Preposition after preposition phrase...?

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]
It is no exception, and the "rule" is basic grammar.

A phrase acts as a unitary construction that is treated as a part of speech. The simplest way to put it, especially for those familiar with programming concepts, is that phrases can be nested.
"Bed" is a noun. "The" is a determinitive adjective, and "the bed" is a phrase that acts as a noun.
"Under the bed" is a prepositional phrase, in which "under" is associated with the noun phrase "the bed".
"From under the bed" is, in turn, another prepositional phrase, in which "from" is associated with the noun phrase "under the bed".

Not a problem.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]"He rose from under the bed."[/nq]
I believe "from under" is a compound preposition, like "in front of," "in back of", "on top of", and "as well as".

Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]In English grammar, we learned that after a preposition, there is a noun.[/nq]
What, you mean as in
"we wanted to watch TV"
"he wears gloves for driving"
"she makes jam from fresh strawberries"
"they went out quickly"
"she ran away from him"
Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.
DC

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]In English grammar, we learned that after a preposition, there is a noun.[/nq]
[nq:1]What, you mean as in "we wanted to watch TV" "he wears gloves for driving" "she makes jam from fresh strawberries" "they went out quickly" "she ran away from him" Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.[/nq]
You err seriously.
The key is that phrases act as single parts of speech. "Fresh strawberries", for examples, is a noun phrase , so "from" is indeed immediately preceding "a noun". "From him" is a prepositional noun phrase. "Driving", as a gerund, is a noun. "To" used to mark the infinite form of a verb is not a preposition at all but a "modal particle" (it once was a preposition, but when it was the "infinitive" was a declension of a noun). Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]In English grammar, we learned that after a preposition, there is a noun.[/nq]
[nq:1]What, you mean as in "we wanted to watch TV"[/nq]
Contemporary linguists and grammarians do not consider "to" a preposition when it precedes an infinitive. It's a "particle."
[nq:1]"he wears gloves for driving"[/nq]
"Driving" here is a noun. Some would call it a gerund; others are content to call it a noun. To be sure, "driving" has a verbal root, and it can take an object just like a regular verb (though not here). But it's still a noun.
[nq:1]"she makes jam from fresh strawberries"[/nq]
He didn't say "immediately after." After "from" comes "strawberries," with "fresh" between them.
[nq:1]"they went out quickly"[/nq]
"Out" is an adverb here. Check your dictionary.
[nq:1]"she ran away from him"[/nq]
Okay, "him" is a pronoun, not a noun. You get half a point for this one. The original rule should have been stated as "noun or pronoun" or "substantive." Note that in the example given by the OP (snipped along the way), the noun in question is a prepositional phrase that has the grammatical characteristics and function of a noun.
[nq:1]Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.[/nq]
But not for the OP, DC.
Oh, and why do all your example sentences begin with a lower case letter? Even the OP didn't commit this solecism consistently.

Bob Lieblich
PITA grammarian

Usenet · Answer

Because I wanted to indicate the fact that the examples don't have to act as complete sentences, but could be quotes of sentence fragments. It's a convention that I think works for language examples and my conscious choice; nobody else has to follow it. More later.

DC

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]noun.[/nq]
The issue here is Curious' curiosity over the exact application of an over generalised rule.
[nq:2]What, you mean as in "we wanted to watch TV"[/nq]
[nq:1]Contemporary linguists and grammarians[/nq]
names? But I think it's important to distinguish between theoretical linguists and those authors who address the grammar issues which L2 learners of English get to grips with; it's not the same discourse. With respect, I think that's the sort of grammar Curious is concerned with.
[nq:1]do not consider "to" a preposition when it precedes an infinitive. It's a "particle."[/nq]
Yes, here 'to' is a particle. But sometimes it's a preposition, ('we're going to London') so we're going to have to build a note here into Curious' rule...
[nq:2]"after a preposition, there is a noun,[/nq]
but sometimes words which are used as prepositions are performing a different function in the sentence."
[nq:2]"he wears gloves for driving"[/nq]
[nq:1]"Driving" here is a noun. Some would call it a gerund;[/nq]
Most people who are involved in the teaching of English as a Foreign Language wouldn't call it anything other than a gerund. COBUILD calls the form "an -ing noun"; Leech and Svartvik like "-ing clause" (though I can't say I do); Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics says "a gerund is a verb form which ends in -ing, but which is used in a sentence like a noun" (my stress)"; Swan defines "the -ing form" as "the form of a verb ending in -ing ... sometimes called the present participle and sometimes the gerund depending on whether it is used more like a verb or adjective or more like a noun"; Thomson and Martinet go with "gerund". OK, gerunds often behave like nouns; rabbits often behave like guinea pigs.
[nq:1]others are content to call it a noun.[/nq]
Well, good on 'em. I like calling bananas artichokes, but that's just me; I try not to do it in class though so as not to confuse students.
[nq:1]To be sure, "driving" has a verbal root, and it can take an object just like a regular verb (though not here). But it's still a noun.[/nq]
Concrete or abstract?
[nq:2]"she makes jam from fresh strawberries"[/nq]
[nq:1]He didn't say "immediately after." After "from" comes "strawberries," with "fresh" between them.[/nq]
No, he didn't, did he? So we'll need to qualify Curious' rule again, to say that 'noun' can include an extended noun group:-

'she ran out of /the brightly-lit, crowded, filled with the noise of drunken conversation, and suddenly, for that very moment, overwhelmingly unwelcoming town-centre ballroom/' (I didn't say these examples were literature...)
[nq:2]"they went out quickly"[/nq]
[nq:1]"Out" is an adverb here. Check your dictionary.[/nq]
OK.
Chambers - adverb... then 'prep - 'forth from'
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English - adverb... & preposition - their example *'He went out the door'..*
www.dictionary.com (US usage) adverb, adjective, verb, prep - "Forth from; through: *He fell out the window.*
Beyond or outside of: Out this door is the garage. Within the area of: The house has a garden out back."

To be honest, my quick example was an attempt to put a preposition in front of an adverb... how about
'he drove off quickly'
[nq:2]"she ran away from him"[/nq]
In both the last two examples one argument would be 'went (go) out' and 'ran (run)away' are actually phrasal verbs, (and 'drove off' for that matter) but that's probably not a can of worms we want to open.
[nq:1]Okay, "him" is a pronoun, not a noun. You get half a point for this one.[/nq]
Thank you.
[nq:1]The original rule should have been stated as "noun or pronoun" or "substantive."[/nq]
Maybe the original rule should be 'a noun or something standing for a noun' - a pronoun, as here, a possessive adjective:-

- 'it's in mine, but on top of yours'
various determiners:-
- 'get out of that then!'
and probably some others.
Anyway, I'm off out of here.
Cheers
DC

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The issue here is Curious' curiosity over the exact application of an over generalised rule.[/nq]
But many words change parts of speech (or word classes or whatever) as they change function. Consider "well" it can be one or any five of the eight traditional classes. When "to" isn't a preposition, it isn't. The fact that it can be a preposition in other contexts cuts no ice. I'm sure people in Curious's position are taught relatively early on of the slipperiness of Enblish words. If he speaks, say, Chinese, he should already have some understanding of the principle.
[nq:1]but sometimes words which are used as prepositions are performing a different function in the sentence."[/nq]
[nq:2]"Driving" here is a noun. Some would call it a gerund;[/nq]
[nq:1]Most people who are involved in the teaching of English as a Foreign Language wouldn't call it anything other than a gerund.[/nq]
I offer you John Lawler, resident linguist of AUE, who does not consider -ing forms gerunds unless they display their verbal roots in some way, such as taking an object. I agree that the terminology is hardly consistent (that was my point) and have snipped your examples that establish the proposition. The generic -ing form is to me just that the -ing form.
[nq:2]To be sure, "driving" has a verbal root, and it ... verb (though not here). But it's still a noun. >[/nq]
[nq:1]Concrete or abstract?[/nq]
Since you brought that up, could you please tell me any principle of grammar or usage that is dependent on whether a noun is concrete or abstract? I've been looking for one for many years, because ESL students come along at various intervals asking whether a given noun is concrete or abstract, and I have never seen anyone come up with a good answer because the distinction has no relevance to English grammar or usage. Of course, ICBW. If you can show me that I'm wrong, with a good example, I'd be most grateful.
[nq:2]He didn't say "immediately after." After "from" comes "strawberries," with "fresh" between them.[/nq]
[nq:1]No, he didn't, did he? So we'll need to qualify Curious' rule again, to say that 'noun' can include an extended noun group:-[/nq]
"Noun phrase or clause" will do.
[nq:1]'she ran out of /the brightly-lit, crowded, filled with the noise of drunken conversation, and suddenly, for that very moment, overwhelmingly unwelcoming town-centre ballroom/' (I didn't say these examples were literature...)[/nq]
No, you sure didn't
[nq:2]"Out" is an adverb here. Check your dictionary.[/nq]
[nq:1]OK. Chambers - adverb... then 'prep - 'forth from' Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English - adverb... & preposition - their ... quick example was an attempt to put a preposition in front of an adverb... how about 'he drove off quickly'[/nq]
Nope. Prepositions need objects. No object, no preposition. Adverb.
Granted, American Heritage isn't as ESL friendly as Longman, but it does a much better job of differentiating the preposition "out" from the adverb "out" (and the other three parts of speech "out" can be), complete with examples:
.
[nq:1]In both the last two examples one argument would be 'went (go) out' and 'ran (run)away' are actually phrasal verbs, (and 'drove off' for that matter) but that's probably not a can of worms we want to open.[/nq]
I can accept that. It doesn't affect the immediate topic.

TTFN

Bob Lieblich
Imagine discussing English usage. What next?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Most people who are involved in the teaching of English as a Foreign Language wouldn't call it anything other than a gerund.[/nq]
[nq:1]I offer you John Lawler, resident linguist of AUE, who does not consider -ing forms gerunds unless they display their ... snipped your examples that establish the proposition. The generic -ing form is to me just that the -ing form.[/nq]
In fact I much prefer the term -ing form; to me 'gerund' smacks of an old-fashioned and IMHO inappropriate analysis of English based on Latin grammer.
However; as an ESL teacher it's important to be aware of the fact that you are probably only one of a lifetimes-worth of teachers the L2 student will encounter. This means for the sake of continuity you often end up using terms like 'gerund' which you may not consider ideal, because you know that the student will be familiar with them from previous teachers and the chances are further teachers will also use them.
[nq:2]Concrete or abstract?[/nq]
[nq:1]Since you brought that up, could you please tell me any principle of grammar or usage that is dependent on whether a noun is concrete or abstract?[/nq]
No. Good point. However, all nouns are one or the other; if* that's a test of what a noun is (and it's not a bad one), gerunds fail it: unless we want to create a third specific category of 'nouns about verbs'; but in the gerund we already *have such a category.
[nq:1]I've been looking for one for many years, because ESL students come along at various intervals asking whether a given noun is concrete or abstract,[/nq]
As for teaching students about concrete or abstract nouns, I tend to think of that sort of thing as 'language trivia' or 'so what? stuff' (not quite as bad as weird collective nouns, but in that kind of direction). My students don't need to know about it to speak better English.
[nq:1]and I have never seen anyone come up with a good answer because the distinction has no relevance to English grammar or usage. Of course, ICBW. If you can show me that I'm wrong, with a good example, I'd be most grateful.[/nq]
Nope. I can't. I'd also be interested in an example.
[nq:2]OK. Chambers - adverb... then 'prep - 'forth from' Longman ... front of an adverb... how about 'he drove off quickly'[/nq]
[nq:1]Nope. Prepositions need objects. No object, no preposition. Adverb.[/nq]
OK, so lets make that the snappy user-friendly rule that Curious can usefully apply then. However...
[nq:2]In both the last two examples one argument would be ... probably not a can of worms we want to open.[/nq]
[nq:1]I can accept that. It doesn't affect the immediate topic.[/nq]
I've been worrying about these worms for the last week, because students are usually taught that phrasal verbs are base verbs modified by prepositions. But if we're making Curious G's first law (CG1L).

"A preposition has to have an object".
Then in the example
'we fell over'
'over' can't be a prepostition.
So I looked it up in Swan. He gives the following examples

'My car started rolling down the hill'.
'I can dive off the top board.' (do Americans really use 'dove' as the pp of 'dive' btw?)
and
'My car's just broken down.'
'We'll have to put the party off'.
and says "In the first two sentences 'down' and 'off' are prepositions. Like all prepositions they are used with objects ... In the last two examples ... 'down' and 'off' are used rather like adverbs, ... and they are called adverb or adverbial particles'.
So Swan is making the definition of a preposition that it takes an object; no object, can't be a prep; has to be defined as something else.

Real world time. Somewhere along the line, one of Curious' teachers has taught him CG1L. But in the spirit of continuity should I start telling my students "a phrasal verb is a verb + a preposition except when it's not got an object because prepositions can't not have objects so if there's not an object it's exactly the same word but now we're going to call it 'an adverbial particle' and if it doesn't work without an object it almost certainly isn't a phrasal verb anyway"? Are they going to speak better English knowing this? Probably not. I've never had a student bring the Curious G conundrum to me, but then, I've never felt the need to teach that all prepositions need an object...
Anyway, Robert, I know I've come up with a circular and probably flawed argument here, I'm just thinking aloud. Many thanks for the food for thought...
Toodle Pip
DC

Usenet · Answer

(I've snipped a long and interesting conversation. Please forgive me.)
[nq:1]I've been worrying about these worms for the last week, because students are usually taught that phrasal verbs are base verbs modified by prepositions.[/nq]
The worms in question are usually called "particules" or "particules adverbiales" in French. French ESL students are taught the difference between a preposition and a particle.
[nq:1]But if we're making Curious G's first law (CG1L). "A preposition has to have an object". Then in the example ... without an object it almost certainly isn't a phrasal verb anyway"? Are they going to speak better English knowing this?[/nq]
Speaking as a non-native speaker of English, may I point out that I've found it very useful to be able to make a difference between a preposition and an adverbial particle? It has enabled me to understand why
"He rolled down his sleeves."
and
"He rolled his sleeves down."
both mean the same thing,
while
"He rolled down the hill."
and
"He rolled the hill down."
don't quite conjure up the same sort of picture. Or do they?
Isabelle Cecchini

Preposition after preposition phrase...?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions