# Stand up



## rich7

From the moment the respective managers set their World Series rotations, Garland's confrontation with Houston ace Roy Oswalt was spotlighted as pivotal. Stand up to the Astros' top gun, and you leave with a big piece of their heart.


I do not understand "stand up" in this case?


----------



## daviesri

rich7 said:
			
		

> From the moment the respective managers set their World Series rotations, Garland's confrontation with Houston ace Roy Oswalt was spotlighted as pivotal. Stand up to the Astros' top gun, and you leave with a big piece of their heart.
> 
> 
> I do not understand "stand up" in this case?


 
Stand up - To stand up and face the opponent and to not be afraid.

Ex:  Roy Oswalt is the big pitcher for this game.  Garland needs to show that he is as good as Oswalt.  He needs to pitch his game and to not be intimidated by Oswalt.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Daviesrie has a good definition, but not for "stand up," which means rise to your feet.  The phrasal verb here is "stand up to."

Compare a similar verb "stand up for" (your rights) in the famous Marley song, which in deference to the evil might of Babylon I may not quote.  Like the cassava root, these words will be all the sweeter if dug from stubborn ground, so get to googling if you're interested.

"Stand up" can have figurative implications, but all the examples I can think of add that extra preposition, and create what I'd call a different verb.

"I'm up."  (not still in bed)
"I'm up for it."   (in the mood)
"I'm up to it"  (able, adequate for the task)
"I'm up against it"  (struggling, having a hard time)

Compound phrasal verbs seem controversial, so I have to add that this is my way of thinking about it.  "To be" means one thing, "to be up" is a _different verb._  So is "to be up against," and so on.
.


----------



## fenixpollo

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Daviesrie has a good definition, but not for "stand up," which means rise to your feet. The phrasal verb here is "stand up to."


I agree with ffb here -- the phrasal verb is _to stand up to_, which means *to confront*, *to defend oneself* against another person.

Cheers.


----------



## santi

well from my point of view when you stand up to someone or thing you are confronting it, be a situation you'll rise up to it.. and so on..... all you have to do is check the context of what the person is talking about and more or less you'll get the idea.....hope to have been some help

blessings


----------



## elroy

Grammatically, the phrasal verb is "stand up" in all cases. "To" and "for" are prepositions.

Same with "be up" and "be up against."

The phrasal verb is "be up."  Using it with the preposition "against" gives it a different meaning.

After all, one-word verbs can also behave the same way.

I have taken a test.
I have taken to sleeping in.

"Take to" is certainly not in the same category as "sleep in."


----------



## fenixpollo

elroy said:
			
		

> Grammatically, the phrasal verb is "stand up" in all cases. "To" and "for" are prepositions.


 If this were true, then my example sentences below would have the same meanings, but with the action directed at different objects:

The student stood up when called on.
My sister stood up her date last night.
Rosa Parks stood up for what she believed in by sitting down.
The manager stood up to the unfair decisions of the umpire.
The street tough stood up against a wall and smoked a cigarette.

Apart from using the metaphor of "standing", I don't see that "stand up" is identical in meaning in each of these sentences. That tells me that the phrasal construction (verb + preposition) in this case includes the preposition "to" (verb + preposition + preposition).

Feel free to differ.


----------



## elroy

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> If this were true, then my example sentences below would have the same meanings, but with the action directed at different objects:
> 
> The student stood up when called on.
> My sister stood up her date last night.
> Rosa Parks stood up for what she believed in by sitting down.
> The manager stood up to the unfair decisions of the umpire.
> The street tough stood up against a wall and smoked a cigarette.
> 
> Apart from using the metaphor of "standing", I don't see that "stand up" is identical in meaning in each of these sentences. That tells me that the phrasal construction (verb + preposition) in this case includes the preposition "to" (verb + preposition + preposition).
> 
> Feel free to differ.


 
I did not say that a phrasal verb can have only one meaning.  Just as it can acquire a new meaning with the addition of a preposition ("stand up" vs. "stand up for"), it can have two different meanings without any prepositions ("stand up when called on" vs. "stand up a date").  To use the comparison with one-word verbs again, they too can have multiple meanings, regardless of any following prepositions.  Essentially, the meaning has nothing to do with the grammatical definition of a phrasal verb.

A preposition is not part of a phrasal verb.  In "I stand up when called on," "up" is not a preposition but an *adverb*.  A phrasal verb thus consists of a verb and an adverb.  In "I stand up for my rights," "stand up" is the phrasal verb (here with a different meaning), "for" is a preposition," and "my rights" is the object of the preposition "for."

If your analysis were correct, and any preposition that changed the meaning were to be considered part of a phrasal verb, then "take to" would be a phrasal verb.

A phrasal verb expresses one or more meanings in and of itself, whether or not it requires a preposition to complete the thought one of its meanings may have begun.  In "stand up for," "stand up" means something like "plead," such that "stand up for" means "plead for."  Of course, the fact that "stand up for" is better explained as "defend" may lead one to assume that "for" is part of the phrasal verb.  "Plead" is not the best "translation" but it helps make my point.

I hope the distinction is clear now.  Please feel free to differ.


----------



## foxfirebrand

elroy said:
			
		

> Grammatically, the phrasal verb is "stand up" in all cases. "To" and "for" are prepositions.
> 
> After all, one-word verbs can also behave the same way.


Exactly.  So people who see it as I do would say that "take" and "take to" are two different verbs.

Like I said, there is disagreement over how to parse this.  To me if the verb and "phrasal verb" have different *forms* (one has a preposition, one doesn't) and different *meanings* (not just different _senses_-- one is unrelated to the other) then it make sense to call them *different verbs*.

What I don't understand is the big reluctance.  Didn't learn it that way?

Hey buddy, you of all people oughta check out the Marley canon-- it includes a number called "wake up and live!"  Nowhere in the whole tune does he say *get* up-- we could have a lot of fun with that one.  He says "rise from your slumber"-- now does that mean actually get out of bed?

Fond memories.  But seriously-- don't you think "stand up to" is a better example for my theory, and "stand up for" is a shade better for yours?  The latter has more connection with actually standing-- it can mean a physical act at a political meeting where everyone is sitting down.

"To stand down"-- now there's another one that works for *my* theory-- it's meaning is not only not an extension of _standing--_ it's the opposite.

Then there's that pesky example of phrasal verbs (or verbs w prepositions?) that are opposite in form but mean the same thing-- "burn up" and "burn down."  And in that case both of them _do_ mean, simply, "burn."
.


----------



## fenixpollo

What is a phrasal verb? 





> An English verb complex consisting of a verb and one or more following particles and acting as a complete syntactic and semantic unit.


 My analysis is that "stand up" is a different syntactic and semantic unit than "stand up to". 





			
				elroy said:
			
		

> If your analysis were correct, and any preposition that changed the meaning were to be considered part of a phrasal verb, then "take to" would be a phrasal verb.


 Since my analysis is correct, then "take to" _is_ a phrasal verb, with a meaning that is different from the verb "take" by itself.


----------



## cuchuflete

Reading this thread, I find that (1) 
Daviesri turned the Astros' manager, Mr. Garland, into a pitcher, and the grammarians overlooked this entirely, while prepositions ran the bases in both directions; (2) all of the arguments seem so logical, that I have concluded I am not sure what a phrasal verb is.

Based on the second hypothesis, I went looking, and found this:



> stand * up  not arrive to a date or an appointment (inf.)  I arranged to meet Joe at the library at 8:00, but he stood me up. I hope he has a good excuse.    stand up for +  defend (something one believes in)  Every individual must stand up for what they believe in.    stand up to +  defend oneself against someone or something  I think you should stand up to your older brother and tell him to stop pushing you around.


 source: http://www.englishpage.com/prepositions/phrasaldictionary.html

This may take us into extra innings, and test the depth of the pen.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Thinking about these phrasal verbs, I realize I'm in the habit of applying an unconscious test, kind of like removing "you" from "you and I" and from "you and me" to check which case of the first-person pronoun to use.  Or substituting "he" or "him" for "who" and "whom" to see which one sounds better.

Basically, I ask an adverbial question about the verb.  If the question sounds like a "how" or "when" or especially a "why" question, then the preposition attaches to the adverbial phrase.  If I have to ask a "what" or a "who" question, it attaches to the verb-- there's a little _click_ I hear, like one of those "silent" modems kicking in.

So.  Why did Rosa Parks stand up (by sitting down)?  For her rights.  The adverbial phrase has more cohesion than "stand up for" does.  This is the worst example, because there's also plenty of cohesion between stand and "up for," so a quibble-preserving "what did she stand up for" is possible.  Her rights.

"She stood up for four hours" doesn't contain such a moot example.

"She stood up to Jim Crow" doesn't either-- who did Rosa Parks _stand up to_ passes my test.  Why or when did she stand up?  The question doesn't apply.  Standing up to Jim Crow doesn't entail the same thing as standing up-- or standing him up for a date either.

Sorry to complicate things, but the facetious sentence turns out to be instructive.  There the verb is "stand up" in its rare transitive form and Jim crow is the direct object, answering a "who" question-- the "for a date" is much more clearly a prepositional phrase than "for her rights" above.

So you who hear the difference but can't explain why-- maybe I've stumbled on a rule that you and beginning learners can share.  If the verb + apparent prepositional phrase implies an adverbial question (how or why or when or why), then the verb is separate from the prepositional phrase, which is adverbial.  If the phrase implies a direct-object question (what or who), then the what and the who(m) are objects of the phrasal verb, not the preposition.

Another test I also apply, and have mentioned before, is, does the phrasal verb _mean_ something different from its root verb (or root phrasal verb!).  Does standing up to someone really entail standing?  Or standing up?  In the physical sense, clearly not in Rosa Parks's case.

Sometimes the "question" is not screamingly obvious, and you just have to _hear_ that adverbial or direct-object difference-- or apply the second rule.

"I stood up, to my eventual regret" is not the same (even without the comma) as "I stood up to my regrets and conquered them."  The difference-in-meaning criterion works better here.  In the first case, I rose from my chair at the Socialist Workers' Party meeting to add my vote to a motion, thus revealing my active affiliation with the group, getting ratted off by the mole-bastard stooge you always find in such meetings, and losing my job clerking for one of the Sub-Counsels of the second ranking member of HUAC.  And now he's pissed at me, even though he was at the meeting himself-- he had the discretionary valor to hold his seat.

In the second case, my regrets were conquered during a sleepless guilt-ridden night, and so were the object of the phrasal verb "stand up to"-- which didn't involve standing or standing up, or even _waking_ up, Elroy, as I hadn't fallen asleep.

I guess the adverbial-question method works on these examples too, but you need a certain command of English to form the questions that don't fall neatly into the how/what/etc rubrique.  In the case of "stood up, to my regret" the question would be a howish and whyish hybrid like "with what results."  

I truly hope I've clarified more than I've roiled up.  I came up with a _rule,_ didn't I?  After a lifetime of nasty confrontations with grammarians, it's eerie to feel myself morphing into one.
.


----------



## elroy

Having read the recent contributions, I still maintain that "stand up to" is not a phrasal verb but a phrasal verb-adverb combination.  I hope I can explain my position better this time.

You will notice that the very first word in my first post in this thread is _grammatically_.  That was intentional.  In grammar, words need to fall into neat categories, sometimes counter-intuitive ones.  We call those neat categories "parts of speech."  There are eight of them: verb, noun, pronoun, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection.  Each of them has properties and characteristics that help us identify it.  Every single word in the English language - whether or not it is part of a phrase or clause - simply _must_ fall under one of those categories.

That said, the term "phrasal verb" is not a part of speech.  It is usually used to explain to foreigners why we say "I will pick you up" and not "I will pick you" (at least not without changing the meaning).  When identifying parts of speech (and diagramming the sentence, for those of you, like me, who were fortunate enough to have been exposed to that most efficient of parsing methods), such considerations become moot and one limits oneself (please try to overlook the awkwardness of some of my constructions; one tends to wax inarticulate when attempting a grammar explanation) to the eight parts of speech.

Now, going back to our "stand up" example.  I will put "take to" aside for now.  To make things simple, let's stick with two examples for now.

I stand up when called on.
I stand up for my rights.

Here is how the first sentence parses.  I will indicate the part of speech first and an explanation, where applicable, after.

I: pronoun, subject
stand: verb
up: adverb
when: conjunction, subordinating
[I: pronoun, elliptical
am: verb, elliptical, part of verb phrase]
called: verb, part of verb phrase
on: preposition - I will concede here that this is somewhat of an anomaly (after all, quirks come up every now and then) because the sentence in the activevoice would be "when one calls on me," in which the object of the preposition is "me."  In this sentence, the object of the preposition has turned into the subject, so the preposition is left "hanging."  However, the grammatical logic is there; one might just have trouble diagramming this word.  In any case, this is irrelevant to our discussion. 

On to the second sentence:

I: pronoun, subject
stand: verb
up: adverb
for: preposition
my: adjective
rights: noun, object of the preposition

Grammatically, "up" is an adverb because it answers the question "where."  I stand.  I stand where?  Up.  Again, I wish to insist that it need not sound logical ("up" is not exactly a "place") but it is an adverb because it is qualifying "stand."  "I stand up" is not the same as "I stand down," for example.  "For," however, is intrinsically connected with "rights."  "For my rights" is a prepositional phrase that as a whole acts as an adverb modifying "stand" (or, if you will, "stand up.")  I stand up why?  For my rights.

If "for" were part of the phrasal verb, it would be an adverb.  "For" is clearly not an adverb.  It does not answer any of the adverb questions or qualify the verb.  *The fact that it changes the meaning of "stand up" has no bearing on its grammatical function.*  Here is where I feel FFB and I have different understandings of how to grammatically analyze this sentence.  I'm not sure, but I think Fenixpollo's understanding of it is also similar to FFB's.

If we look at "take" and "take to," we can see the same phenomenon.  "To" is not an adverb describing "take," whether or not it changes the meaning.  I take to sleeping in.  "To sleeping in" is a prepositional phrase.  "Sleeping" is a gerund acting as the object of the preposition.  "In" is an adverb describing "sleep" (which makes "sleep in" a phrasal verb, as opposed to "take to," which is a verb-preposition combination.)

Having flushed this out (I think ), I would like to propose my own test:

If the "particle" (to use the term from Fenixpollo's definition) is connected to the following noun in such a way that they express an idea that logically follows the verb, then it is a preposition.

If it is connected to the *verb* in such a way that is qualifies it and the noun that follows is an object of the entire verb-particle combination, then it is an adverb, and we have a phrasal verb.

For more examples, compare the following:

I came through the bushes. (no phrasal verb)
I came through for my friend. (phrasal verb)

Basically, the particle in a phrasal verb *cannot* have an object of its own.

I picked up my friend. ("up my friend" is not a prepositional phrase).
I ran up the hill ("up the hill" is a prepositional phrase)

I stood up to my enemy. ("to my enemy" is a prepositional phrase)
I stood up for my rights. ("for my rights" is a prepositional phrase)
I stood up my date. ("up my date" is not a prepositional phrase)
I stood up in class. ("up in class" is not a prepositional phrase)

I weighed in with my opinion. ("in with my opinion" is not a prepositional phrase)

I just through of _another_ test that would work wonderfully, but only with transitive verbs.

Use a pronoun as an object.  If you can place the pronoun between the verb and the particle, it is a phrasal verb.  If not, it is not.

I picked him up. (works - phrasal verb.)
I stood him up. (works - phrasal verb.)
I stood up him for. (nope)
I stood him up for. (nope)
I stood up for him. (only possibility - not a phrasal verb)
I took him to. (nope)
I took to him. (only possibility)

So - without further ado, I hope I've managed to convince you that *grammatically*, "stood up for" is not a phrasal verb, but a combination of a phrasal verb ("stood up") and a preposition ("for.")


----------



## foxfirebrand

elroy said:
			
		

> I hope I've managed to convince you that *grammatically*, "stood up for" is not a phrasal verb, but a combination of a phrasal verb ("stood up") and a preposition ("for.")


But what do you mean by singling out "grammatically," as if there really is such a thing? Usage is real. "Stand up for" does not _mean_ "stand" and it doesn't mean "stand up." If you have to forcibly detach the "for," you are ignoring what ought to be taken as a given. You posit "grammar" as the given, the _beaux idéal,_ the Lost Cause. I can sympathize with this, but the yearning for order that proscribes usage can never be strong enough to govern usage.

Grammar exists to discourage the disorderly elements and tendencies in language-- it can only do so effectively when it makes sense. So we have the same divide (between purism and pragmatics) that exists in so many other fields of study. It's to no one's discredit to come down on one side or the other-- no matter how wrong the protagonists of each seem to those of the other.
.


----------



## elroy

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> But what do you mean by singling out "grammatically," as if there really is such a thing? Usage is real. "Stand up for" does not _mean_ "stand" and it doesn't mean "stand up." If you have to forcibly detach the "for," you are ignoring what ought to be taken as a given. You posit "grammar" as the given, the _beaux idéal,_ the Lost Cause. I can sympathize with this, but the yearning for order that proscribes usage can never be strong enough to govern usage.
> 
> Grammar exists to discourage the disorderly elements and tendencies in language-- it can only do so effectively when it makes sense. So we have the same divide (between purism and pragmatics) that exists in so many other fields of study. It's to no one's discredit to come down on one side or the other-- no matter how wrong the protagonists of each seem to those of the other.
> .


 
What I mean by "grammatically" is a specific way to analyze a language, one that does not exclude the legitimacy of other ways.  I hope I did not sound as if I were discrediting other ways to look at it.  I tried to make it clear that I was simply explaining the *grammatical* way in which phrasal verbs are identified and dealt with. 

As for your other remarks - I fail to understand why dissecting sentences in ways that may be slightly counter-intuitive is not "pragmatic."  Of course "stand," "stand up," and "stand up for" have different meanings, but that doesn't tell me anything about their grammatical function.  For example, you did not address my question about the grammatical function of "for" in "stand up for."  If, as you claim, it is part of the phrasal verb, then it can't be a preposition.  What is it then?  It is perfectly logical and pragmatic for me to identify "up" as an adverb and "for" as a preposition - without sacrificing the uncompromised understanding that "stand up for" differs in meaning from "stand up."


----------



## foxfirebrand

elroy said:
			
		

> What I mean by "grammatically" is a specific way to analyze a language, one that does not exclude the legitimacy of other ways



What I saw was "In grammar, words need to fall into neat categories...(etc)."

That sounds pretty categorical, absolute, exclusionary.  There are rival methodologies that take a more empirical approach, and try to reconcile language (as it exists) with _descriptive_ concepts-- a sort of damage-control approach, if you will.

I don't see why "phrasal" has to mean what you say it means.  Why isn't "stand up to" a phrase, and not "an adverbial phrase plus a preposition?"  Isn't "up to" a compound preposition?

Why can't you just formulate things so that the preposition in a phrasal verb can be compound?
.


----------



## Yang

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> What is a phrasal verb? My analysis is that "stand up" is a different syntactic and semantic unit than "stand up to". Since my analysis is correct, then "take to" _is_ a phrasal verb, with a meaning that is different from the verb "take" by itself.


My sister has a Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs, which is on my hand right now.

At first, I was with elroy. Because his analysis of 
"stand up to/for" = verb(stand) + adverb(up) + preposition(to, for...etc.)
is what I learned. And therefor I agreed his point of view that the phrasal verb doesn't include the preposition "to/for", but only "stand up".

Then, I was reading your discussions and talking to my sister about this thread. After a while, my sister took the Longman Dicdtionary of Phrasal Verbs to me, and she showed me the page of "stand up to". 

"stand up to" is really "verb + adverb + prepostion" and the prepostion "to" is included in the phrasal verb. I was surprised. And I immediately looked up, there is the list of "take to"!

"stand up to" is a phrasal verb.
"stand up" is another phrasal verb.
"take to" is really a phrasal verb. 

I just offer what I just found, hope you won't mind.


----------



## Yang

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Daviesrie has a good definition, but not for "stand up," which means rise to your feet. The phrasal verb here is "stand up to."
> 
> Compare a similar verb "stand up for" (your rights) in the famous Marley song, which in deference to the evil might of Babylon I may not quote. Like the cassava root, these words will be all the sweeter if dug from stubborn ground, so get to googling if you're interested.
> 
> "Stand up" can have figurative implications, but all the examples I can think of add that extra preposition, and create what I'd call a different verb.
> 
> "I'm up." (not still in bed)
> "I'm up for it." (in the mood)
> "I'm up to it" (able, adequate for the task)
> "I'm up against it" (struggling, having a hard time)
> 
> Compound phrasal verbs seem controversial, so I have to add that this is my way of thinking about it. "To be" means one thing, "to be up" is a _different verb._ So is "to be up against," and so on.
> .


 
It seems that Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs thinks the same as you do.

For instance, "stand up" is a phrasal verb, if you add a preposition to it, it becomes a different phrasal verb, if you use another prepostion, it turns out to be a different pharssal verb. 

I haven't noticed about phrasal verbs until today.


----------



## elroy

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> What I saw was "In grammar, words need to fall into neat categories...(etc)."


 
Well, they do - ideally.  That's what grammar tries to do. 



> I don't see why "phrasal" has to mean what you say it means. Why isn't "stand up to" a phrase, and not "an adverbial phrase plus a preposition?" Isn't "up to" a compound preposition?


 
I can't think of a situation in which "up to" would be a compound preposition, but even if were, that would just prove what I said earlier - that we are dealing with a verb (whether phrasal or not) + a preposition, and not one giant phrasal verb. 



> Why can't you just formulate things so that the preposition in a phrasal verb can be compound?
> .


 
Well, as I said above, a phrasal verb cannot consist of a preposition.  I'm not against its being compound, as long as that does not defy the laws/tendencies/aims/goals of grammar.


----------



## elroy

Yang said:
			
		

> My sister has a Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs, which is on my hand right now.
> 
> At first, I was with elroy. Because his analysis of
> "stand up to/for" = verb(stand) + adverb(up) + preposition(to, for...etc.)
> is what I learned. And therefor I agreed his point of view that the phrasal verb doesn't include the preposition "to/for", but only "stand up".
> 
> Then, I was reading your discussions and talking to my sister about this thread. After a while, my sister took the Longman Dicdtionary of Phrasal Verbs to me, and she showed me the page of "stand up to".
> 
> "stand up to" is really "verb + adverb + prepostion" and the prepostion "to" is included in the phrasal verb. I was surprised. And I immediately looked up, there is the list of "take to"!
> 
> "stand up to" is a phrasal verb.
> "stand up" is another phrasal verb.
> "take to" is really a phrasal verb.
> 
> I just offer what I just found, hope you won't mind.


 
Very intriguing, Yang - I guess it all depends on what you consider a phrasal verb to be.  Personally, I cannot digest the concept of including a preposition in a phrasal verb.  To me, a preposition is intrinsically connected to its noun, constituting a prepositional phrase with it.  I just don't think a preposition can belong to two different phrases, at the end of one *and* at the beginning of another.


----------



## Yang

elroy said:
			
		

> Very intriguing, Yang - I guess it all depends on what you consider a phrasal verb to be.


Indeed. That's the question and reason why I am still thinking about it.



> Personally, I cannot digest the concept of including a preposition in a phrasal verb. *To me, a preposition is intrinsically connected to its noun*, constituting a prepositional phrase with it.


That's why I was with you.  

I always notice the preposition and its object. The noun or gerund coming after a preposition is the object of the preposition.

prepositional phrase = preposition + noun phrase

Cherries are in season(prepositional phrase) now.
Eggs are sold by the dozen(prepositional phrase). 



> *I just don't think a preposition can belong to two different phrases, at the end of one and at the beginning of another.*


I didn't notice much about phrasal verbs.
And I agreed what you worte until my sister showed me the dictionary.

Still, I was(maybe I should use am) confused.

On reflection and after referring to the books.

Here are what I found.
1. Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs defines phrasal verbs as three kinds:
a. verb + adverb
The old lady was taken in(=deceived) by the salesman.

b. verb + preposition
She set about(=started) making a new dress.

c. verb + adverb + preposition (which is the one we have discussed) 
I can't put up with(=bear or suffer) him--he's always complaining.

Then I was thinking what elroy said, 'a preposition can't belong to two different phrases, at the end of one and at the beginning of another'.
I don't think a preposition can at the end of one phrase and at the beginning of another, either.

What's the answer? Why does Longman Dictionary define so?

I refered to another book and found this sentence:
We may go walking through the windy park, or drive along the beach.

The book says along the beach is a prepositional phrasal.
I looked up the Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs and there are 
"drive at", "drive away", "drive away at", "drive back", "drive between"...and so on, but no "drive along".

Maybe this is not a good example, but it seems make me understand more.

I forgot to add that, take 'stand up to someone' for example, it seems the 'someone' is the object of 'stand up to', from the point of view of Longman Dictionary. But that's just my guess.


----------



## panjandrum

All of this complexity is causing brain-pain.

"stand up"
"stand up for"
"stand up to"

Whatever you choose to call them, these define three distinct actions.  The second two, in particular, not requiring any movement towards a vertical posture.

The fact that they include letter and space combinations that in other contexts are labelled as prepositions, or adverbs, or anything else shouldn't matter.

The essence of these is that they are verbs, distinct from one another.  If we had chosen to write them as *standup*, *standupfor* and *standupto*, they would each have their own place in the dictionary, each with their very own ", _v_."


----------



## elroy

panjandrum said:
			
		

> All of this complexity is causing brain-pain.
> 
> "stand up"
> "stand up for"
> "stand up to"
> 
> Whatever you choose to call them, these define three distinct actions. The second two, in particular, not requiring any movement towards a vertical posture.
> 
> The fact that they include letter and space combinations that in other contexts are labelled as prepositions, or adverbs, or anything else shouldn't matter.
> 
> The essence of these is that they are verbs, distinct from one another. If we had chosen to write them as *standup*, *standupfor* and *standupto*, they would each have their own place in the dictionary, each with their very own ", _v_."


 
Indeed - you hit the nail on the head.  We all agree about what the verbs/phrases mean; it's just a question of nomenclature, but what's in a name, right?

That's part of the reason I said "grammatically" in post #6.  I shared my grammatical understanding of a phrasal verb, which has since been questioned by FFB's and Fenix's remarks, as well as Yang's authoritative source.


----------



## elroy

Yang said:
			
		

> b. verb + preposition
> She set about(=started) making a new dress.


 
I don't mean to quibble any further, but I don't see how the above is a preposition.  To me it is a clear adverb.  "About making a new dress" is not a prepositional phrase here.  Rather, "set about" is a phrasal verb (verb + adverb) and "making" is the direct object.


----------



## daviesri

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Reading this thread, I find that (1)
> Daviesri turned the Astros' manager, Mr. Garland, into a pitcher, and the grammarians overlooked this entirely, while prepositions ran the bases in both directions; (2) all of the arguments seem so logical, that I have concluded I am not sure what a phrasal verb is.
> 
> Based on the second hypothesis, I went looking, and found this:
> 
> source: http://www.englishpage.com/prepositions/phrasaldictionary.html
> 
> This may take us into extra innings, and test the depth of the pen.


 
Cuchu,

*Phil Garner* is the Astros Manager, not Phil Garland.  Jon *Garland* is a White Sox pitcher.  

All this because I forgot to type the word "to" after "stand up".


----------



## cuchuflete

I'll own *up to* (grounds for yet another discourse?) dim memories of taxonomies of taxonomies: kinds of grammar, including presciptive, proscriptive and descriptive. I'll discard the first and second, as off-topic here. 

If the descriptive grammar proposed by those who are not at ease accepting 'stand up to' and 'own up to' as phrasal verbs demands of them that the preposition be removed from a logical verbal phrase, so be it.
They will have accomplished the objective of classifying parts of speech.  
Yawn.  Saying that 'to' is not part of a phrasal verb, but belongs to an object noun achieves that goal. Yawn again.   

Such descriptions may sit well with the internal logic of some grammatical classification, but they collide head on with the definition of a phrasal verb that allows for verb+adverb+preposition. That definition suits the meaning of the words as used in speech and writing.

I'll go far out on a limb, and offer the quaint notion that a good grammatical analysis that classifies words in a way that is contrary to the way they are used, and what they mean when used, is a bad grammatical analysis. No, I take that back. It's too strong. Such a grammatical analysis is a useless exercise, as it satisfies nothing but itself. No insight is given about meaning.

Suppose I have a can of blue paint and a can of yellow paint, and I mix the contents, yielding a can of green paint. A grammarian of paint might well say that there is no green paint. He would tell me that what I have in the can containing the mixture is composed of blue and yellow particles.

As I would stand in front of the freshly painted green barn, I would thank him for reminding me that green originates from paint particles with names like blue and yellow, but I would wonder why he wasn't noticing that, once mixed, the particles are no longer usefully identified as blue and yellow, and that the barn is green. 

"To" is a preposition.   When mixed with 'stand up' it is still a preposition.
That has diddly squat to do with whether or not 'stand up to' is a phrasal verb. It is a phrasal verb because if you truncate any of the three words in the verbal phrase, the meaning goes flying off in a new and different direction. 

Longmans seem to have applied a common sense test. Their result is not contrary to grammar. It simply ignores grammar as being irrelevant, no matter how correct.


----------



## Yang

elroy said:
			
		

> I don't mean to quibble any further, but I don't see how the above is a preposition. To me it is a clear adverb. "About making a new dress" is not a prepositional phrase here. Rather, "set about" is a phrasal verb (verb + adverb) and "making" is the direct object.


 
I don't know either and I never mean to quibble.
We just being used to learn from what the teachers taught us and what the books say, which means we need teachers(that's why I am here) and books, so we need to buy different kinds of English dictionaries as a guide and tools.

I just quoted the sentence from Longman Dictionary.
--page 697

set about(1) verb + adverb
=to spread(news, often bad or false)
e.g. Someone is always setting stories about that the prince is to be married.

set about(2) verb + preposition
=to start or deal with(something or doing something)
e.g. I wanted to make a dress but I didn't know how to set about it.
e.g. How do you set about building a boat?
.
.
.(omit)

The sentence that I quoted previously--'She set about(=started) making a new dress.'--is in the Preface, page xii.

As I said, I don't know why this 'about' is a preposition.
We might have to ask the editors of Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs.


----------



## fenixpollo

elroy said:
			
		

> I shared my grammatical understanding of a phrasal verb, which has since been questioned by FFB's and Fenix's remarks, as well as Yang's authoritative source.


 I don't think that your grammatical analysis is inaccurate, elroy -- on the contrary, it's extremely accurate.  However, it is not always logical and often self-contradictory:





			
				elroy said:
			
		

> I fail to understand why dissecting sentences in ways that may be slightly counter-intuitive is not "pragmatic."


 I am more than happy to concede your point about prepositions and their relation to verbs and prepositional phrases, in general usage.  

However, your focus on the prepositional pine needles obscures the understanding of "stand up to" as a tree, a whole unit unto itself; and blocks the view of the entire forest of phrasal verbs.


----------



## foxfirebrand

elroy said:
			
		

> Very intriguing, Yang - I guess it all depends on what you consider a phrasal verb to be. Personally, I cannot digest the concept of including a preposition in a phrasal verb. To me, a preposition is intrinsically connected to its noun, constituting a prepositional phrase with it. I just don't think a preposition can belong to two different phrases, at the end of one *and* at the beginning of another.


Then call "up to" an adverb, like you're calling "up"-- which of course can also be a preposition *depending on its usage.*

Sheesh.

Is "now" a noun?  No.  Is "until now" an adverbial phrase?  Yes.  Is "up to now" an adverbial phrase too?  Well *is* it, as Dirty Harry would say?

You are endowing words with an inflexibility they do not have, and satisfying yourself that this answers a need for "consistency."

"He stood up to his boss."  You don't *have to* see that as "a preposition belonging to two different phrases, at the end of one and at the beginning of another." "To his boss" is not a prepositional phrase (not in _this sentence_, I mean)-- taken out of the context of the sentence, such a phrase would strike you as either dative or ablative in _grammatical function,_ would it not?  Well, in the sentence the boss is being _confronted_, not treated in some indirectly objective fashion.  "His boss" is the *direct object* of the verb-- so how can it also be the object of this preposition you think you see, just because "to" is present in the phrase "stood up to?"

"Stand up to" means _confront_, not "stand."  Not "stand up."
"Put up with" means _tolerate,_ not "put."  And not "put up," which means _store._  And so on.

"Put up with" is a phrasal verb, that's why "up with which I will not put" sounds so wrong and is so *absurd.*  Why are you letting "that's what grammar tries to do" be your case-hardened manacle of thought?  Grammar does not _succeed_ in _changing language_ as it is _firmly established by idiom.  *Idiom supercedes precept.*_ 

If you must have iron rules, how about trying that one on for size?  It won't leave those unsightly chafe marks.
.


----------



## panjandrum

We're back into the conversation about grammatical rules again ... the conversation that includes the theory that grammatical rules are a poor and imperfect codification of the richness of the language as she is used. 

English is not a rule-based language - except for Foxfirebrand's rule:
Idiom supersedes precept.

I like that

I think it stands up to scrutiny


----------



## rich7

what do these mean?

The manager stood up to the unfair decisions of the umpire.
The street tough stood up against a wall and smoked a cigarette.


----------



## panjandrum

~chuckle~
I'll answer this one, but not grammatically 

The manager stood up to the unfair decisions of the umpire.
This is an example of the verb to *standupto*.
What did the manager do?
He opposed (*stoodupto*) the unfair decisions of the umpire.
Opposed is not an exact synonym - resisted, rejected, confronted, might be better.


The street tough stood up against a wall and smoked a cigarette.
This is an example of the the verb to *standup*.
Where did he *standup*?
He *stoodup* against a wall = very close to the wall.

These strange things that I have highlighted are my representation of what others call phrasal verbs - I think.  This is just a way to help me understand.  Please ignore if it is confusing.


----------



## elroy

*Sigh.*

Maybe I'm just set in my ways. I guess I just choose to be satisfied with using grammar to parse sentences, whenever it will achieve that purpose. I just don't think that has to mean that the denotation of the word is lost or ignored. It is simply a more systematic approach (which I am now emphasizing for about the fourth time) to analyzing sentences.

I completely accept your contributions and thoughts; I just don't see why you decry mine. My approach is consistent with grammatical rules and tendencies - or at least I think it is. Fenixpollo, you say it is self-contradictory; I am interested in knowing what exactly leads you to feel that way. You may not agree with it, but don't you think it's at least consistently illogical and dogmatic?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Elroy,

May I join you? I too am set in my ways. I believe that language is about communication. Of course one can study related matters, such as how we acquire language, how language correlates with batting averages, and on and on.

So I ask myself a question: What's the point of grammar? If it helps us understand how language works, it's a great tool. Note...I said 'how language works'. It doesn't work at all by mere classification of tenses, parts of speech, cases, dangling participles or any of that. It works in speech and in writing. 

Any form of grammatical analysis that helps understanding of that work I find useful. Classification, logical or otherwise, whose primary end is classification, is a waste of time. 
'
Most rules have exceptions. If applying classification rules highlights these, and gives insight into how and when they occur, and perhaps even why they occur, the classification is more than a tail chasing exercise.

Two sources cited in this thread say that a phrasal verb may include both an adverb and a preposition. I don't know if that's a correct description from a purely grammatical viewpoint, or if there is some debate among grammarians as to whether that's a valid option in the definition of phrasal verbs. I do believe it accurately describes the way some verbal constructions exist.

If a set of grammatical rules denies this, simply because it's against the rules, then the rulebook, in this instance, offers no insight into the working of language, and I feel quietly comfortable scoffing at it as the English language equivalent of microsoft help text. 

I've read your posts carefully. They are consistent, well thought out, and well presented. They are faithful to a set of grammatical rules that tries to truncate a preposition from a phrasal verb, for the sake of what I know not. 

Why should you or I parse or diagram a sentence, if not to see how it works? Sentences don't work because they adhere to rules of grammar. I've enjoyed the work of E.E. Cummings, Thomas Pynchon, and many others who write beautifully effective sentences that thumb their noses at grammar. Grammar does work when it serves to help us understand how sentences work. 

In respectful disagreement,
Cuchu


----------



## foxfirebrand

elroy said:
			
		

> I completely accept your contributions and thoughts; I just don't see why you decry mine. My approach is consistent with grammatical rules and tendencies - or at least I think it is.


Elroy-- though you don't mention me, I want to speak up about my differences with your approach, and the vigorous debate you always manage to provoke.

The differences have existed since long before we were around to act them out, in yet another form.  Your contributions here and of course in the other forums are beyond anyone's attempt to "decry" them.  I hope you don't see my partisanship on the issues as demeaning yours-- if I could pick anyone on the WR sites to watch my back in a battle of any kind, it would be you.

I have taken pains to say, this is my way of approaching the age-old debate-- others will come along to disagree.  I said it early in this thread, of course you are someone I had in mind, and you didn't fail me.

So quitcher damn *sigh*ing, okay?
.


----------



## Yang

elroy said:
			
		

> decry


(I will deleat this post later since it doesn’t concern the topic of this thread.)

I can’t write good and accurate English, let alone express clearly what in my mind, but I can feel the tone of those who have the different opinions from yours. They love you and respect your opinions. Yes, though my English is not good, I can feel the tone of other’s words, as I can always feel a gentel tone of cuchu’s words.

What you said make us think more, I bet, even those who have different opinions or those who don’t understand this question clearly, as I don’t. It’s a good thing. If there were not this thread and these discussions, I would be unable to understand about phrasal verbs better.

After thinking over a night, I decided to say something, though I shouldn’t.

While I was thinking and hesitating if I should say this or not(if I should, then, should I say it by a private message to elroy or in the furom. No, not a private message. We hardly interact. We are not familiar with each other. What I think about him is not important to him. A private message will be strange.), I saw people express their love and respect and support to you one after another.

I could never write so fast in English. It happens all the time when I just finished one post, others have already gone far away beyond me.

The following is really what ‘my two cents’ means--to give your opinion about something, when other people do not want to hear it.

I omitted something that is unnecessary and inappropriate to be appeared in the forum in my earlist post in this thread.

‘I was reading your discussions and talking to my sister about this thread.’
(And I pointed the screen and told her , ‘though this person, elroy, is very young, only 21, he know several languages!’
My sister said, ‘I thought she is a girl.’
I said, ‘I don’t know he is a boy or she is a girl, that’s not the point. The point is though he/she is young, I can tell he/she is decent(I mean good in Chinese.) from his/her posts. He/she is kindly to answer other’s questions and his/her opinions are considered correct and accurate. People here like him/her(Actually, I said ‘every person’). I admire him/her…I think he/she is right, the preposition is not included in the phrasal verb, because a preposition is followed by its object. But foxfirebrand and the other person don’t think so. What do you think? )
After a while, my sister took the dictionary to me.
(Yes, I talked about people whom I admire in the forum when chat with my sister sometimes. I don’t think that would be strange.)

No one would ever doubt your correct and accurate about English because of this.
And I just can’t understand that you didn’t feel the loving and respectful tone of those posts.


----------



## panjandrum

Yang: - please don't delete your post.

Elroy: - Yang is right


----------



## fenixpollo

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that "stand up for" is not a phrasal verb, but rather a phrasal verb ("stand up") plus a preposition ("for"). That's fine with me, cuchu's analogy of green paint aside.

However, you also agree that "stand up for" means something different than "stand up".





			
				elroy said:
			
		

> It is perfectly logical and pragmatic for me to identify "up" as an adverb and "for" as a preposition - without sacrificing the uncompromised understanding that "stand up for" differs in meaning from "stand up."


 While there seems to be some disagreement on exactly which parts of speech constitute a phrasal verb (although I believe that everyone in the room is _more_ than ready to declare elroy's arguments victorious), I believe that everyone can agree that *a phrasal verb is a construction in which another part of speech is added to a verb, thereby changing the meaning of the verb*.

If "stand up" and "stand up for" have distinct meanings, then they are two distinct phrasal verbs. You admitted that they have distinct meanings, but you won't admit that they are distinct phrasal verbs. This, to me, is consistently illogical and contradictory.

Finally, though, I'd like to weigh in with Yang and panj to say that you have gained not only my frustration, elroy, but my immense respect for presenting your case with such eloquent, passionate detail.


----------



## elroy

Wow - first off, I would like to sincerely thank Yang - and everybody else - for your kind words. I can only say that I am honored and privileged to be part of such an intelligent, respectful community of learners and teachers.

Secondly, I believe I have come upon an epiphany of sorts. I think I know why I have not been able to digest "stand up for" as a phrasal verb, despite the difference in meaning between "stand up for" and "stand up" - and why I don't feel that my grammatical analysis detracts from the meaning, is misleading, or artificially parses the sentence in a way that defies reality.

Despite the fact that "stand up for" has a different meaning, I believe that "for" still *retains its "prepositional" meaning*, while the particles in those verbs that are phrasal verbs in my book do not. Let me elaborate:

I will stand up for my rights.

The prepositional meaning of "up" is "along, in an upward direction." For example,

I walked up the hill.

The prepositional meaning of "for" is "for the purpose of, for the benefit of, etc."

While "stand up for" as a whole expresses the idea of "defend," "support," etc., I still believe that there is an undertone of for-ness implicit in the phrase. The "up," however, is clearly not serving a prepositional function. That's kind of what I tried to explain several posts ago when I substituted "plead" for "stand up." "Stand up" here has nothing to do with an upward movement, but "for" does still mean "for." That's why I see a difference between the "up" and the "for." The same applies to "stand up to."

Another example:

I will pick up the roses.
I will pick roses up the hill.

It is clear why "up" in the first example is part of a phrasal verb - "pick up" has nothing to do with the prepositional meaning of "up" - cf. the second sentence.

I don't know if that's clear, but that's certainly what's been the reason for my hesitation to consider particles (prepositions) that have a prepositional meaning part of a phrasal verb. I think of a phrasal verb as an entity composed of a verb plus one or more particles that, yes, has one complete, distinct, meaning - but one that is exclusively *verbal*. In this way, I don't see my grammatical analysis and one based on meaning as mutually exclusive - but rather as complementary approaches.

To put it another way, I see "stand up" and the "stand up" in "stand up for" as distinct phrasal verbs; just because they look the same does not mean that they are not distinct phrasal verbs. After all, one phrasal verb can have more than one meaning, just like normal verbs. The only difference between my way of analysis and the other way is that I don't consider the "for" part of the new phrasal verb (even though it is "for" that changes the meaning, in a way).

Finally, in response to Fenixpollo's remark, 



> If "stand up" and "stand up for" have distinct meanings, then they are two distinct phrasal verbs. You admitted that they have distinct meanings, but you won't admit that they are distinct phrasal verbs. This, to me, is consistently illogical and contradictory.


 
I stated repeatedly that I did not feel that the difference in meaning necessarily meant that they were different phrasal verbs. That may contradict *your* view, but it did not contradict *my* previous points, so it was not *self*-contradictory, right?

I would like to thank everybody for your amazing contributions. You've certainly caused me to look at things in a new light. What an amazing community!  

PS - I am a boy.


----------



## rich7

Sorry but i have not had the time to read it all but so far I could not understand this one: "I have taken to sleeping in"


----------



## daviesri

rich7 said:
			
		

> Sorry but i have not had the time to read it all but so far I could not understand this one: "I have taken to sleeping in"


 
I would say the first definition you got is pretty much it.  From there on it is a big discussion (hijacked thread) about "stand up" and "stand up to" as phrasal verbs and so on.  Nothing that really answers your question is said after the first few post.


----------



## elroy

rich7 said:
			
		

> Sorry but i have not had the time to read it all but so far I could not understand this one: "I have taken to sleeping in"


 
"I have taken to sleeping in" = I have grown accustomed to staying in bed relatively late

Daviesri is right, by the way: the lengthy discussion that ensued did not address your original question.


----------



## rich7

Thanks.. El, I'll have that in mind.


----------

