zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:59 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:16 am 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 8:26 pm
Posts: 63
The sentence is "...as he pulled it back up"

I'm trying to figure out how to translate to my language but I don't know how to break up "pulled it back up". "Pulled" is the verb, "it" is the noun, What then is "back" and "up"? "Up" and "back" are adjectives without the other, but "back" in this case seems like an adverb and I see the idea of "phrasal verb" but that doesn't seem right. I also tried to look at this with google translate to japanese which uses SOV like I want, it seems there is no difference between "back" and "back up".

Currently I've split it up like this...
[as he] [it back up] [pulled]

Though it seems that it might be some formation of this...
[as he] [it] [pulled back up]
or
[as he] [[it] [back up]] [pulled]

I'm so confused by this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:16 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:03 am
Posts: 472
Location: displaced from Helsinki
They are adverbs of location that describe where the pulling is directed. Notice that you can use them both very well without the other in the same position,

"he pulled it back"
"he pulled it up",

where they retain their meanings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:54 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Posts: 3687
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston
Interesting to me how I recognise your analysis as technically correct even as it doesn't accord with my native speaker instincts at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:38 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3197
Location: One of the dark places of the world
linguoboy wrote:
Interesting to me how I recognise your analysis as technically correct even as it doesn't accord with my native speaker instincts at all.


While my immediate native speaker instinct was "adverb!", and while they are indeed called adverbs, it's worth noting that they don't really act the same way as other adverbs - which is to say, they're not really adverbs in the normal sense of the word.

Take a prototypical adverb like, say, "stupidly". Here are some things you can do with "stupidly":

1. Form comparatives and degrees: "I pullled it very stupidly"; "he answered more stupidly"; "she attempted it most stupidly of all".

2. Front it: "Stupidly, I pulled it".

3. Conjunct it with other -ly adverbs: "I pulled it stupidly and excessively".

4. Modify other adverbs: "I pulled it stupidly quickly"

5. Modify adjectives: "This test is stupidly hard"

6. Answer "how" questions: "How did you pull it?" "Stupidly!"

7. Be modified by -ly adverbs: "He answered unexpectedly stupidly"



Many of these tests work for many non-ly adverbs and adverbial phrases, like "bit by bit" and "like a bat out of hell":
- I ran quite like a bat out of hell, but he ran much more like a bat out of hell. [But not "very bit by bit", note.]
- Like a bat out of hell, I ran. Bit by bit, I pulled it.
- I ran immediately and like a bat out of hell. Bit by bit and painstakingly, I pulled it.
- The modification tests are failed
- How did you eat that elephant? "Bit by bit".
- He looked surprisingly like a bat out of hell. [but "bit by bit" constructions feel awkward]


Then there are other "adverbs" that pass and fail other tests, like "very", which fails all these tests other than the modifier tests, and also fails the one so obvious I didn't think to include it: they can't modify verbs.

Then there are "adverbs" like "tomorrow", which fail most of the tests but not all. "Tomorrow" allows fronting. And while it doesn't answer "how" questions, it does at least answer "when" questions.

And finally we get to "back" and "up":
- they can't directly be compared in standard English (*I pulled it more back, *I turned looked very up). Instead they need the intercession of "farther" ("I pulled it farther back", "I looked farther up") or for other degrees "far" (It fell very far back)
- they can't be fronted in colloquial English (?Back, I pulled it; ?up, I looked). [? because these may be acceptable in archaic/poetic/literary constructions]
- they can't be conjoined with -ly adverbs
- they can't modify other adverbs
- they can't modify adjectives
- they can't answer "how" questions, and can't exactly answer any simple question: "where did you pull it?" - ?"back"; "in which direction did you pull it?" - ?"up" [I would have to say "upward"]
- they can't be modified by -ly adverbs, again requiring the intercession of "far" ("stupidly far back", "unexpectedly far up")



At the very least, "back" and "far" clearly are a very different class from things like "stupidly", which are more uncontroversially "adverbs".

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:20 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Austin, TX, USA
They can also just be phrasal verbs, though, I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:40 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Posts: 3687
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston
Salmoneus wrote:
At the very least, "back" and "far" clearly are a very different class from things like "stupidly", which are more uncontroversially "adverbs".

Which is why the qualification "of location" is crucial there. I've seen them called simply "locatives" in some sources which dodges nicely the question of whether they should be lumped together with adverbs of manner etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:54 pm 
Boardlord
Boardlord

Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Posts: 3377
Location: In the den
Sal's discussion is good. Basically "adverb" is the trash bin of linguistics: everything that doesn't fit into another ancient Latin word gets thrown there.

We could probably call them particles, which is another trash bin, but allows us to distinguish these from "real" adverbs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:32 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3197
Location: One of the dark places of the world
linguoboy wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:
At the very least, "back" and "far" clearly are a very different class from things like "stupidly", which are more uncontroversially "adverbs".

Which is why the qualification "of location" is crucial there. I've seen them called simply "locatives" in some sources which dodges nicely the question of whether they should be lumped together with adverbs of manner etc.


"Directional" is probably better, because adverbs of location strictu sensu do at least pattern like adverbs of time (and can, for instance, easily be fronted: "Next to the lamp, there's a mushroom"), and contrast in form too. For instance, directional "up" (?"Up, I handed it") is paired with locatives like "high up" (and "up high", "far up", etc) ("High up, they built viewing deck").

["High up" also gives us seemingly adjectival uses like "high up the ladder", while "up high" does not]


Vijay: ahh, but there we're into a different kettle of worms! Because verb+directional can contrast with phrasal verbs semantically: "up" seems to be doing something different in "I pulled it up" than in "I folded it up" or "I looked it up". And I think there are at least probabilistic syntactic differences too. [eg, its much harder to break up phrasal verbs. I can say "I handed it carefully up", but "I looked it carefully up" makes me uneasy.]
And directionals can (almost always?) be converted into prepositions, while phrasals often can't. So, "I pulled it up"/"I pulled it up the well", but "I looked it up"/*"I looked it up the dictionary?"

That might suggest that "back" and "up" aren't really the same thing as one another. Maybe "back" forms predictable phrasal verbs indicating counter-action, while "up" is a deserted preposition that is used as a directional particle?

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group