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/