Talk:Compound verb

Compound verb with particle first component
Can you give us a few examples of compound verbs with a particle first component, Menchi? I am trying to think of any without much success. If you look at grammatical particle, that doesn't seem to give much scope in that respect, even if I say so myself, having written the "particle" contribution. Dieter Simon 01:26 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The two English examples already on the pages have adverbial particles as their prefixes: over-, counter-. Over- could be a prepositional prefix too. --Menchi 02:10 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I might have made things more complicated when I mentioned grammatical particle, the only particles involved really are in preposition-verb compounds such as overcome, download, etc., but adverbs would have to be words like highly, well, probably, etc., that don't quite work with compound verbs. You were quite right to mention adjective-verbs but adjectives aren't particles. Adjective-verbs are, for example, highlight, finetune, foulmouth, etc. Then there are the noun-verbs, such as manhandle, sidestep, browbeat, etc., that should be mentioned. So why not leave out grammatical particles  altogether, and just include preposition-, adjective-, and noun-verb compounds? Hope you don't mind my coming back to you again. --Dieter Simon


 * "Mind"? Not at all. Constructive comments are helpful and therefore welcome.
 * Yes, -ly adverbs do not work with compound verbs. However, counter- works, and it is an adverb, just not the typical -ly adverb.
 * I think the particle-verb definition offers useful generalization. And I've seen it in grammar handbooks and dictionary definitions, like the OED's.
 * Your examples of adjective- and noun-verbs are great. How do you remember them? Did you just sit there fore a minute than they appear inside your brain? --Menchi 23:45 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * No, it does'nt come that automatically. I have been dealing with this type of thing for a long time in the course of my German work. All languages have similar structures, after a while you get to know these similarities.
 * To return to the compound verbs, in British English they usually start off hyphenated and after a few years take on the closed form, such as to white-wash, even to white wash and after some years of usage it becomes  to whitewash. They still start off like this more often than not to this day. In American usage they often begin their existence in the closed form (to whitewash) straightaway. It's a riveting subject. --Dieter Simon

It is indeed possible to have English compound verbs that contain no verb; think of the cliché phrase to out-Herod Herod. Perhaps phrasal verbs need to be distinguished more carefully from compound verbs, though. -- IHCOYC 02:17 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Good points. Added. I have heard "out-Herod" used, but two or three times only. I realize that they're uncommon, but are there other "non-verbal" compound verbs? Or is "out-Herod" the only one English has? --Menchi 02:39 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Given the way that English tends to verb nouns, it might be hard to create examples that are so obvious. The point, though, is that some compound verbs have detachable elements and others do not. Contrast I held up my hand and I held up a bank. You can recast the first one as:


 * I held my hand up.

but not:


 * I held the bank up.

Phrasal and compound verbs are among the most difficult aspects of English grammar, and have rules as to which elements can be detached and moved. Those rules are part of the lexicon.

Menchi, we mustn't forget - as I nearly did - what is often classed as a compound verb, namely that which includes more than one verb to express the action, or has an auxiliary verb + a main verb: "I am going", "they have been seeing each other", "you used to know him as Mr Smith", "I have left the car at the roadside", "the alarm rang and rang", "we will go on Sunday", etc. So, more than one verb to express the (one) action, then. Glossaries show a lot of them. Search for: -glossary "compound verb"-. Sorry --Dieter Simon


 * Please add them as you see fit. Be bold! --Menchi 00:18, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Phrasal and prepositional verbs
Menchi, I hope you won't mind my drawing attention to one aspect of your otherwise excellent article:-): It is when you say: "When to hold up means to raise, it is a phrasal verb ...But when to hold up means to rob, it is a prepositional verb".

Sorry, I think it should be the other way round as you may see by the three examples:

The Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992) says: "The term phrasal verb should properly be reserved for figurative and idomatic uses". They then quote the following sentence: "The balloon went up." inasmuch as "the crisis has finally happened".

The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (1994) says: ... Some analysts make metaphorical (or idiomatic) meaning a criterion for phrasal verbs, excluding combinations which have a transparent meaning: but it is not always easy to draw the line."...

I don't know whether you can lay your hands on either of these two books, or indeed the Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs, which says "Phrasal verbs are idiomatic combinations of a verb and adverb, etc." I don't want to quote too much of this introductory para for obious reasons, if it were at all possible for you to get hold of these it will be of assistence, I think.--80.225.81.188 21:48, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry this was me and the system logged me out in the meantime --Dieter Simon 21:50, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, User:Ihcoyc wrote that sentence. It shows this isn't my article. It's everybody's! (Join in the fun!) I merely am the original contributor (not owner) who started the fun and am very happy at least some people joined in!


 * But it doesn't matter who wrote it. You've spotted it now, thank you. Thanks, and please do fix any mistakes you find. Or just to improve what could be better. --Menchi 00:18, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Menchi. Sorry for taking your name in vain, I should have noticedDieter Simon 00:37, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It would appear that there might be two or more competing and maybe contradictory definitions of "phrasal verb" and "prepositional verb" coming out of Oxford. The definitions I put in that part, and the examples of the list, are taken from the Oxford English Grammar, which seems to be yet another reference work.  I wonder if there is some kind of relationship between the degree of literality vs. figurativeness of the expression and the severability of the preposition; this might explain the difference in syntax between to hold up [something] and to hold [something] up.


 * I say it's time for a road trip to Oxford, where we can threaten to bust some heads until they give us a straight answer. Until that time, though, one possible work around is to point out that these idioms vary in their severability.  FWIW, the definitions I gave seem to jive with the ones from their list of examples.  -- IHCOYC 04:16, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice, a little trip to the dreaming spires, count me in. What I quoted was as it was stated without taking the whole article. Sorry I didn't realise you had entered the fray on this in the talk page, Ihcoyc, if you have anything to the contrary from Oxford why not put your side of things and your findings in as well, in the actual article? This down-time didn't exactly help, I have lost some additional examples I had put in of the type of phrasal verbs we are talking about. Ah well it'll have ti wait till tomorrow now. -- Dieter Simon 00:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The Oxford English Grammar is at my office, so it will be Monday at the earliest. The examples in the seven item list are excerpted straight from what is in the book I have, though.  It strikes me as a matter of little import which label we hang on which kind of idiom, as I can see little logic in preferring one over the other, and can see how people's definitions may come to mirror each other, but they should be consistent.  -- IHCOYC 02:28, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right it doesn't matter what kind of idiom it is, however, what matters is that it is an idiom rather than an prepositional verb. I think the easiest way is to give it the analysis test. If the verb and preposition make sense in a direct way then it is not normally a phrasal verb. Phrasal verbs don't make sense in an analytical way. Take give in as an example, ignoring the intransitivity for a moment, the in doesn't make sense, it is part of a metaphor of "surrendering yourself", but you don't "give in", into any where in a literal sense. Look after again is a phrasal verb because it is an idiom rather than a literal prepositional verb, you don't "look after" anywhere, don't turn round and look back behind your person or anybody else's, for that matter, the after can't really be analyzed in that way, in the sense of "caring for someone". That is all I meant, and that is what the various grammar and reference works are saying. Sorry if my earlier reply was misleading.-- Dieter Simon 01:34, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to do some brainstorming on whether there are in fact any verb phrases with non-obvious meanings but with separable prepositions.


 * There is a continuum here, I suspect. "Hold up" in the sense of robbery is not wholly arbitrary; it requires some cultural knowledge of the cliche "stick 'em up," and may be backformed from hold-up the noun.  The oldest and most frozen combos prefix the preposition to the verb, a stratagem still available in modern English; you have to wonder what to understand was once about --- a similar formation is shared by most Germanic languages.  -- IHCOYC 03:19, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are right, phrasal verbs aren't arbitrary at all, they have traditional meanings that aren't obvious, they go back in time. The trouble is that isn't going to help our everyday user of a phrasal verbs, because he/she doesn't see the original meaning of "to pack up". "to look after", "to hang around". He knows what they mean, but how these words got there, he doesn't know unless he researches them. I have now started a new article Phrasal verb, and Vicki Rosenzweig has expressed a number of reservations about it. -- Dieter Simon 00:34, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---

So says Sidney Greenbaum's Oxford English Grammar (OUP 1996):


 * Multi-word verbs are combinations of verbs with other words that form an idiomatic unit, inasmuch as the meaning of the combination cannot be predicted from the meaning of the parts.


 * There are degrees of idiomaticity. The contribution of both verb and the particle may be opaque, as in give in  (surrender) and carry on (continue).  Or the verb's contribution may be transparent but the particle is not predictable, as in call on  and accuse of.  Or only the particle's contribution is transparent, as in turn off (e.g. the lights).  With some multi-word verbs there is a set of contrasting transparent particles: turn plus on, off, up, down.  . . ..


 * The most frequent types of multi-word verbs consist of a verb in combination with one or more particles. . . . The particles in such multi-word combinations are either adverbs or prepositions.

(here follows the list of seven types already quoted)


 * The particles in phrasal verbs are adverbs and those in prepositional verbs are prepositions. . ..

He goes on to say that in transitive phrasal verbs the position of the adverb particle is usually fixed, though it can be fixed before the predicate (take up arms) or after (keep your shirt on). The prepositional verbs "The particle of a phrasal verb is an adverb, which can be moved more freely, whereas a preposition comes before its complement. On the other hand, the adverb particle normally cannot precede the object if it is a personal pronoun. . . " (OEG, pp. 280-282, ss. 5.35 - 5.38)

I'm more confused than ever -- IHCOYC 19:38, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Phrasal verb was all about idiomaticalness or figurativeness in first place, not how the phrases and sentences were constructed. That wasn't the issue.:) Dieter Simon 01:29, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think you are making it too difficult for yourself :) a phrasal verb is really not a big problem. Phrasal words have an idiomatic meaning rather than a literal meaning. An idiom is a combination of words whose collective meaning cannot be arrived at from the meanings of any of the individual component words of the phrase. That's all there is to it, don't worry how it is composed and what role each word plays, just remember either the verb or the preposition don't make sense individually in the context of the whole phrase. To look after, neither to look nor after make sense in the total meaning of to care for. You can call the second word what you like, a preposition, a particle or even an adverb, all that matters is whether it makes sense or not80.225.74.194 00:10, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC) This ... thing has logged me out again Dieter Simon 00:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

IHCOYC, see phrasal verb, where I have entered what you actually may find more correct, and you were quite right all along, so I owe you an apology, as I do to Thirdreel and Vicki Rosenzweig. I had a bit of a brainstorm. If there are further items you feel need changing, feel free to do so. --Dieter Simon 23:16, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

The article may not be understood by everybody
This article needs definitions of some of its terms. Just put yourself in place of someone who has come across the term "compound verb" but knows nothing about it. Do you really think this article is easy to understand? Why don't you explicate each "difficult" term as you go along. Terms such as 'argument structure', 'aspects' (as in this context), 'agreement marker', 'complex predicates', etc., need to be consulted elsewhere by anyone who doesn't know what they mean. Don't forget you are not addressing your linguistic peers and colleagues. Your article reads like an essay to a linguistic journal not an encyclopaedic article. I think a clearer style would be appreciated. Many thanks. Dieter Simon 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Dieter Simon 23:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Contrast to auxiliary verb
When I first started reading this article, I thought it was referring to auxiliary verbs, which (apparently) it isn't. This distinction ought to be made, preferably in the introduction. RobertM525 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious problem with entire article
I came to this article expecting to see a discussion of multi-word verbs, such as "has seen", "can swim", "is going", etc. My impression is that this is a standard usage of "compound verb" in both the linguistics literature and in English, other Germanic, and Romance grammars. Instead the article is about "compound verbs" in a different sense. At the top is a no-references tag, but someone has added a single reference -- an internet link to a University of Ottawa site that agrees with my definition and therefore conflicts with the one used in the article. So there is still no literature support for what the article contains, even though the article has been there since 2003. And the first paragraph of the English section seems to imply, without stating explicitly, that my concept of "compound verb" is correct in the context of English, even though this implication conflicts with the rest of the article.

Can someone put in several citations that give the article's definition in the context of languages in general, as well as some citations for the specific languages dealt with? In addition, I think that the intro should at least recognize that there is an alternative use of the term. 75.183.96.242 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The real problem is of course, that not enough sources have been cited all round in this article. However, the examples you are referring to are in fact shown in the "English" section, namely those that combine verb+auxiliary verb formations. By all means why not build on that. The only thing "compound verb" is not really very suitable for V+A constructions. The real compound verb should be that where original nouns, adjectives or adverbs combine with verbs, such as "to sideline", "to skyjack", "to highjack", or even one composed of two nouns, such as "to signpost". In that respect a compound verb is not very different from a compound noun, such as "highstreet", or even "one-way ticket". Dieter Simon (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Move long list of Japanese compound verbs into separate article
There is a large number of examples of Japanese compound verbs which is great, but perhaps the bulk of them should be moved to a separate article so they don't disrupt the flow of the article too much 12:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.77.169 (talk)

Japanese: Using "-shite shimau (～してしまう)"
Although the article is correct in saying that the form "～shite shimau (～してしまう)" can be used to express "regret" or "mistake" in Japanese, it can also be used to express "completeness" or "already done" in a more neutral way.

For example, "tabete shimatta (食べてしまった)" can mean both "I ate it (and now feel bad)" implying some feeling of regret and "I ate it (so there's none left)" implying that there is simply no more of "it" left, i.e., it has already been (completely) eaten. Same goes for "aishite shimatta (愛してしまった)": It can mean "I (mistakenly) fell in love", but it also can mean "I (completely) fell in love" or "I've already fallen in love" without any feeling of regret.

Since how "shite shimau" is interpreted depends so much on context, this article is probably not the best place to hold a detailed discussion on Japanese grammar. It might, however, be OK just to simply mention this other use of "shite shimau" without going into too much detail. I'm interested in hearing what others think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Japanese: "-shite miru (～してみる)
I'm not sure if the verb "aisuru (愛する)" is the best one to use for introducing the "-shite miru (～してみる)" construction. I don't think I've ever heard a Japanese person say "愛してみる (aishite miru)" when trying to say "try to love". I have heard "好きにならないの? (suki ni naranai no?)" for "can't you love/like me" in some very informal situations or on TV, but not sure how common (or correct) that even is. "Try to love" sounds more English than Japanese, at least it does to me. Maybe it would be better to use an example that is more common such as ""try to (tele)phone" (電話してみる)" instead? I'm interested in hearing what others think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)