Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/2021-08/Scope of English prepositions

< Wiktionary:Votes

Scope of English prepositions edit

Voting on: Scope of English prepositions. This vote does not apply to languages other than English.

This vote is INDICATIVE ONLY. Its purpose is to make an initial determination of whether there is any appetite for changing from Option 1, which is very largely the present status quo, to a more "modern" approach along the lines of Option 2 and/or Option 3. If Option 2 and/or Option 3 were to pass, we would not immediately implement these across the relevant articles, but would move to further discussion about how to proceed. If Option 2 and Option 3 both fail, then the issue can be put to bed, at least for now.

In the hopefully unlikely event that conflicting options pass, e.g. Option 1 and Option 2 both pass, those options will be deemed no consensus.

It is not practicable at this level to provide options to cater for all possible combinations of opinion about what is and is not a preposition in every context. Please vote broadly on the general principles, rather than on fine detail or individual special cases or exceptions that may not be specifically mentioned.

Schedule:

Discussion: Issues raised or mentioned on various past occasions at the Tea Room and elsewhere in respect of various words. For example:

Option 1 edit

Require prepositions to have explicit objects (which for these purposes includes objects supplied by means of a relative clause, or in certain types of passive construction). For example:

  • "against" is a preposition in "She voted against the proposal" but not in "She voted against".
  • "behind" is a preposition in "He followed behind me" but not in "He followed behind".
  • "against" is a preposition in "This is the proposal (that) she voted against" (relative clause).
  • "with" is a preposition in "Cutlery is not eaten: it is eaten with" (one eats with it).
Support edit
  1.   Support. I would also allow <noun> <preposition> where the second word is not also used as an adverb. RichardW57 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support. It's true that English is quite cavalier when it comes to PoS (but less so than some other languages), but "intransitive prepositions" are like "conjugated infinitives": it doesn't exist (even if some linguistic traditions may use such terms). MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support — Eru·tuon 18:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support —Mahāgaja · talk 07:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Though I do distinguish between adverbs and prepositional adverbs. in "She voted for," and "She went past," for is a prepositional adverb to me; in "She came along," "She went out," "She came to," "She threw out," "She barged in," "She walked in," "She hails from," I see them as true adverbs. It just depends on whether or not the expression is standardized. "He followed behind," as a synonym for "He followed," doesn't contain a preposition, just an adverb that's part of the verb. "He followed behind," as a synonym for "He followed at the end," contains no preposition, but does contain an adverb on its own. "He followed behind," as in "He followed, behind [me/it/...]," does contain a prepositional adverb, but again, no preposition. This is all, of course, my personal opinion. 110521sgl (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Per the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, these things are still analyseable as prepositions. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 04:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Roger.M.Williams (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Svartava2 (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1.   Oppose. Outdated and not accurately representative of the roles the "adverbs" are playing in these sentences. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 15:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose per Jjamesryan. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain edit
  1.   Abstain Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 edit

Allow "intransitive" prepositions in cases where an object is implied or can reasonably be supplied. These will largely be cases where the word is presently classed as an adverb, or perhaps sometimes adjective. For example:

  • "against" is a preposition in "She voted against", since "She voted against the proposal", or similar, is implied.
  • "behind" is a preposition in "I walked in front, and he followed behind", since "behind me" is implied or can reasonably be assumed.
  • "behind" is a preposition in "The car behind started to overtake", since "behind me / us / the other car / etc." is implied or can reasonably be assumed.
  • "outside" is a preposition in "She is outside", since "outside a room / building / etc." can reasonably be supplied.
Support edit
  1.   Support Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1.   Oppose. "Behind" is an adverb in "I walked in front, and he followed behind." RichardW57 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose — Eru·tuon 18:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose Urszag (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose —Mahāgaja · talk 07:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose "Outside of" is a preposition as a whole. "Outside" isn't, right? 110521sgl (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Outside of" is a fragment of a prepositional phrase, with "Outside" as the preposition and the object of the prepositional phrase following "of". "Outside" by itself is just the same - the only difference is that, here, the object is implied rather than being explicitly stated. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 02:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Oppose Svartava2 (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain edit
  1.   Abstain Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 edit

Extend "preposition" to include some words not traditionally considered prepositions in any context, and even if no object can grammatically be supplied. Candidates might be "away" in "he walked away"[1] or "back" in "He was away for a while but now he's back".[2] Please vote for now on the general principle, not on exactly how to define or identify which words qualify, though any additional comments on the latter may be useful should the proposal pass.

Support edit
  1.   Support Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 15:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support. Treating these as adverbs seems like an odd move, leaving the only other sensible classification as a preposition. Imetsia (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support per Imetsia. AG202 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit
  1.   Oppose RichardW57 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose — Eru·tuon 18:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose —Mahāgaja · talk 07:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose These do deserve their own terminology, but I wouldn't consider them adpositions. 110521sgl (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The kinds of word usage that we are talking about here do not seem to fit any traditional class. I cannot grasp why anyone would want to call them prepositions, but then adverb or adjective seem almost equally unsatisfactory. Perhaps we should spearhead a new word class. Mihia (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "I cannot grasp why anyone would want to call them prepositions" - why not? They're simply prepositions where the object is implied rather than explicitly stated. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 03:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's option #2. Mihia (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Oppose Svartava2 (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain edit
  1.   Abstain Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

  • Option 1: Passes (9-2-1)
  • Option 2: Fails (1-8-1)
  • Option 3: Fails (4-7-1)

May I say thank you to all those who participated. While some may have questioned the merits or worthwhileness of this vote, for me personally a definite decision on #2 and #3 is very useful. Mihia (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References edit

  1. ^ https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199675128.001.0001/acref-9780199675128-e-1687
  2. ^ Wiktionary:Tea_room/2021/July#back
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/2021-08/Scope_of_English_prepositions&oldid=78115680"