The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

"Good.... that makes for easier communication" is correct? [Two-part verbs - prepositional verbs] Options
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 7:56:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,097
Neurons: 7,295
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Hi everyone!
This part of chat made between me and another Native English speaker.

Native English Speaker: I sent you an email.... testing!

I: Hi, if your E-mail has been XXXXX at gmail dot com, then yes I have received an E-mail from it.

Native English Speaker: Good.... that makes for easier communication.




I commented on his sentence "Good.... that makes for easier communication." is incorrect. There is no an object for transitive verb 'make'
He told me "That makes for easier communication..... that is a relative pronoun...it's the subject....... makes is the verb...
Communication is the object"

I said to him that I am sorry to say that 'easier communication' is an adjectival phrase which is acting as an object for the preposition 'for'

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:57:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 25,198
Neurons: 131,113
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
His sentence is right, but his analysis is completely wrong.

That is a demonstrative pronoun, and is the subject.
makes for is the verb - third person singular present.
communication is the object.
easier is an adjective modifying 'communication'.
(Or you could say that "easier communication" is a noun-phrase and is the object.)

Oddly, the dictionary uses "better communication" as its example.

Phrasal Verbs:
make for

1. To have or produce (a particular effect or result): small details that make for comfort.
2. To help promote; further: makes for better communication.

American Heritage

make for
1. to head towards, especially in haste
2. to prepare to attack
3. to help to bring about: your cooperation will make for the success of our project.

Collins English Dictionary


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:55:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,097
Neurons: 7,295
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
His sentence is right, but his analysis is completely wrong.

That is a demonstrative pronoun, and is the subject.
makes for is the verb - third person singular present.
communication is the object.
easier is an adjective modifying 'communication'.
(Or you could say that "easier communication" is a noun-phrase and is the object.)

Oddly, the dictionary uses "better communication" as its example.

Phrasal Verbs:
make for

1. To have or produce (a particular effect or result): small details that make for comfort.
2. To help promote; further: makes for better communication.

American Heritage

make for
1. to head towards, especially in haste
2. to prepare to attack
3. to help to bring about: your cooperation will make for the success of our project.

Collins English Dictionary


Thanks a lot, Drg0nspeaker,
I know the two-part verbs can be:
1- prepositional verbs(Verb+ preposition): Listen to, look at. This kind can be called phrasal verbs -non-idiomatic meanings.
2- two-word verbs: look after, get over. This kind can be called phrasal verbs -idiomatic meanings.

As a result, Phrasal verbs can be Idiomatic meaning, and Non-idiomatic meanings. In idiomatic meanings, preposition can be placed before or after an object. However, in non-idiomatic meanings, preposition must be placed before an object.

As long as the noun-phrase 'easier communication' is the object of 'make for', then 'make for' is a phrasal verb(idiomatic meaning) -- which means we can put the preposition 'for' before or after 'object'.

"That makes for easier communication." Or we can say 'That makes easier communication for."


On the other hand, in the phrasal verb (non-idiomatic meaning), a preposition must be placed before object.
'Slide off something'. We cannot say 'Slide something off'

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:11:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 25,198
Neurons: 131,113
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Thanks a lot, Drg0nspeaker,
As long as noun-phrase 'easier communication' is the object of 'make for', then 'make for' is a phrasal verb(idiomatic meaning) -- which means we can put preposition 'for' before or after 'object'.

"That makes for easier communication." Or we can say 'That makes easier communication for."

On the other hand, in the phrasal verb (non-idiomatic meaning), a preposition must be placed before object.
'Slide off something'. We cannot say 'Slide something off'

I understand what you say - but where did that rule come from?
It's not true.

Some idiomatic phrasal verbs work one way, some work the other (a few are correct either way).
take in - meaning 'deceive'. John deceived Mike. John took Mike in. John took in Mike.
put up with - meaning 'accept'. I won't accept your attitude. I won't put up with your attitude. I won't put your attitude up with, I won't put up your attitude with
take off - meaning remove clothing - He took his jacket off. He took off his jacket.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
A cooperator
Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:30:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,097
Neurons: 7,295
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Thanks a lot, Drg0nspeaker,
As long as noun-phrase 'easier communication' is the object of 'make for', then 'make for' is a phrasal verb(idiomatic meaning) -- which means we can put preposition 'for' before or after 'object'.

"That makes for easier communication." Or we can say 'That makes easier communication for."

On the other hand, in the phrasal verb (non-idiomatic meaning), a preposition must be placed before object.
'Slide off something'. We cannot say 'Slide something off'

I understand what you say - but where did that rule come from?
It's not true.

Some idiomatic phrasal verbs work one way, some work the other (a few are correct either way).
take in - meaning 'deceive'. John deceived Mike. John took Mike in. John took in Mike.
put up with - meaning 'accept'. I won't accept your attitude. I won't put up with your attitude. I won't put your attitude up with, I won't put up your attitude with
take off - meaning remove clothing - He took his jacket off. He took off his jacket.




Thanks a lot, Drg0nspeaker,

From the Practical English Usage book for Michael Swan, I read the following:
Quote:

Two-part verbs(prepositional verbs) can be:
1- Verb+ preposition: Listen to, look at.
Many English verbs are regularly followed by prepositions before objects.
You never listen to me(not you never listen me)
Alan walked down the road without looking at anybody.

2- Idiomatic meanings: look after, get over.
The meaning of a two-word verb can be very different from the meaning of the two parts taken separately.
Could you take after the kids while I am out?(look after is not the same as look+after)
It took him six months to get over his illness.(get over is not the same as get+over)




Thus, according to what I read, I, myself, concluded this:(correct me if I was wrong)
1- prepositional verbs(Verb+ preposition): Listen to, look at. I think this kind can be called phrasal verbs -non-idiomatic meanings.
2- two-word verbs: look after, get over. This kind can be called phrasal verbs -idiomatic meanings.

As a result, Phrasal verbs can be Idiomatic meaning, and Non-idiomatic meanings. In idiomatic meanings, preposition can be placed before or after an object. However, in non-idiomatic meanings, preposition must be placed before an object.

As long as the noun-phrase 'easier communication' is the object of 'make for', then 'make for' is a phrasal verb(idiomatic meaning) -- which means we can put the preposition 'for' before or after 'object'.

"That makes for easier communication." Or we can say 'That makes easier communication for."


On the other hand, in the phrasal verb (non-idiomatic meaning), a preposition must be placed before object.
'Slide off something'. We cannot say 'Slide something off'

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:52:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 25,198
Neurons: 131,113
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Thanks.

The whole quote by Swan is fine (occasionally I disagree with his book, but very rarely).
It is all correct.

Phrasal verbs are idiomatic.
Quote:
Phrasal verbs are verb phrases that have idiomatic meanings — that is, their meaning is not obvious from the individual words that make up the phrase.
Phrasal verbs are made up of a verb + a preposition or an adverbial particle, and their meaning is uniquely tied to each particular combination.

The Farlex Grammar Book

1- prepositional verbs(Verb+ preposition): Listen to, look at. these are not phrasal verbs
2- two-word verbs: look after, get over. This kind are called phrasal verbs - idiomatic meanings.

Quote:
In idiomatic meanings, preposition can be placed before or after an object.

Well . . .
Sometimes the preposition is always placed before an object, sometimes it is always after, and sometimes you can use either. This is what I showed in the last post using 'take in', 'take off' and 'put up with'.

"Make for" always has the preposition before the object "This makes for better communication."

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
tunaafi
Posted: Friday, April 21, 2017 1:54:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,880
Neurons: 50,934
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a phrasal verb. What follows is an analysis of how I treat what I prefer to call multi-word verbs.


1. Verbs followed by a preposition

Luke came into the bar. (from, past, through, etc)

The word in bold is a preposition, and can be replaced by other prepositions such as those in brackets, changing the meaning of the sentence as the meaning of the preposition changes. The meaning of the underlined word, an intransitive verb, does not change. We are not dealing with multi-word verbs here, any more than we are with:

The cat sat on the mat.

The preposition must come before its object.

2. Prepositional verbs

Now consider this:

Emma can't get over the loss of her father.

Here, the underlined word-pair take on a meaning beyond the literal meanings of the original verb and preposition, (though it may be possible to see the meaning as a metaphorical extension of that literal meanings). Some writers call this type of multi-word verbs (inseparable) phrasal verbs – inseparable because the two parts cannot be separated by their object; this is not possible:

* She can't get the loss of her father over.

However, as they differ in usage from other types of 'phrasal verbs', and because they are used in the same patterns as verbs followed by a preposition it is more useful, in my opinion, to call them prepositional verbs.



3. Phrasal verbs

Now consider this sentence:

Terrorists blew up the army post.

Once again, the underlined word-pair takes on a meaning (explode) beyond the original dictionary definitions of its parts However, the word up is not being used as a traditional preposition here, but as an adverb or, as some writers refer to a word used in this way, a particle. I use the term phrasal verb for such combinations of verb+adverb/particle. Others call them separable phrasal verbs - separable because the two parts can be separated by their object; this is possible:

Terrorists blew the army post.

Some writers regard such groups as those below as phrasal verbs:

He put down his book.
He put his book down.


However, verb and adverb/particle are used here with their core meanings, and there is little point in considering them as phrasal verbs. Once again, this is not important. Whether we think of them as phrasal verbs or as verbs plus adverb/particle, the grammar is the same.


With blow up , we see the dangers of labeling combinations without taking context into consideration. It is used transitively (meaning explode), and as a phrasal verb. We can say He blew up the post, He blew the post up and He blew it up, but not * he blew up it..
We cam also use blow up (explode) intransitively: The car blew up.


We can also use blow as a simple intransitive verb and follow it with the preposition up. Think of an organist testing for blockages in a pipe: he pursed his lips, he put them to the end of the pipe and

He blew up the pipe.

Here we have a simple verb blew (for which we could substitute other verbs such as called, shouted) and a preposition up (for which we could substitute other prepositions such as down, through). In this sense it is possible to say: He blew up it.


4. Intransitive verbs followed by a particle/adverb

As I opened the door, Lindsay walked past. (away, by, in. past, over, up, etc)


In both this sentence, the word in bold is a particle/adverb, and can be replaced by others such as those in brackets, changing the meaning of the sentence as the meaning of the particle/adverb changes. The meaning of the underlined word, the verb, does not change. We are not dealing with multi-word verbs here.

5. Intransitive phrasal verbs

Now consider this sentence:

We fell out over the incident.

Here, the underlined word-pair takes on a meaning (disagreed, argued) beyond the original dictionary definitions of the two parts. I use the term (intransitive) phrasal verb for such combinations of verb+adverb/particle.


6. Phrasal-prepositional verbs


These consist of a phrasal verb followed by a preposition.

He caught up with his friends in Berlin.

Noun and pronoun objects must follow all three parts of phrasal-prepositional verbs.

Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
TheParser
Posted: Friday, April 21, 2017 7:38:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 3,983
Neurons: 18,669
Dear Fellow Learners:

Some TFD guests at my local library have asked me to thank DragOnspeaker for his excellent answers.

Those guests are studying his explanations very carefully, and we have scheduled a discussion on the topic.





Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, April 21, 2017 11:52:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 25,198
Neurons: 131,113
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Thank you, James The Parser, I'm very pleased to hear that I'm helping.

And - Thank you tunaafi.
Those SIX categories explain why creating a rule for all phrasal verbs just doesn't work.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
TheParser
Posted: Friday, April 21, 2017 6:53:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 3,983
Neurons: 18,669
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I'm very pleased to hear that I'm helping.



My group says that they have learned more from you (and Thar) than from their teachers and books!


Have a great weekend!
tunaafi
Posted: Friday, April 21, 2017 7:17:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,880
Neurons: 50,934
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Those SIX categories explain why creating a rule for all phrasal verbs just doesn't work.


Remember that those six categories are just six that I find useful. I make no claim that they are watertight. But, as you say, they help explain why a rule for all phrasal verbs does not work.

An additional problem is that there is no absolute agreement on acceptability. Most native speakers would almost certainly agree that 'The plane took off slowly' is grammatically correct (if aeronautically unwise). However, while some would accept 'The plane took slowly off', many would not. So, is 'take off' (in this sense) separable or not?


Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
Romany
Posted: Saturday, April 22, 2017 5:44:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 11,789
Neurons: 35,640
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom



While I too think Drago wrote a fine post, I feel it would be churlish not to point out that Tuna's very detailed post is as worthy of discussion and acknowledgement.

A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, April 23, 2017 7:16:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 2,097
Neurons: 7,295
Location: Ḩāḑírah, Hadramawt, Yemen
tunaafi wrote:
What follows is an analysis of how I treat what I prefer to call multi-word verbs.


1. Verbs followed by a preposition

Luke came into the bar. (from, past, through, etc)


The cat sat on the mat.

The preposition must come before its object.

2. Prepositional verbs

Now consider this:

Emma can't get over the loss of her father.

Some writers call this type of multi-word verbs (inseparable) phrasal verbs – inseparable because the two parts cannot be separated by their object; this is not possible:

* She can't get the loss of her father over.

However, as they differ in usage from other types of 'phrasal verbs', and because they are used in the same patterns as verbs followed by a preposition it is more useful, in my opinion, to call them prepositional verbs.



3. Phrasal verbs

Now consider this sentence:

Terrorists blew up the army post.
I use the term phrasal verb for such combinations of verb+adverb/particle. Others call them separable phrasal verbs - separable because the two parts can be separated by their object; this is possible:

Terrorists blew the army post.

Some writers regard such groups as those below as phrasal verbs:

He put down his book.
He put his book down.


However, verb and adverb/particle are used here with their core meanings, and there is little point in considering them as phrasal verbs. Once again, this is not important. Whether we think of them as phrasal verbs or as verbs plus adverb/particle, the grammar is the same.


With blow up , we see the dangers of labeling combinations without taking context into consideration. It is used transitively (meaning explode), and as a phrasal verb. We can say He blew up the post, He blew the post up and He blew it up, but not * he blew up it..
We cam also use blow up (explode) intransitively: The car blew up.


We can also use blow as a simple intransitive verb and follow it with the preposition up. Think of an organist testing for blockages in a pipe: he pursed his lips, he put them to the end of the pipe and

He blew up the pipe.

Here we have a simple verb blew (for which we could substitute other verbs such as called, shouted) and a preposition up (for which we could substitute other prepositions such as down, through). In this sense it is possible to say: He blew up it.


4. Intransitive verbs followed by a particle/adverb

As I opened the door, Lindsay walked past. (away, by, in. past, over, up, etc)


In both this sentence, the word in bold is a particle/adverb, and can be replaced by others such as those in brackets, changing the meaning of the sentence as the meaning of the particle/adverb changes. The meaning of the underlined word, the verb, does not change. We are not dealing with multi-word verbs here.

5. Intransitive phrasal verbs

Now consider this sentence:

We fell out over the incident.

Here, the underlined word-pair takes on a meaning (disagreed, argued) beyond the original dictionary definitions of the two parts. I use the term (intransitive) phrasal verb for such combinations of verb+adverb/particle.


6. Phrasal-prepositional verbs


These consist of a phrasal verb followed by a preposition.

He caught up with his friends in Berlin.

Noun and pronoun objects must follow all three parts of phrasal-prepositional verbs.


Thanks a lot, tunaafi, along with the other participants

It is a great explanation. But I should be studying each two-part verb individually to know whether it is a phrasal verb- idiomatic meaning, or is non-a phrasal verb, non-idiomatic meaning.
Also, if it is a phrasal verb-idiomatic meaning, then I should also be studying each phrasal verb to know where a preposition should be placed, before or after an object.
This would be really very difficult unless there is a rule which can help me classify any two-part verbs to be in the prepositional verbs(Verb+ preposition), or in the phrasal verbs-idiomatic meanings category.
Also, I need another rule helping me classify where the propositions should be placed in any phrasal verb(idiomatic meaning).

Though I always hear that learning English by listening not by studying grammar rules is hopeful. I believe as frustrated since I cannot explain things in a plain language. Sick

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.