Herb,
   I think we're on the same wavelength with this, though you are avoiding
the problem of whether to call this a prepositional phrase with an
adverb plus clause complement object.  (For as long as he could). The
best argument for that approoach might be that the whole word group
fronts very easily. "For as long as he could, he sat by her bedside."
   I like the idea that the primary role of "for" is to add aspect
(duration) to the verb phrase.  Does that mean "as long as he could"
has a seperate constituency as modifier?
   Another possibility is that the verb is pulling the prepositon into its
orbit, but that this one is suspended about halfway.
    Once you put the "for" in , you need a complement to complete it. You
could say verb + for requires a complement of (generally) time or
distance to mark off the extent of the duration. These are often
nouns, but nouns in an adverbial role. It shouldn't surprise us, then,
than an adverb plus clause complement construction would fill the
slot.
    How about "He took her for as much as he could?" This would be not so
much duration as extent.
    This is the sort of problem that leaves me happier with a functional
perspective.  The question becomes "How is extent or duration
expressed?" not "How do we classify these forms?"  If function is
primary, then we are happy that the language is flexible.
    The other argument for a functional focus would be the kind of
consensus we are coming to in the scope and sequence project.  The
functional perspective gives  a usefulness to the observation. It
carries over into reading and writing. Otherwise, people start to say
it doesn't matter, that it's a distraction from more important
concerns.
     At any rate, we have strayed into a level of delicacy not likely for
K-12. But my experience has been that a good, engaged class will
bring up questions like this all the time.

Craig

As Paul's examples, and Craig's, show, it isn't the verb itself but the
> sense of the verb that governs this.  Verbs with a durative sense may
> take, or not take, the preposition "for" with the durative expression.
>
> He walked (for) an hour.
> The play lasted (for) an hour.
> The house (for) three hours.  (but not with "all", "*for all morning")
>
> Even with unaccusatives:
>
> The computer worked (for) an hour after it had been rebooted.
>
> With a preceding verb particle, "for" seems obligatory"
>
> The party went on for five hours.  (with the "all" exception again)
> The excitement died down for a while.
>
> Duratives and locatives are similar semantically, and so "for" tends to
> work with both, although it's a little odd with indefinite locatives
> like these.
>
> He dragged the bag of cement (?for) as far as he could.
> The plane flew (for) as far as its fuel allowed.
>
> But notice that if the sense is not durative/locative, no "for" is
> allowed.
>
> He walked (*for) as fast as he could.
> He raised his arms (*for) as high as he could.
>
> We're dealing more with an aspectual problem here than with a verb
> selectional restriction.
>
> Herb
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: "work for" plus adverb clause
>
> Paul, Phil,
>
>     If it's elliptical, would that extend to similar constructions, such
> as "as high as he could", "as low as he could", "as sharply as he
> could", and so on?
>     In these cases, the ellipsis is clearly of a repetition of the verb
> as
> well as possibly a noun or prepositional phrase modifier.  "He worked
> for as long [in time] as he could work." "He jumped as high [in space]
> as he could jump" and so on.  I suppose there's nothing to keep us
> from imagining a double ellipsis in some of these cases. One way or
> another, we want the listener/reader to fill in the missing meaning
> from context.
>    How about this one for ambiguity:  "He made the hot dogs as long as
> he
> could.">Here, we would need the "for" to make duration clear. The
> ellipsed meaning in the ambiguous example could be either of duration
> or size. (He would make them longer than two feet, but wasn't able to.
> He would make them longer than an hour, but wasn't up to it.)
>     The hang-up, I think, is that we want to classify "for" as a
> preposition and want to say adverbs can't be objects of preposition.
> Ellipsis seems the neat, clean way. But maybe language isn't as neat
> and clean as we want it to be for the purposes of analysis. Exceptions
> don't derail rules. A functional explanation might be that "for" helps
> us make a statement less ambigious. It serves a palpable purpose,
> however we might classify it.
>     A neat problem.
>
> Craig
>
> I didn't see this message before I sent my similar comment about the
> idea
>> being eliptical. Please disregard my redundancy!
>>
>>   Thanks,
>>
>>   Paul D.
>>
>> Phil Bralich <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>   I think you need to take that phrase following "for" as an ellipsis
> for
>> "as long a time as he could" and the "for" as a standard preposition.
>>
>> This follows sentences like:
>>
>> He worked for two hours
>> he worked for two days
>>
>> *He worked for as short as was necessary
>> He worked for as short a time as was necessary
>> *He worked for as intensely as necessary
>>
>> He worked for as long as was necessary
>> He worked for as long a time as was necessary
>>
>> *He worked for as hard as he could
>>
>> The fact that this does not work with "short" or other adjectives
>> indicates it is exceptional in some way rather than systematic.
>>
>> Phil Bralich
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: "Kathleen M. Ward"
>>>Sent: Feb 23, 2006 11:53 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: "work for" plus adverb clause
>>>
>>>One of my students asked me what to do with the following sentence:
>>>
>>> He worked for as long as he could.
>>>
>>>Now, "as long as he could" is, I think pretty clearly an adverbial
>>>phrase, containing in itself a comparative clause with deletions. The
>>>question is, what do you do with the "for"? I understand that it can
>>>be omitted--and then the analysis is easier. But I would not want to
>>>say that an adverbial phrase can be a complement/object of a
>>>preposition. Is "for" a preposition here? Is it a particle? Do I just
>>>throw up my hands and call it an idiom?
>>>
>>>How do other people see this?
>>>
>>>Kathleen Ward
>>>UC Davis
>>>
>>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface
>> at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface
>> at:
>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/