Besides

Question

I have the impression that  besides  can only be used as an adverb or a prep..  But today I came accross a sentence using it as a conjunction to join two clauses, kinda like, "Sb. promoted for women's vactional training besides fought for increased wages (or for women's right or whatever). " I doubt it.  But I'd like to have your confirmation.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Jeff, give us the whole sentence, would you-- I am not sure there is a finite verb in what you have given us.

'Besides' is not a conjunction, but it can act as a conjunct, working with a (zero-) conjunction to join clauses: 'I haven't time to go shopping today; (and) besides, I don't have any money.'

Jeff_999 · Answer

Ok, Mr. Micawber.

If a question like this,
"An activist for women's rights,Leonora promoted women's vocational training (besides) fought for (increased) wages for garment workers."

Which one do you think has to be corrected, besides , or increased ?

I opt for A, besides. Because it can't be used as a conjunction, and it has to be replaced by 'and'.

As for 'increased', I know it's Ok. But someone will say it's probably 'increasing'. So how can I convince him that increased is OK here.

(Incidentally I know two sentences below are corect,
"I haven't time to go shopping today; besides, I don't have any money"
"I haven't time to go shopping today, and besides, I don't have any money")

Mister Micawber · Answer

Oof! This is a tough one for me, Jeff. You are right, 'besides' is wrong, but I cannot pinpoint a rule or reason.

'Leonora promoted training besides fought for wages' -- wrong

'Leonora promoted training and fought for wages'-- grammatically right but the meaning is changed; the meaning should be that 'promoting training' is over and above 'fighting for wages', not merely both; 'fighting' should be grammatically subordinated to 'promoting'.

'Leonora promoted training, besides fighting for wages' -- right, because 'fighting' has been subordinated.

And that's where I am stuck; perhaps 'besides' as an isolated conjunct works only as a subordinator (which is the meaning it conveys as a concessive conjunct)-- as also in 'I haven't time to go shopping today; besides, I don't have any money'.

As for 'increased/increasing':

Leonora ( S) fought (V) [for (prep) increased(adj) wages (noun)] (PREP PHRASE as ADVERBIAL COMPLEMENT)

Leonora ( S) fought for (Phrasal VERB) [increasing (pres part) wages (noun)] (NONFINITE CLAUSE as O)

We can probably deal with 'fought/fought for' either way in both sentences, but the NOUN PHRASE ('increased wages') will continue to stand against the NONFINITE CLAUSE ('increasing wages')

Jeff_999 · Answer

'Leonora promoted training, besides fighting for wages' -- right, because 'fighting' has been subordinated.

I concur with that.

So I think they should bracket 'fought' together with 'besides'.

Leonora ( S) fought (V) [for (prep) increased(adj) wages (noun)] (PREP PHRASE as ADVERBIAL COMPLEMENT)

Leonora ( S) fought for (Phrasal VERB) [increasing (pres part) wages (noun)] (NONFINITE CLAUSE as O)

We can probably deal with 'fought/fought for' either way in both sentences, but the NOUN PHRASE ('increased wages') will continue to stand against the NONFINITE CLAUSE ('increasing wages')

But I am not sure if I got a clear picture here. What do you tear 'fought for' apart for? Does that have something to do with 'increased or increasing wages' ?

If 'increased' can act as an adj. , I may understand that. But as far as I know, some past participles can not modify some particular nouns which can only work with present participles.

For example, 'The movie is interesting.'

Then, we say 'it is an interesting movie', but we can't say 'it is an interested movie' .

Why that?

Mister Micawber · Answer

Sorry, I was just playing around with 'fought' and 'fought for', to see whether it could be considered as either a prepositional (not 'phrasal') verb or a verb + preposition. This is unconnected with 'increased' vs. 'increasing'.

She is fighting for 'increased wages', i.e. her goal is 'increased wages' = wages which are/have been increased by the evil sexist management. Her target is higher wages, wages that have already been increased.

'She is fighting to increase wages' is also possible, but 'fighting for X increasing wages' is not. Wages are not actively increasing as she fights; when she successfully finishes her fight, wages will have been increased, however.

Is that clear?

On the other hand:

'It is an interesting movie.'
'I am interested (by the movie).'
The movie itself cannot express interest in something else, however, so an 'interested movie' is semantically impossible; only the sentient watcher can be 'interested'.

This is a question of which entity generates interest, and which receives it. Thus, many nouns seem strange or impossible if modified by some '-ed' verb forms, since they cannot be recipients of some qualities:

'I'm tired. It has been a tiring day.' (A day cannot itself be 'tired'.)
'I'm excited. This has been an exciting conference.' (The conference itself cannot get up and jump around enthusiastically.)

Jeff_999 · Answer

Thank you Mr. Micawber. I think I get the picture now.

So 'increased/increasing wages' problem may have no connection with 'interested/intresting' problem which is dealing with which entity generates interest and which receives it.

Besides

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions