under", "between", "inside", "outside", "in" (debatable except in phrases such as "from in front of"), "behind", "before", "after", and probably more), but "out" can only be followed by "of". The other is that the prepositional phrase after "from" can be replaced by "here" or "there" or maybe "then" in "from there", do you consider "there" to be a one-word noun phrase? but an "of" phrase after "out" has no such replacement.
So I like the idea that "out of" is one two-word preposition better than the idea that "from out of" is one three-word preposition.

Jerry Friedman

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]One way to analyse the sentence syntactically on that basis involves regarding "from" as governing "under the bed". This has awkward consequences. The immediate consequence is that "under the bed" is a noun phrase, and rather a peculiar one it is, too.[/nq]
Some people appear to parse it that way, some of the time. One occasionally hears, e.g., "Under the bed hasn't been swept".

I agree with you, however, that it is more natural in standard English to parse such pairs (from under, behind, above, inside, etc.) as compound prepositions.

Joe Fineman (Email Removed)

A preposition after a preposition??

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions