On 2010-10-13, at 11:59 AM, Craig wrote:
> 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 I've shown a group of shared characteristics, though I'll admit there's no modern strong central connection, and you admit that there is no overriding connection between 'away' and 'certainly' either. Historically speaking, on the other hand, there is one: they both derive from preposition + noun (i.e., on + way, by + cause). Not that etymology should be relied on.

Another characteristics I just recalled for 'away' as a preposition is that you can use it as a goal complement (e.g., Put it away). Again, you can't do that with prototypical adverbs.
> 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.
But, of course, I would list 'then' and 'now' as prepositions (again see the list I sent before). 
> 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..."
Which, I think, is a good reason for avoiding calling them single words, and treating them, rather, as phrases with heads and other constituents (usually complements).
>     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.
Another point of agreement!  And I would also agree that it doesn't compel you to pop 'because' into the preposition category. It is obviously a departure from traditional analyses, though. So, which words belong to this group? I would include 'to' (before infinitives), 'for' (e.g., for him to go), 'if/whether', and informally 'how' (e.g. I know how he says it's not like that.)

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/