Yes, I agree. When I first read Bill's message, I understood his intent and didn't even notice the problem with "accounts receivable." Bill's statement, as I understood it, works just fine if we replace the phrase in question with a clearly adjectival noun: "Teacher, you said only nouns could be plural, but in 'the computers picture' the adjective seems plural." I use this example because I said it today. I was reviewing a marketing piece that contained pictures of various things: computers, office supplies, people, etc. I quickly grew tired of saying, "The picture of the computers" and switched to "the computers picture" (I noticed that by the end of the conversation I simplified even more to "the computer picture"). Just my intuition -- plural adjectival nouns are probably less common than singular adjectival nouns. They do occur though! John Alexander On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:21 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > This is so unusual that I have to respond, but I find myself agreeing > with Brad. “Accounts receivable” is one of those formulaic constructions we > have in English, some borrowed from French, like “courts martial,” “lobster > Newburg,” “steak tartar,” and also “attorneys-at-law” and > “brothers-in-law.” Of course, those with phrasal modifiers, like the last > two, have the order they’d normally have in English. > > > > Herb > > > > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Brad Johnston > *Sent:* 2009-04-02 10:37 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview) > > > > one of the things that constantly causes problems for anyone trying to > teach the material (“You said only nouns could be plural, but in ‘accounts > receivable,’ the adjective is”). > > > > *Bill: this is incorrect. The noun is "account" and more than one are > "accounts". The descriptive adjective is "receivable", often in standard > accounting referred to as "receivables", which is then a noun. The accounts > are "receivable accounts" but in the parlance of the trade, they are > "accounts receivable". I wonder if that makes it clearer or less so. In any > event, in "accounts receivable", "accounts" is the noun.* > > > > *Just clearing the files and noticed this.* > > > > *.brad.02apr09.* > > > > --- On *Tue, 3/24/09, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>* wrote: > > > From: Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Lester's text in the classroom (was: Phrasal Verb Overview) > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 12:52 PM > > John, > > > > I’ve used Lester’s book a number of times in a course here for future > English teachers. Overall, I’d say there’s one major problem with it, but > otherwise it’s extremely good. The problem is that he doesn’t make a clear > form/function distinction. I’m not sure *why* he doesn’t – it could be > that he’s trying to stick to the K-12 school grammar tradition, which is > understandable, but the lack of that distinction is one of the things that > constantly causes problems for anyone trying to teach the material (“You > said only nouns could be plural, but in ‘accounts receivable,’ the adjective > is”). > > > > The book is so good in other respects that I’ve continued to use it, using > handouts to deal with the form/function distinction. But, of course, then > the students get annoyed because I’m disagreeing with the textbook, and I > get annoyed with them because the last thing future teachers should do is > view a textbook (or their instructor’s comments!) as Holy Writ. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Bill Spruiell > > > > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander > *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Phrasal Verb Overview > > > > Greetings, ATEGers! > > > > Someone (I believe it was Herb) recently suggested a book to me: Mark > Lester's (1990) *Grammar in the Classroom*. I'm not sure why I haven't > discovered this book before, but I quite like it and would suggest it to > anyone reviewing grammar texts. Even if you can't use it in your classroom, > you and/or your students might enjoy knowing about it as a reference text. > I find Lester's writing to be straightforward and uncluttered. Has anyone > actually used this as a classroom text for teachers-in-training? If so, I'd > be interested to hear about your experiences. > > > > I went to the text specifically to find some more information on phrasal > verbs, information that wasn't overly technical for non-linguistic students > but also not overly simplified so as to ignore descriptive facts. I thought > I'd share here a few of the main points about phrasal verbs that Lester > includes. > > > > - Lester suggests that phrasal verbs are part of Latin and Germanic > languages' process of creating new words by adding prepositions (functional > words) to verb stems. Latin languages tended to add the preposition to the > beginning of the verb stem with Germanic languages adding them to the end. > (example, "devour" from "de-" (down) and "voro" (swollow) in Latin) > - When English forms a new word by adding a preposition to the > beginning of a verb stem (example, "bypass" "offset"), it is more quickly > and easily recognized as a new word; people forget that it used to be a > phrasal verb/verb +preposition combination because, orthographically, it is > written without a space. However, English tends to leave the space when the > preposition is added to the end of the verb stem. (example, "give up") > - While a sentence like "I give up" may look like a pronoun, a tensed > verb, and an adverbial preposition, it is in fact a pronoun and a phrasal > verb (note: I always learned to call the preposition that has become > attached to a verb in such a way a "particle," but Lester continues to call > it a preposition, which doesn't bother me at all). Lester points out a fun > test for phrasal verbs -- can you replace the unit with a single word > (almost always of Latin origin) and retain the meaning? In this case, "I > give up" becomes "I surrender." (Lester points out the irony in the fact > that "surrender" was once itself a phrasal verb in Latin!) > - Phrasal verbs can be transitive; this can mark the difference between > a phrasal verb and a verb+preposition combo even more. For example, > > John turned out the light. (Noun subject+phrasal verb+noun > phrase object) > > John turned at the light. (Noun subject+verb+adverbial > prepositional phrase) > > > > Say the sentences out loud and notice the stress. In phrasal > verbs the preposition is stressed while it is not in the PP. > > - Phrasal verbs can have more than one preposition/particle: look down > on, talk back to, walk out on, etc. > - Lester points out that phrasal verbs were dumped from traditional > school grammars because the word "preposition" in Latin literally means "to > place before," and it was reasoned that prepositions couldn't be connected > to verbs if they came after them. Sometimes phrasal verbs were treated as > idioms. > - Structural linguists have noted the difference between separable and > inseparable phrasal verbs.Separable phrasal verbs have prepositions that can > be moved to a position after the object noun phrase (example, "I gave up the > game" vs "I gave the game up" or "I gave it up"). Inseparable phrasal verbs > have prepositions that cannot be moved (example, "I depend on the income" vs > *"I depend the income on" or *"I depend it on"). > - As you can see from the above examples, when the object of a > separable transitive phrasal verb is a pronoun, the movement of the > preposition is obligatory. You would always say "I gave it up" and never *"I > gave up it." (I think I would cringe if I heard this avoided with some > clunky construction like, "Up it is that I gave it.") In this sense, it is > actually *ungrammatical* to NOT end a sentence with a preposition. > > Hope all the grammar nerds enjoy this as much as I did! > > > > Regards, > > > > John Alexander > > Austin, Texas > > 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/