English Words That Don't Fit the Parts of Speech

[HeyHomie]

The eight Parts of Speech in English are: noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, adjective, preposition, conjunction and interjection.

I've come up with three words that do not fit any of the above parts of speech:

The first is the honorific "O," as in "I beseech thee, O King, for blah blah blah..." It's used quite a bit in the Bible, even in modern translations, but outside of scripture I don't see it used in daily life, except sarcastically (as in, when my wife gives me some petty request, and I respond by saying "Your wish is my command, O Lady of the House.") I can't really make a case for it belonging to any one category of parts of speech.

The other two are the words "Sir" and "Ma'am," used in addressing someone. For example, a soldier responding to a command from an officer may say "Yes Sir" or "Yes Lieutenant," but whereas "Lieutenant" is also a noun (as in, "My son is now a Lieutenant in the Army"), "Sir" is not (you don't say, "My son is a Sir in the Army.")

Are there any other words that are like this?

[Mangetout]

I'm confused about what you're saying. You might say "Yes, Mister Smith", but you wouldn't say "My son is a mister" (unless he had a job spraying plants).

I have a feeling that exceptions of this type are going to be so common that they're not exceptional.

[Monty]

Some honorifics are adjectives (definition 2) and some are nouns (definition 4).

Your first example, O, is neither. It is an interjection (definition 1). It is not an honorific.

Both sir and ma'am (the contracted form of madam) are nouns.

[Dr. Drake]

I've always thought that the to in infinitive verbs* is functionally a particle rather than a preposition.

*To be, to sing, to feel, to live... Verb! that's what's happenin'

[Scarlett67]

Originally Posted by Monty

Your first example, O, is neither. It is an interjection (definition 1). It is not an honorific.

It is indeed an interjection. It is also known as the vocative O.

[Paul in Qatar]

I have always had a hard time shoehorning "No" and "Yes" into the parts of speech. Adjectives, I guess, most strange words seem to be adjectives.

[Scarlett67]

Originally Posted by Paul in Saudi

I have always had a hard time shoehorning "No" and "Yes" into the parts of speech. Adjectives, I guess, most strange words seem to be adjectives.

Actually, Merriam-Webster calls them either adverbs or nouns, usually. It also has a listing for "no" as an adjective, as in "no parking."

[GorillaMan]

Originally Posted by Scarlett67

Actually, Merriam-Webster calls them either adverbs or nouns, usually. It also has a listing for "no" as an adjective, as in "no parking."

Cambridge separates this usage as a determiner, with a particular entry for signage. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...3818&dict=CALD

[RealityChuck]

Actually, there are no English words that don't fit into the parts of speech. There are a few additional classifications ("particle," for instance), but English majors have kept busy for decades classifying each word.

[Exapno Mapcase]

What the OP doesn't know about grammar would probably fit into the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, by Rodney D. Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, which is 1600 technical pages.

It's obviously true that hardly anybody knows grammar to even 1% of the level of what specialists know about the subject. Still, the idea that the English language hasn't been so thoroughly and completely studied in minute detail that there are words that don't fit into the categories is kinda silly. That English grammar is remotely similar to the subject you were taught in school is equally absurd. It compares the way your science fair volcano compares to quantum physics.

True specialists love taking apart the simplest and commonest words, which are the words most buffeted by the gales and currents of everyday use, to study the ways they twist and mutate. There are no uncertainties about "O" or "Sir".

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

That English grammar is remotely similar to the subject you were taught in school is equally absurd.

That is the difference between Prescriptivistism and Descriptivism. My Linguistics professors jokingly listed them as follows: Prescriptivist (English majors) and Descriptivists (Linguistics majors). There's a lot of truth in that joke.

[Zoe]

Monty: Prescriptivist (English majors) and Descriptivists (Linguistics majors). There's a lot of truth in that joke.

But notice that it was linguistics teachers who said it. There's s little bias there. Most linguists were at one time English majors, I would think, and still, themselves, abide by the general principles of traditional grammar. There are exceptions, but that generally has been my own experience.

Further, I would expect linguists to be focused on descriptivism. They are the scientists of language and that is their purpose.

But not all who study linguistics become descriptivists solely.

[Švejk]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

It's obviously true that hardly anybody knows grammar to even 1% of the level of what specialists know about the subject. (...) That English grammar is remotely similar to the subject you were taught in school is equally absurd. It compares the way your science fair volcano compares to quantum physics.

I'd even go so far as to say that anyone who learned any language as a non-native speaker to a decent extent could probably tell native speakers things about the grammar of their language that would leave them dumbfound. Because you learn the larger part of your language in a non-structured, unconscious manner, you just know things that other people have to learn by heart.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I agree. I write grammatically, but I have to stop and think carefully about the grammar questions here and sometimes I can't answer them at all. I care about usage far more than I care about grammar.

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Zoe

But notice that it was linguistics teachers who said it. There's s little bias there.

Of course there is. That's why the butt of the joke is the English major. Now, if it had been an English professor telling the joke unaltered, the butt would be the Linguistics major. It's a matter of opinion of wihch is better, after all, as far as the joke goes, Prescriptivism or Descriptivism.

Most linguists were at one time English majors,

I seriously doubt that. Quite a lot of my classmates and I entered the field because we're fascinated by language itself.

I would think, and still, themselves, abide by the general principles of traditional grammar.

Of course. They'll certainly abide by the dictates of the grammar of the prestige standard while they're in a formal situation unless they don't care how they're perceived by those who can affect their careers.

Further, I would expect linguists to be focused on descriptivism. They are the scientists of language and that is their purpose.

But not all who study linguistics become descriptivists solely.

Not every scientist is a good scientist. <---That's a joke.

By the way, if you want to see some truly amazing clashes between Prescriptivism and Reality, you should be present when one of the Korean English teachers asks one of us native English teachers a question on grammar and then tells us we're wrong because the incredibly badly written textbook, authored years ago in Korea by some Korean professor with "big name" schools on his resume but little actual knowledge, says something contrary.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

[size=1]*To be, to sing, to feel, to live...

...why are these things not in the Plan?

[psychonaut]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Most linguists were at one time English majors, I would think

What gives you this idea? I'd assume most linguists were linguistics majors. Among those who weren't, I think mathematics and computer science majors would make up a good number—possibly more than English majors.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

I've always thought that the to in infinitive verbs* is functionally a particle rather than a preposition.

IANAL (I am not a linguist), but I understand that particle is a pretty broad category, which includes what are usually described as articles, conjunctions and prepositions in English. I'd agree that "to" as an infinitive marker in English is a particle, but not a preposition, because prepositions go with nouns, and not with verbs.

[Chronos]

So, can one say that English grammar contains particle-preposition duality?

[ralph124c]

I find these words very confusing: one could write "the house burned down"-and also write "the house burned up"-both have the same meanings.Are "down/up" nounns or adjectives?

[SisterCoyote]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

I find these words very confusing: one could write "the house burned down"-and also write "the house burned up"-both have the same meanings.Are "down/up" nounns or adjectives?

Actually, what you've got there are (colloquial) verb phrases: "burned down" and "burned up." Down and up are considered part of the verb and cannot be broken off from it as they could in their adjectival forms. If either were to be eliminated, the resulting sentence: "the house burned." has a slightly different meaning in that it was not completely reduced to ashes as is presumed in the down (to the basement) or up (in smoke) phrases.

[Sunspace]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

I find these words very confusing: one could write "the house burned down"-and also write "the house burned up"-both have the same meanings.Are "down/up" nounns or adjectives?

I have heard "burn down" and "burn up" described as 'phrasal verbs', where the "down" and "up" completely change the meaning of "burn". I suspect that they are closest to adverbs, but am quite prepared to learn that they're something else.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

I find these words very confusing: one could write "the house burned down"-and also write "the house burned up"-both have the same meanings.Are "down/up" nounns or adjectives?

Definitely not nouns, and I don't think they are adjectives there: they modify the verb "burned", so they are adverbs. In other contexts, they are prepositions: "The house is up the road" or "The house is down the road."

[Roadfood]

Originally Posted by Sunspace

I have heard "burn down" and "burn up" described as 'phrasal verbs', where the "down" and "up" completely change the meaning of "burn". I suspect that they are closest to adverbs, but am quite prepared to learn that they're something else.

Many years ago, a non-native English speaking friend of mine told me that (whatever those things are called) English is chock full of them and they make learning English extremely difficult because, in most cases, you can't determine the meaning by looking at the individual words.

"burn down" and "burn up" are not that bad, because they mean essentially the same thing, and if you really think about the individual words, you're likely to arrive at a reasonably close to correct meaning.

But then there's "knocked down" and "knocked up". Rather different meanings. The meaning of the former can probably be correctly deduced from the individual words, but try that with the latter . . . Or "knocking around".

Or "cleaned up" and "cleaned out".

Or "broke down", broke up", "broke out", and broke in". Some even have very different meanings, depending on context. "broke out of jail" vs. "broke out in hives", or "the burglar broke in" vs. "I broke in my shoes".

Who made up this language, anyway?

[Wendell Wagner]

Zoe writes:

> Most linguists were at one time English majors, I would think . . .

No, linguistics grad students and professors most commonly studied linguistics as undergraduates. Some were English majors and many majored in other languages. Some studied math, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, or any of a variety of other subjects as undergraduates. They tended to have gotten interested in linguistics either by enjoying learning languages or by being fascinated by analyzing complicated systems (which is what languages are). They didn't get into the field by being interested in literature or in being picky with other people's grammar (although some of them do like to do that also).

[Hellestal]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

I find these words very confusing: one could write "the house burned down"-and also write "the house burned up"-both have the same meanings.Are "down/up" nounns or adjectives?

Traditional grammatical analysis categorizes these words as "adverbs". But there are some disadvantages to this approach, and so it's been abandoned in favor of more precise terminology. Modern analysis categorizes these words as "prepositions".

People who get stuck on the etymology of "preposition" dislike this expansion in meaning, but a catch-all term to describe these words is quite helpful. It's easy to see why using just a few examples.

1. I haven't eaten since.

2. I haven't eaten since lunch.

3. I haven't eaten since we had lunch at your place.

Traditional analysis would give the three words "since" three different parts of speech. The first is an adverb. The second is a preposition. The third is a conjunction. But that's not a particularly helpful way of looking at this situation, because the word "since" all three cases conveys the exact same meaning and connects to the first part of the sentence in the exact same way.

We don't have these categorization problems with, say, verbs. We're much more flexible.

4. I asked.

5. I asked a question.

6. I asked what time we're eating lunch.

"Asked" is a verb in all three sentences. It doesn't stop being a verb even if it's transitive (sentence 5) or if it's followed by a subordinate clause (sentence 6). In all three cases, we're content to use the same categorization. And so linguists looked at the word "preposition" and decided, hey, the similarities outweigh the differences to a large enough extent that we should classify the word "sense" in the first three sentences as "prepositions", even though there's nothing following the word in sentence one, and there's a whole clause following it in sentence 3.

In addition to allowing a more comprehensive (and helpful) definition of preposition, it also allowed a more precise definition of adverb.

Most amateur grammarians, however, are too enamored of the traditional classifications (and too poorly read on the subject) to change their ways. And so we're left with two sets of terminology. This is why I would hesitate to say it's incorrect if someone calls your original sentences "adverbs". But I am going to point out that there's a better way of looking at the situation, one that allows us to see the similarities in related syntactical structures instead of concentrating on mostly irrelevant differences.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Kendall Jackson

Traditional grammatical analysis categorizes these words as "adverbs". But there are some disadvantages to this approach, and so it's been abandoned in favor of more precise terminology. Modern analysis categorizes these words as "prepositions".

I'm not sure that works either, because prepositions are normally connected with nouns. As Sunspace pointed out, these combinations of a verb and preposition are very common in English. They are Germanic in origin, and similar combinations are also very common in German, where they are more strongly bound to the verb, e.g., infinitive "abbrennen" (to burn up), present tense "Das Haus brennt ab" (the house burns up), and past participle "Das Haus ist abgebrannt" (the house is burnt up).

As in English, you have a combination of a verb (brennen) and a normal preposition (ab), but in the infinitive form it's one word and in the past participle it's one word with "ge" in the middle -- "ge" can't function as a word on its own, but just helps form participles (e.g., "abgebrannt" and "gebrannt") and verbs (e.g. "gebieten' from "ge" plus "bieten"). Although they are less strongly bound in English, they still function as a unit.

Since such words as "up", "down", "in", "out", "on" and "off" function with similar meanings both as prepositions and as parts of phrasal verbs in both English and in German, it might be more useful to describe them as particles in both situations. (The German "ge" is also pretty clearly, in my view, a particle too).

[Hellestal]

Originally Posted by Giles

I'm not sure that works either, because prepositions are normally connected with nouns.

This is only true if you're too attached to the traditional definition. According to the current technical definition, this just isn't right.

Unfortunately, I moved overseas recently and I had to leave my personal library behind, and I'm not capable of sorting through all the deeper syntactic differences between German and English off the top of my head. But if you have a chance to peruse The Cambridge Grammar, previously mentioned in this thread, the authors lay out the newer terminology and explain in detail the underlying theoretical foundations for their labels.

That book isn't perfect, of course (no book on contemporary language ever is), but it does represent the most up-to-date research in English grammar that can be found in a comprehensive text. Any attempt to develop a more useful technical terminology would first have to square itself against their arguments, of which my own post in this thread is simply a poor introduction.

But to try to hash it out a little bit more: You seem to oversimplify the relationship between German and English. German separable prefix verbs are classified as a single word, as demonstrated (as you noted) by the integration of the prefix with the verb in both the past participle and infinitive forms. And even when the pieces are separated, the prefix goes to the last position in the clause, the position specifically reserved for verb forms. I see no special advantage in creating a new part of speech for them in German since their syntactic properties link them so strongly with the main part of the verb that they consistently and predictably function as a single unit - just as their appearance in dictionaries as a part of the verb so readily demonstrates.

In contrast, the English prepositions have a great deal more freedom. In addition to the independence of the prepositions from the infinitive and past participle forms, there's also much looser word order restrictions. Compare: "I burned the house down." "I burned down the house." Compare, too, examples with and without noun complements for the preposition: "I fell down." "I fell down the stairs".

To create a new category "particle" in English is to say that the word "down" is either a particle or a preposition in my falling-down sentences. While there's nothing inherently wrong with a word existing in more than one part of speech, it's still highly unuseful to have two different parts of speech when the word is functioning in the exact same way in both sentences.

Again, this would be like not accepting intransitive verbs as real verbs, just because they don't come with a direct object attached. Professional linguists realize the differences between prepositions with noun complements and those without, just as they realize the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs. In the case of their definition of prepositions, they've decided that the similarities between different types of prepositions are more important than the differences.

It's well worth going through their arguments thoroughly before insisting on new classifications.

[Švejk]

Originally Posted by Giles

(The German "ge" is also pretty clearly, in my view, a particle too).

German 'ge' is not a word so it cannot be a particle. Its a prefix.

[Švejk]

Originally Posted by Kendall Jackson

In contrast, the English prepositions have a great deal more freedom. In addition to the independence of the prepositions from the infinitive and past participle forms, there's also much looser word order restrictions. Compare: "I burned the house down." "I burned down the house." Compare, too, examples with and without noun complements for the preposition: "I fell down." "I fell down the stairs".

I'm a bit confused here. In 'I burned down the house', is 'the house' the complement of down? I mean, if I compare that sentence to 'I burned in front of the house', I get the feeling that 'in front of' is doing totally different things than ' down' is.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Švejk

I'm a bit confused here. In 'I burned down the house', is 'the house' the complement of down? I mean, if I compare that sentence to 'I burned in front of the house', I get the feeling that 'in front of' is doing totally different things than ' down' is.

It is. While I've admired your arguments in other language threads, Kendall, I can't get on board with the idea that down is still a preposition in "I burned down the house." It's attached inextricably to "burn," and operates by different rules from prepositions.

I burned down the house.
I burned the house down.
I walked down the lane.
*I walked the lane down.

I walked along the lane.
*I burned along the house.

"burn down" is a semantic blob that is not the sum of the parts "burn" and "down."

[KRSOradio]

The whole point of Grammar is to make your writing clear. It's not fair to say linguists or English majors have classified all speech, because they will just make it fit, even if it doesn't

Look at how we used to classify animals, now that DNA is used we've had to rethink a lot of it.

This was a case of people just making things fit, even when they couldn't.

Since English is made up, like any other language, and since it changes, there is no one real correct way. Especially now with the Internet.

In the decades to come with more and more people in such places as India learning English we will see a shift away from American and British English.

[Exapno Mapcase]

This is entirely wrong. Linguists do not make anything fit. (That's for your high school English teacher.)

Linguists listen to what people actually say, by carefully recording their speech, and read what they actually write, using large samples of all varieties of writing.

They describe the way words are used in the real word. That's exactly what makes them descriptivists, as this entire thread has shown. They can and do make distinctions between grammatical uses, meaning uses that correspond to the formal grammar of English, and ungrammatical uses, meaning uses that fall outside these strictures. But they normally do so to illuminate why grammar exists as it does.

Correctness and grammar are two different, if somewhat overlapping, provinces. Correctness typically comments on meaning and usage rather than technical grammar issues. I admit that for most people "grammar" is an overarching term used for any deviation. If you were a regular here you'd encounter any number of threads with "grammar*" in the title that are really about usage, as later posters are careful to point out.

There is no one correct way to use English, words, sentences, or paragraphs. But grammar is usually a case of correct or incorrect. It's a vital distinction, and one that you're missing.

* often misspelled

[Hellestal]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

It is. While I've admired your arguments in other language threads, Kendall, I can't get on board with the idea that down is still a preposition in "I burned down the house." It's attached inextricably to "burn," and operates by different rules from prepositions.

These "different rules" are entirely dependent on your labeling system.

Linguists use a different system. For them, "down" in this sentence is not operating by different rules from other prepositions. It's a preposition according to their system. You might dislike that their prepositions are broader in function than what you're accustomed to, but you should investigate their system before dismissing it. It's entirely possible that you won't find their nomenclature helpful, but my personal lack of skill in explaining it is not a failing of the linguists. It's my own fault entirely.

Come to think of it, I probably shouldn't have entered this thread at all. It might be best for me to refrain from in-depth grammar threads until I can cite chapter and verse once again. But now that I've started here, I'll try to finish it.

It's true that your examples of prepositions are functioning differently. Absolutely correct. But that's because prepositions are a class of words, not a term outlining a specific function. Take, for example, nouns. A noun can be the subject of the sentence. Or it can be the direct object. Or the object of a preposition. Or a modifier for another noun. But no matter what function a noun takes, it's still a noun. There's an underlying connection between nouns no matter what specific function they're taking.

Prepositions, according to the current technical definition, are like nouns in this way. Standing in front of a noun (in the pre-position) is, according to this system, just one of the functions of a preposition. Another function is the "adverbial" quality that you're pointing out. And yes, that "adverbial" function is different from the traditional function of prepositions. But this is in the same sense that a subject is different from a direct object. There are still enough underlying connections between prepositions of differing functions to group this class of words together under a common label.

Now, you certainly don't have to use the terminology in this way. There are many distinct advantages in using the traditional terminology. But I felt, reading this thread, that it would be worthwhile to discuss the newer terminology. I'd like to point out, in case you missed it, that I never called the original terminology "incorrect". It's just a labeling system, after all.

Given the current state of the field, I think it's well worth pointing out that the labeling system has been updated in strange ways by the professionals. It was definitely on topic, and I thought it was important to mention. And I really encourage you to read up on it - we haven't even begun to touch the most revolutionary aspect of this newfangled definition, which almost entirely undercuts the subordinating conjunction (long story short: most words that we think of as subordinating conjunctions are now classed as prepositions).

That's probably the best I can do right now to explain this. I encourage you to read up on the new definition if you get the opportunity, but after that, you can take it or leave it.

[Frylock]

Burn down the house.
Burn the house down.
Burn it down.
*Burn down it (though see note below)

Walk down the lane.
*Walk the lane down. (though see note below)
Walk down it.
*Walk it down. (though see note below)

If the "part of speech" (is that the term linguists use?) is determined by the functions a word can play in sentences, why not say that there are two different words "down," of two different parts of speech, being used in the above examples? The one in the "burn" sentences, apparently, can be used after a pronoun, while the one in the "lane" sentences, apparently, can't.

-Kris

Here's the "note below" -- I can imagine these sentences meaning something if I interpret them as using the "other" down.