Brett,
     I agree that variety of complementation doesn't disqualify elements 
from  being in the same category. It is hard for me to conceptualize 
connections, though, when the arguments for including "away" and the 
arguments for including "because" are so different from each other. I  
don't see an overriding connection that would supersede these differences.
     I think "just" is not typical of adverbs only if you narrow the 
category down to words that it is not typical for. "Just then" and "just 
now" are deeply typical. We get back into that circularity problem. But, 
as you say, it's not a defining test.
     The fact that "because of" can be interrupted is interesting, but I 
think that's true of other set constructions as well.  "In spite, I 
think, of the weather..."   "According, if my memory is correct, to 
Barack Obama..."
     I should have said earlier that I wouldn't put "because" in the 
same category as "that." "That" can show up in more than one role, but 
when it comes at the beginning of a content clause (or noun clause) it 
is simply a complementizer. I wouldn't call it a subordinating 
conjunction. That distinction is both thoughtful and useful, and one way 
in which noun clauses differ from adverbial clauses, but it doesn't 
require us to agree that any head of a clause not simply complementizing 
should be thought of as preposition.
      "Away" may have something in common with "certain/certainly" as a 
pairing. A word like "away" can move from adjectival to adverbial slot 
without a change in form, but that's true whether it is preposition or 
adverb. We don't have a morphology that moves in that direction. I think 
that turns out to be a wash for either side.
     I think adverb is a category that tends to gather different groups 
into its fold and can be rightly criticized for that. We have frequency 
adverbs, adverbs derived from adjectives, qualifiers of various kinds 
(which I would give a separate category for.) Words like "certainly" are 
part of a group that often function as sentence modifiers. ("surely," 
"honestly," even "hopefully," though that was disparaged for some time.) 
But--and it may just be a matter of having grown up thinking about it 
that way--words like /soon/ and /now/ and /then/ just seem to me at the 
heart of the category.
    I don't see an overarching connection between these groups.

Craig

On 10/12/2010 7:44 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
>  I don't think that Craig and I have such different frames of
>  references as he may fear, though I'm pretty ignorant when it comes
>  to SFL, so my perception may be overly optimistic. I fully agree with
>  his points on the verb system and transitivity therein. I still don't
>  understand, though, why a defining characteristics of prepositions
>  would be that they take a complement of a particular type (i.e., NP
>  functioning as an object) and that minus that complement they are not
>  prepositions but something else. Why is variety of complementation
>  "important to the overall breadth of the verb system" but anathema to
>  the preposition system?
>
> > "Just" can be used in relation to a larger range of elements than
> > you list here. The lunch menu can include "just hamburgers." I can
> > be "just sitting here minding my own business." Your observations
> > tell us more about "just" than about what these elements have in
> > common. I don't think you want to add NP or predicate phrase to the
> > preposition list.
>
>  No, clearly that wouldn't be a good move. What I intended to show was
>  not that 'just' as a modifier is either sufficient or necessary to
>  place something in the preposition category, but rather that it is
>  typical of prepositions and highly unusual for adverbs.
>
>  Again, I'd like to see how traditional grammar (or SFL) puts 'away'
>  and 'certainly' or 'because' and 'that' in the same categories.
>
> > I would read "because of" as a phrasal preposition, similar to "in
> > spite of," "out of," "according to."
>
>  Although 'because' certainly occurs tightly with 'of', do they really
>  form a single unit? How about this example: "It was expected that
>  he'd continue to stay away from it, BECAUSE, I think, and I'm sure
>  you'll agree, OF the sensitivity around the use of that word."
>  Doesn't look like much of a unit, but it sure seems like a
>  head-complement relationship.
>
> > "Away from" is common enough to be thought of in the same frame,
> > though it might also be close to "near to my heart" in some
> > contexts.
>
>  So in this interpretation, 'away' is never a preposition, but 'away
>  from' is? That seems ad hoc.
>
> > I don't see a problem with "as funny".
>
>  Sorry, bad example. I had in mind that this was traditionally seen as
>  a preposition, but I see now that the OED claims 'as' is never a
>  preposition (though other dictionaries differ). OK, how about 'for'
>  in OED sense 19b? As far as I can tell, all dictionaries call this
>  'for' a preposition even though "for dead", "for certain", etc
>  violate the dictum that prepositions must have objects. How does the
>  traditional account deal with this?
>
> > In passing, though, I'd like to say that it's a pleasure having
> > this sort of talk. Too often, disagreements on the list have turned
> > into a very different kind of conversation. I may not be won over,
> > but I am gaining from seeing it through your eyes.
>
>  Hear, hear! Learning and enjoying it.
>
>  Best, Brett
>
>  ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber
>  College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto,
>  Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask]
>
>  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/