to apostrophe or not to apostrophe 2

[CajunCenturion]

==> it seems to me, that by your definition
Thanks, but it's not my definition. As much I'd like the claim to fame, I didn't define phrasal verbs.

A phrasal verb is using a preposition in conjunction with an existing verb to alter, in context, the meaning of the verb. Neither component by itself is a phrasal verb. It is only in combination that phrasal verbs exist. 'To' is not a phrasal verb, and neither is 'read' However, 'read to' in context may be phrasal. Similarly, 'out of' (compound preposition) and 'read' can perhaps, in combination, form the phrasal verb 'read out of'. I will stipulate that neither of these two examples are as strong as the verb 'bring' and the phrasal verb 'bring up', which also appears in your original question, despite it being split.

==> Not to mention the fact that "from" is also a preposition, and you're ending the sentence with it, so what have we gained from the substitution?
The difference is between ending a sentence with a preposition and ending a sentence with a phrasal verb.

==> Furthermore, dropping the word "to" seems wrong,
What 'to' was dropped?

==> However, I don't buy your substitutions of "why" and "from" for "what for" and "out of".
These substitutions were not made from a grammatical imperative. Those changes are simply a matter of style. As you pointed out earlier, conciseness can play a role.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[chipperMDW]

As for a question or not a question, I'd say mine is a question and yours isn't, Chipper.

Which one is yours? I wasn't quoting you.

I intentionally ended my non-question statement with a question mark to make a point. It was like saying, "This sentence no verb."


This is the statement I quoted:

I didn't want to be read to out of this book, so please tell me what reason you have for bringing up such an unwanted peice of literature?

It ends with a question mark, but neither clause is an interrogative.


I didn't want to be read to out of this book

That's clearly a statement. No need for a question mark there.


please tell me what reason you have for bringing up such an unwanted peice of literature

That's a command, or imperative. It may be a "polite" command, but that doesn't make it a question.

 

[BobRodes]

Cajun,

==> it seems to me, that by your definition
Thanks, but it's not my definition. As much I'd like the claim to fame, I didn't define phrasal verbs.

Let me rephrase that. "It seems to me, that by the defintion you provide...(etc)". Sorry if that was unclear.

A phrasal verb is [...] However, 'read to' in context may be phrasal. Similarly, 'out of' (compound preposition) and 'read' can perhaps, in combination, form the phrasal verb 'read out of'. I will stipulate that neither of these two examples are as strong as the verb 'bring' and the phrasal verb 'bring up', which also appears in your original question, despite it being split.

Yes, that is how I understood the definition you provided. In fact, it would seem that we agree on this. It seems that analyzing a preposition/verb pair as a phrasal verb is a means of showing that the word order adheres to the rule, at least to some extent.

==> However, I don't buy your substitutions of "why" and "from" for "what for" and "out of".
These substitutions were not made from a grammatical imperative. Those changes are simply a matter of style. As you pointed out earlier, conciseness can play a role.

I agree with you. But, when I said I didn't buy your substitutions, it's because my invitation to reword my sentence seeks to find a means by which the words provided could be reordered so as to be in keeping with the rule, without altering the style, with the assumption that rules should be subservient to nuances and shades of expression, not the other way around. It seems to me that you have simply altered the style to fit the rule. Of course, my underlying point is that it is difficult to fit the rule without changing the words, and that appears to me to be an indightment of the rule rather than the words.

Thanks for your input; this is very interesting.

Bob

 

[BobRodes]

Chipper:

I didn't notice that that was a quote from someone else. My apologies.

Bob

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> It seems that analyzing a preposition/verb pair as a phrasal verb is a means of showing that the word order adheres to the rule, at least to some extent.
That's not really what I'm saying. Recognizing that a preposition/verb pair is a phrasal verb is a means of showing that a different rule applies. Not ending a sentence with a preposition is a rule that applies to prepositions. However, when a preposition acts more like an adverb in forming a phrasal verb, then adverb rules should apply, and I know of no adverb rules that suggest they not end sentences. I think how the word functions is more important that its de facto part of speech.

==>It seems to me that you have simply altered the style to fit the rule.
I alterted the style because I felt the style could use some alteration. It had nothing to do with any rules.

==> Of course, my underlying point is that it is difficult to fit the rule without changing the words, and that appears to me to be an indightment of the rule rather than the words.
In some cases that might be true. On the other hand, if you are having difficulty fitting a rule without changing the words, maybe the problem is not with the rule, but with your choice of words.

I don't have a problem ending a sentence with a preposition, as long as it's natural. Your question doesn't sit well with me, not because it ends with a preposition, but because it, as you said, seems stilted. I don't think it's natural, and that's why I altered the style.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[BobRodes]

==> It seems that analyzing a preposition/verb pair as a phrasal verb is a means of showing that the word order adheres to the rule, at least to some extent.
That's not really what I'm saying. Recognizing that a preposition/verb pair is a phrasal verb is a means of showing that a different rule applies. Not ending a sentence with a preposition is a rule that applies to prepositions. However, when a preposition acts more like an adverb in forming a phrasal verb, then adverb rules should apply, and I know of no adverb rules that suggest they not end sentences. I think how the word functions is more important that its de facto part of speech.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, too. What I mean by adheres to the rule perhaps is better said as doesn't break the rule. My analyze is your recognize, and so on.

==>It seems to me that you have simply altered the style to fit the rule.
I alterted the style because I felt the style could use some alteration. It had nothing to do with any rules.

I didn't intend to imply any sense of purpose on your part in what I said. My meaning was that you altered the style in such a way that it fits the rule. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

On the other hand, if you are having difficulty fitting a rule without changing the words, maybe the problem is not with the rule, but with your choice of words.

So, I guess we are in agreement again, since maybe the problem IS with the rule, and maybe not. As such, the rule itself isn't a hard and fast one, and that's exactly what I've been attempting to convey. As for not liking my choice of words, that's an entirely valid reason to change them. Attempting to hold them to a self-styled objective standard of correctness (and let me say I do NOT accuse you of doing this) is not a valid reason to do so.

This is not to say that grammar is irrelevant, just that rules need to be applied to enhance communication, not obfuscate it.

Bob