# Grammatical Classification of 'Before'



## Outsider

The WR English-English dictionary lists 'before' as an adverb, but according to the Merriam Webster it can also be an adjective, a preposition, or a conjunction. Here's an example of a sentence where 'before' appears to be acting as a conjunction.


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> The WR English-English dictionary lists 'before' as an adverb, but according to the Merriam Webster it can also be an adjective, a preposition, or a conjunction. Here's an example of a sentence where 'before' appears to be acting as a conjunction.




Oh, I haven't noticed that.... *this is from Cambridge dictionary*


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> The WR English-English dictionary lists 'before' as an adverb, but according to the Merriam Webster it can also be an adjective, a preposition, or a conjunction. Here's an example of a sentence where 'before' appears to be acting as a conjunction.


 
Would it not be an adverb in a sentence like "What went before is now forgotten"? (not sure, just wondering)


----------



## Outsider

It can be an adverb, too. I only wanted to warn that it isn't always an adverb.


----------



## Like an Angel

In the English-Spanish WRD shows it as _an adverb, a preposition or a conjunction_, so it doesn't say it's an adjective, don't know if something like that happen with others words


----------



## timpeac

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> In the English-Spanish WRD shows it as _an adverb, a preposition or a conjunction_, so it doesn't say it's an adjective, don't know if something like that happen with others words


 
Can anyone think of an example of it being an adjective? Perhaps this is his before photo and this is his after photo? I would be tempted here, though, to add a hyphon so "before-photo" which would this still make it an adjective?


----------



## Outsider

The Merriam Webster's entry has examples of all grammatical functions. I think it's an adjective in "the night _before_" (="the _previous_ night").


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> The Merriam Webster's entry has examples of all grammatical functions. I think it's an adjective in "the night _before_" (="the _previous_ night").


 
Oh, right thanks. I didn't realise that the dictionary was claiming that. It sounds rather suspect to me, to be honest. Doesn't seem like an adjective at all, not least of all because it follows the noun. If it was "one night before" we couldn't say "one previous night" it would have to be "a night previously" which would lead me to believe that it's not an adjective.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> Oh, right thanks. I didn't realise that the dictionary was claiming that.


This was my guess. They're not entirely clear, IMHO.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> It sounds rather suspect to me, to be honest. Doesn't seem like an adjective at all, not least of all because it follows the noun.


Normally, that doesn't happen in English, true, but _before_ is a special word, as we can see from the fact that it has many different functions.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> If it was "a night before" we couldn't say "a previous night" it would have to be "a night previously" which would lead me to believe that it's not an adjective.


Maybe you're thinking of cases like:

"A night before we got married..."
"A night before Halloween..."
"A night before New Year's Eve..."

In the first sentence, "before" is followed by a verb, to which it refers, so I think it's an adverb.
In the other two sentences, "before" is followed by a noun to which it refers, so I think it's a preposition.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> This was my guess. They're not entirely clear, IMHO.
> 
> 
> Normally, that doesn't happen in English, true, but _before_ is a special word, as we can see from the fact that it has many different functions.
> 
> Maybe you're thinking of cases like:
> 
> "A night before we got married..."
> "A night before Halloween..."
> "A night before New Year's Eve..."
> 
> In the first sentence, "before" is followed by a verb, to which it refers, so I think it's an adverb.
> In the other two sentences, "before" is followed by a noun to which it refers, so I think it's a preposition.


 
It's certainly a tricky case. It's funny how some words defy traditional grammatical definitions. Maybe this word is something different, something not found in Latin (where English gets its grammatical terms and analysis from) which is why we need to call it so many different things depending on what it is doing.


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> "A night before we got married..."
> "A night before Halloween..."
> "A night before New Year's Eve..."
> 
> In the first sentence, "before" is followed by a verb, to which it refers, so I think it's an adverb.
> In the other two sentences, "before" is followed by a noun to which it refers, so I think it's a preposition.



In the first case before is a *conjunction * because it introduces a dependent clause.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Oh, right thanks. I didn't realise that the dictionary was claiming that. It sounds rather suspect to me, to be honest. Doesn't seem like an adjective at all, not least of all because it follows the noun. If it was "one night before" we couldn't say "one previous night" it would have to be "a night previously" which would lead me to believe that it's not an adjective.



"A night previously"?  That sounds strange to me because you're using an adverb with a noun.


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> "A night previously"? That sounds strange to me because you're using an adverb with a noun.


 
But that's quite normal - "a week previously" "a year previously" - isn't it? We say it in the UK anyway.

Actually I meant to write "one night previously" rather than "a night previously".


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> It's certainly a tricky case. It's funny how some words defy traditional grammatical definitions. Maybe this word is something different, something not found in Latin (where English gets its grammatical terms and analysis from) which is why we need to call it so many different things depending on what it is doing.


Well, I don't speak Latin, but every language I've learned so far has a few words with multiple functions...
Here's a particularly drastic example. 



			
				elroy said:
			
		

> In the first case before is a *conjunction * because it introduces a dependent clause.


Can you explain that with an example?


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> But that's quite normal - "a week previously" "a year previously" - isn't it? We say it in the UK anyway.
> 
> Actually I meant to write "one night previously" rather than "a night previously".



Hm...I don't know.  It doesn't sound horrible but what's wrong with "one night before" or "one night before that"?


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> Can you explain that with an example?



"Before we got married" is a dependent clause.  It is a clause because it has a subject and a verb.  It is a dependent clause because it cannot stand alone as a sentence.  Dependent clauses can be divided into three categories: noun clauses, adjective clauses, and adverb clauses.  Noun clauses are introduced by "that," "whether," or "if," which are just called "introductory correlatives" or something.  Adjective clauses are introduced by "relatives" (pronouns or adverbs) such as "that," "which," etc.  Adverb clauses are introduced by subordinating conjunctions.  "Before we got married" is an adverb clause because it indicates WHEN something happened.  "Before" is the subordinating conjunction that introduces that clause.  Now, looking at the example in question, it is hard to analyze it because it is not a complete sentence.  An example sentence might read

On a night before we got married, I read my lover a poem.

In this sentence, both "on a night" and "before we got married" function as adverbs.  "On a night" is an adverb phrase; "before we got married" an adverb clause.  Nevertheless, the structure is slightly off grammatically because it appears as though the "before" clause were an adjective clause modifying "night."  This vagueness could be cleared up by saying something like "On a night that took place before we got married..."  Although that does sound a bit stiff, the adverb clause clearly modifies the "took place" ("That took place" is an adjective clause modifying "night.") 

Further examples.

Before you speak to me, you need to finish your work.
I was very out of shape before I began exercising.
It was almost dawn before I finally got a phone call from her.

I hope it's clearer now.


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Hm...I don't know. It doesn't sound horrible but what's wrong with "one night before" or "one night before that"?


 
Nothing at all, but I was just trying to think of a synonymous phrase which might highlight which function "before" is serving in the sentece, "previously" seemed to make it most clear.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Nothing at all, but I was just trying to think of a synonymous phrase which might highlight which function "before" is serving in the sentece, "previously" seemed to make it most clear.



Oh, I see.  I misunderstood what you were saying.  How can it be an adverb, though, when it's modifying a noun?  I actually don't think "one previous night" is incorrect, and would given reason to classify "before" as an adjective.  Do you think "one previous night" is entirely incorrect?


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Oh, I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. How can it be an adverb, though, when it's modifying a noun? I actually don't think "one previous night" is incorrect, and would given reason to classify "before" as an adjective. Do you think "one previous night" is entirely incorrect?


 
Meaning 24 hours before the time we are talking about? Yes, I would have to say "one previous night" is completely wrong. I haven't heard it, anyway, which I suppose is ultimately all I can judge it on!


----------



## Benjy

would anyone mind if i moved this back into the english only forum until we can all agree on what before is?


----------



## timpeac

Benjy said:
			
		

> would anyone mind if i moved this back into the english only forum until we can all agree on what before is?


 
Or before we can all agree on what it is, anyway!


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Meaning 24 hours before the time we are talking about? Yes, I would have to say "one previous night" is completely wrong. I haven't heard it, anyway, which I suppose is ultimately all I can judge it on!



No, just to mean "one night before..." As in, maybe 2 nights ago, maybe 9, maybe 3 weeks, and maybe two decades...


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> No, just to mean "one night before..." As in, maybe 2 nights ago, maybe 9, maybe 3 weeks, and maybe two decades...


 
Oh, Ok. I still have to say that even in that context "one previous night" sounds very odd to me.

However, in both of "one night before" "one night previously" that sounds to me like we're talking about the previous 24 hours rather than some night in the past. In fact that is how I would express that "some night before" "some night previously". Indeed "some previous night" sounds more acceptable than "one previous night", but still not good to me.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Oh, Ok. I still have to say that even in that context "one previous night" sounds very odd to me.
> 
> However, in both of "one night before" "one night previously" that sounds to me like we're talking about the previous 24 hours rather than some night in the past. In fact that is how I would express that "some night before" "some night previously". Indeed "some previous night" sounds more acceptable than "one previous night", but still not good to me.



Ok, you're right.  I think I'm mixing things up a little.  "One (some/a) previous night" is possible, but not with the meaning "24 hours before."  That would be, as you said, "one night before" or "one night previously."  Nevertheless, that doesn't answer the question of how "previously" can be an adverb while modifying a noun.  It seems to be an adverb form taking on an adjectival function (if that's possible)...or maybe it's an ellipsis (one night that occurred previously)...

Either way, it doesn't seem that "before" in "one night before" is an adverb...


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Ok, you're right. I think I'm mixing things up a little. "One (some/a) previous night" is possible, but not with the meaning "24 hours before." That would be, as you said, "one night before" or "one night previously." Nevertheless, that doesn't answer the question of how "previously" can be an adverb while modifying a noun. It seems to be an adverb form taking on an adjectival function (if that's possible)...or maybe it's an ellipsis (one night that occurred previously)...
> 
> Either way, it doesn't seem that "before" in "one night before" is an adverb...


 
This is my whole argument. I am saying that it seems to me that "previously" is an adverb, as can be seen by both its form (-ly) and usage in the fact that we can contrast the adjectival form "previous" in its normal preceding position, and since the usage of "previously" = the usage of "before" here it follows that "before" is an adverb.

You are saying that because "before" is an adjective and it equals "previously" here "previously" must be an adjective. However, although I agree the two are effectively equal here, I think that "previously" is an adverb for the reasons I give above.

I think the reason that an adverb is used with a noun here is that the noun is a period of time and this is an adverb of time, the whole thing forming an adverbial phrase (of time). You would agree that "two hours previously/before" is different from "a car previously/before". In fact, the only way that "a car previously/before" could make sense is if we interpret this noun as representing a period of time. For example "nowadays he drives a Mercedes. Two cars previously he was driving a pick-up and as poor as a chuch mouse". Here previously is not describing the noun "two cars", the whole phrase "two cars previously" is an adverbial phrase of time used with the verb "driving".

To make it even clearer, "an hour previously/before" seems clearly not to be an noun plus an adjective. "a former hour" is clearly not meant. This is a whole adverbial phrase in its own right.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> This is my whole argument. I am saying that it seems to me that "previously" is an adverb, as can be seen by both its form (-ly) and usage in the fact that we can contrast the adjectival form "previous" in its normal preceding position, and since the usage of "previously" = the usage of "before" here it follows that "before" is an adverb.
> 
> You are saying that because "before" is an adjective and it equals "previously" here "previously" must be an adjective. However, although I agree the two are effectively equal here, I think that "previously" is an adverb for the reasons I give above.
> 
> I think the reason that an adverb is used with a noun here is that the noun is a period of time and this is an adverb of time, the whole thing forming an adverbial phrase (of time). You would agree that "two hours previously/before" is different from "a car previously/before". In fact, the only way that "a car previously/before" could make sense is if we interpret this noun as representing a period of time. For example "nowadays he drives a Mercedes. Two cars previously he was driving a pick-up and as poor as a chuch mouse". Here previously is not describing the noun "two cars", the whole phrase "two cars previously" is an adverbial phrase of time used with the verb "driving".
> 
> To make it even clearer, "an hour previously/before" seems clearly not to be an noun plus an adjective. "a former hour" is clearly not meant. This is a whole adverbial phrase in its own right.



Ok, I do follow what you're saying.  "The night before/previously" could be considered a noun phrase functioning as an adverb, because it indicates time.  However, within the noun phrase the individual elements need to be dissected and analyzed.  "Night" is a noun, whether or not it refers to time, and therefore can ONLY take an adjective as a modifier.  "Previously" seems to be modifying "night," but is normally an adverb, as you state. (By the way, the only convincing reason is the comparison with the adjective "previous"; the ending "-ly" can be found in adjectives [friendly, stately, etc.]).  Which is what leads me to my dilemma.  I did not say that "previously" was an adjective (that sounds downright laughable!) but that it seemed to be an adverb taking on an adjectival function.  Do you see what I'm trying to say?  Just because the whole phrase is functioning adverbially doesn't mean each element within is an adverb.


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Ok, I do follow what you're saying. "The night before/previously" could be considered a noun phrase functioning as an adverb, because it indicates time. However, within the noun phrase the individual elements need to be dissected and analyzed. "Night" is a noun, whether or not it refers to time, and therefore can ONLY take an adjective as a modifier. "Previously" seems to be modifying "night," but is normally an adverb, as you state. (By the way, the only convincing reason is the comparison with the adjective "previous"; the ending "-ly" can be found in adjectives [friendly, stately, etc.]). Which is what leads me to my dilemma. I did not say that "previously" was an adjective (that sounds downright laughable!) but that it seemed to be an adverb taking on an adjectival function. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Just because the whole phrase is functioning adverbially doesn't mean each element within is an adverb.


 
Yes, Elroy, I do see what you mean (I agree the -ly ending is a weak argument, the real argument is as you say in the comparison with the true adjective previous). This is a really perplexing case! Are you sure that a noun can only be modified by an adjective? For example the phrases -

One night before you came
One night previously

would suggest, functionally speaking, that "before you came" = "previously" and so "before you came" is describing "night". So perhaps this argument comes down to classification of terms. If we define an adjective as anything which describes a noun then any phrase can take on an adjectival function.

<<calender pages fall, dictionary pages flutter, google search engines whirr>>

Having done some research just now on the definition of an adjective, I think that what we have here is an "adjectival phrase". This is most clearly seen in the "before you came" above, but would suggest to me that "previously" here is a one word "adjectival phrase", and thus different from an adjective (as shown in the pair "one previous night" and "one night previously"). How about that?


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes, Elroy, I do see what you mean (I agree the -ly ending is a weak argument, the real argument is as you say in the comparison with the true adjective previous). This is a really perplexing case! Are you sure that a noun can only be modified by an adjective? For example the phrases -
> 
> One night before you came
> One night previously
> 
> would suggest, functionally speaking, that "before you came" = "previously" and so "before you came" is describing "night". So perhaps this argument comes down to classification of terms. If we define an adjective as anything which describes a noun then any phrase can take on an adjectival function.
> 
> <<calender pages fall, dictionary pages flutter, google search engines whirr>>
> 
> Having done some research just now on the definition of an adjective, I think that what we have here is an "adjectival phrase". This is most clearly seen in the "before you came" above, but would suggest to me that "previously" here is a one word "adjectival phrase", and thus different from an adjective (as shown in the pair "one previous night" and "one night previously"). How about that?



Ok, maybe.  Whether we call it an adjective or an adjectival phrase is irrelevant; the point is that it is functioning "adjectivally" - and that's what I was trying to get at.

About "before you came," though, I have trouble classifying that as an adjective phrase.  First of all, grammatically speaking, it is a clause - so if antyhing it would be an adjective *clause*.  However, adjective clauses are introducted by relatives and adverb clauses are introduced by subordinating conjunctions (which is what "before" would be in this case).  But that brings up back to square one.  Is this an "adverb clause" functioning as an "adjective" (an "adjectival adverb clause"????!!!!)  In an earlier post I suggested that it might be an adverb clause modifying whatever the verb of the sentence is.  "On a night before you came, I got sick." (Both "on a night" and "before you came" would modify "got" by telling us _when_.)  That explanation may be grammatically sound, but doesn't eliminate the confusion that results from the fact that "before you came" seems to be modifying "night."  That's why it could be an ellipsis, as I also suggested ("on a night [that took place] before you came").

What do you think about all of this?


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Ok, maybe. Whether we call it an adjective or an adjectival phrase is irrelevant; the point is that it is functioning "adjectivally" - and that's what I was trying to get at.
> 
> About "before you came," though, I have trouble classifying that as an adjective phrase. First of all, grammatically speaking, it is a clause - so if antyhing it would be an adjective *clause*. However, adjective clauses are introducted by relatives and adverb clauses are introduced by subordinating conjunctions (which is what "before" would be in this case). But that brings up back to square one. Is this an "adverb clause" functioning as an "adjective" (an "adjectival adverb clause"????!!!!) In an earlier post I suggested that it might be an adverb clause modifying whatever the verb of the sentence is. "On a night before you came, I got sick." (Both "on a night" and "before you came" would modify "got" by telling us _when_.) That explanation may be grammatically sound, but doesn't eliminate the confusion that results from the fact that "before you came" seems to be modifying "night." That's why it could be an ellipsis, as I also suggested ("on a night [that took place] before you came").
> 
> What do you think about all of this?


 
It sounds like you are more clued up than me on the technical jargon here, but if this is an adverbial clause then "adjectival adverb clause" would have to fit it seems. This would satisfy my belief that the modifier is an adverbial phrase (ok clause!) and your belief that something that modifies a noun must be an adjective.

Everyone wins, no?

By the way, I'm not sure that claiming ellipsis helps. I have no doubt that this is an ellipsis as you say, but if we start considering what may or may not have been left out this is going to get even more horribly complicated. For example, "that took place before you came" would then be describing the night, and this starts with "that" which is a relative and therfore fulfils your criteria for an adjectival phrase once again, and so the circle eats itself once more!


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> It sounds like you are more clued up than me on the technical jargon here, but if this is an adverbial clause then "adjectival adverb clause" would have to fit it seems. This would satisfy my belief that the modifier is an adverbial phrase (ok clause!) and your belief that something that modifies a noun must be an adjective.
> 
> Everyone wins, no?



Haha, see the thing is "adjectival adverb clause" is something I've never heard of, and I'm not sure it exists.  Hence my reservations.   




> By the way, I'm not sure that claiming ellipsis helps. I have no doubt that this is an ellipsis as you say, but if we start considering what may or may not have been left out this is going to get even more horribly complicated. For example, "that took place before you came" would then be describing the night, and this starts with "that" which is a relative and therfore fulfils your criteria for an adjectival phrase once again, and so the circle eats itself once more!



Well, yes.  In that case the grammatical structure would be clear.  "On a night that took place before you came" would be the complete adverb phrase, within which "that took place before you came" is an adjective clause modifying "night," within which "before you came" is an adverb clause modifying "took place."  The whole phrase, in turn, would modify the verb of the sentence.  Claiming ellipsis doesn't actually complicate things but rather assigns unambiguous roles to every element of the sentence without contradicting any of our previous ideas.


----------



## timpeac

Let's do that then, because I for one am out of further ideas on this one now.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Let's do that then, because I for one am out of further ideas on this one now.



Fair enough.    

Let's end it here *before * it gets out of hand!


----------



## LV4-26

I hope I'm not taking you back to something you've already said. I did read all the discussion between Tim and elroy but I was somewhat confused by a few very long posts and I'm not sure I didn't miss something.

Let's consider these two phrases
1. _The night *before*_
2. _A high wall with a field *behind*_

I'm convinced that "before" and "behind" have exactly the same function in 1. and 2. I don't think they can be anything but adverbs, both of them.
I really don't see how "before" could be an adjective.

Now, would you answer a question from the non-native I am ?
It was made (almost) clear that before could be a preposition, a conjunction and an adverb. Now I'd like to make a comparison with "after".

A1. _before the gold rush_ (preposition)
A2. _He told me before I had to ask_ (conjunction)
A3. _Why didn't you tell me before_ ? (adverb)

B1. _after the gold rush_
B2. _He only arrived after we'd finished_
B3. _I'll tell you after_  

What do you think ? I think that, unlike "before", "after" can*not* be used as an adverb. 
I feel you'd have to say either :
_I'll tell you after*wards*_ or
_I'll tell you later_


----------



## elroy

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I hope I'm not taking you back to something you've already said. I did read all the discussion between Tim and elroy but I was somewhat confused by a few very long posts and I'm not sure I didn't miss something.
> 
> Let's consider these two phrases
> 1. _The night *before*_
> 2. _A high wall with a field *behind*_
> 
> I'm convinced that "before" and "behind" have exactly the same function in 1. and 2. I don't think they can be anything but adverbs, both of them.
> I really don't see how "before" could be an adjective.
> 
> Now, would you answer a question from the non-native I am ?
> It was made (almost) clear that before could be a preposition, a conjunction and an adverb. Now I'd like to make a comparison with "after".
> 
> A1. _before the gold rush_ (preposition)
> A2. _He told me before I had to ask_ (conjunction)
> A3. _Why didn't you tell me before_ ? (adverb)
> 
> B1. _after the gold rush_
> B2. _He only arrived after we'd finished_
> B3. _I'll tell you after_
> 
> What do you think ? I think that, unlike "before", "after" can*not* be used as an adverb.
> I feel you'd have to say either :
> _I'll tell you after*wards*_ or
> _I'll tell you later_



How can "before" in "the night before" be an adverb if it's modifying a noun?  That's the fundamental question.

You are totally right about "after."


----------



## LV4-26

elroy said:
			
		

> How can "before" in "the night before" be an adverb if it's modifying a noun? That's the fundamental question.


Right. Would you agree that "behind" in example #2. must be the same part of speech as "before" in #1. ?

Phrase #2 was taken from my COD, in the paragraph concerning "behind" as an adverb. Can an adverb _never_ modify a noun ? I've seen that adverbs are used to modify words, *especially* (i.e. not exclusively) adjectives, verbs or other adverbs.


----------



## LV4-26

> *ADVERBS MODIFYING NOUNS*
> 
> Adverbs can modify nouns to indicate time or place.
> 
> EG: The concert tomorrow
> 
> EG: The room upstairs


 (UsingEnglish.com)
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/adverb.html

NB : I'm not saying that those people are necessarily right. I just wanted to point out that there *are* people who think that adverbs can occasionally modify nouns. So as to "feed your/our thinking" *. I have no definite opinion on the matter myself.

* I'm sure this isn't English but I hope you understand what I mean.


----------



## Outsider

elroy said:
			
		

> "Before we got married" is a dependent clause.  It is a clause because it has a subject and a verb.  It is a dependent clause because it cannot stand alone as a sentence. [...]  An example sentence might read
> 
> On a night before we got married, I read my lover a poem.


What if I turn that example into the following?

_'When did you read your lover the poem?'
'The night before we got married.'_

(I agree that 'before' is a conjunction in the other three examples you wrote.)


----------



## Outsider

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I hope I'm not taking you back to something you've already said. I did read all the discussion between Tim and elroy but I was somewhat confused by a few very long posts and I'm not sure I didn't miss something.
> 
> Let's consider these two phrases
> 1. _The night *before*_
> 2. _A high wall with a field *behind*_
> 
> I'm convinced that "before" and "behind" have exactly the same function in 1. and 2. I don't think they can be anything but adverbs, both of them.


I disagree. I think _behind_ is a preposition in the second sentence. It connects two nouns. In the first sentence, _before_ refers to a single noun.

The Merriam Webster agrees that _behind_ can be a preposition, and gives the following examples:

_the conditions behind the strike;
the story behind the story_

which I find perfectly analogous to your sentence 2.


----------



## LV4-26

Outsider said:
			
		

> I disagree. I think _behind_ is a preposition in the second sentence. It connects two nouns. In the first sentence, _before_ refers to a single noun.
> 
> The Merriam Webster agrees that _behind_ can be a preposition, and gives the following examples:
> 
> _the conditions behind the strike;_
> _the story behind the story_
> 
> which I find perfectly analogous to your sentence 2.


I'm sure you have noticed that in my (that is, Oxford's) example
_a wall with a field behind._
there's no noun following "behind".

Yet, I tend to agree with you here.
We could very well have an elliptic prepositional phrase here., i.e. a PP deprived of its NP and reduced to its preposition.
_a wall with a field behind_ = _with a field behind [the wall]_

But then we'd have to admit that *my COD is* *wrong* eek:  ) when quoting this phrase as an illustration of the use of "behind" as an adverb.


----------



## Outsider

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I'm sure you have noticed that in my (that is, Oxford's) example
> _a wall with a field behind._
> there's no noun following "behind".


Does the noun have to follow the preposition? English is famous for placing prepositions at the end of sentences. 



			
				LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Yet, I tend to agree with you here.
> We could very well have an elliptic prepositional phrase here., i.e. a PP deprived of its NP and reduced to its preposition.
> _a wall with a field behind_ = _with a field behind [the wall]_


Or perhaps: _a wall with a field behind_ = _a wall with a field behind [it]_.


----------



## elroy

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> (UsingEnglish.com)
> http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/adverb.html
> 
> NB : I'm not saying that those people are necessarily right. I just wanted to point out that there *are* people who think that adverbs can occasionally modify nouns. So as to "feed your/our thinking" *. I have no definite opinion on the matter myself.
> 
> * I'm sure this isn't English but I hope you understand what I mean.



This is very interesting.  In my thirteen years of education at an American school, I was never ever taught that a adverb could modify a noun.  That said, I would personally classify the words in your examples as *adjectives*.  English words are famous for their versatility and ability to function as various parts of speech.  In this case, we have words that normally function as adverbs functioning as adjectives.


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> What if I turn that example into the following?
> 
> _'When did you read your lover the poem?'
> 'The night before we got married.'_
> 
> (I agree that 'before' is a conjunction in the other three examples you wrote.)



I think there would be an ellipsis there.

When did you read your lover the poem?
(On) the night *before (the night * on which) we got married.

in which case "before" would be a preposition governing "night."


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> Does the noun have to follow the preposition? English is famous for placing prepositions at the end of sentences.
> 
> Or perhaps: _a wall with a field behind_ = _a wall with a field behind [it]_.



The noun does not have to follow the preposition, but it has to be there, somewhere in the sentence.  In this case, if you are to identify "behind" as a preposition, there HAS to be a noun - at the very least as an ellipsis.


----------



## Outsider

There is a noun: wall.


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> There is a noun: wall.



Yes, but it does not "follow" (figuratively) the preposition.  That is, even if you mixed the word order around, "wall" does not go with "behind."

a wall with a field behind *DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS * with a field behind a wall or behind a wall with a field 

However, when you say something like:

*A strawberry tart is what I asked for.*

You can switch it to
*
A strawberry tart is for what I asked.*

Although the second sentence sounds awkward - and possibly incorrect - it means the same thing and helps elucidate what the object of the preposition is.


----------



## Outsider

elroy said:
			
		

> a wall with a field behind *DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS * with a field behind a wall or behind a wall with a field


Yes, I think you're right. The way to analyse it must be as an ellision, _a wall with a field behind (it)_. In any case, _behind_ is still a preposition, here.



			
				elroy said:
			
		

> However, when you say something like:
> 
> *A strawberry tart is what I asked for.*
> 
> You can switch it to
> *
> A strawberry tart is for what I asked.*


Or perhaps "*For* a strawberry tart [pie?] is what I asked"...


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> Yes, I think you're right. The way to analyse it must be as an ellision, _a wall with a field behind (it)_. In any case, _behind_ is still a preposition, here.



If we go with the ellipsis, then without a doubt.  Otherwise,...I don't know.   



> Or perhaps "*For* a strawberry tart [pie?] is what I asked"...



Hm...not really.  "Asked for" is a phrasal verb so the two words have to go together grammatically.  That's why we say "A strawberry tart is what I *asked for*."  "A strawberry tart is *for * what I *asked*" still does not violate the "phrasality" of the verb because you're just switching the word order around within the same phrase ("what I asked for"/"for what I asked").  However, when you isolate "ask" (..."is what I asked"), then the implication is that you are asking a question.  I would expect something like "*A silly question * is what I asked" - not "for a strawberry tart."  At any rate, that's not important.  I think the principle idea has already been shown.   

Finally, "tart" does mean "pie," kind of.  (It has another very negative meaning, though, so perhaps I should have said "pie"!   )


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> *A strawberry tart is what I asked for.*


Another way to analyze this:

What did I ask for? [For what did I ask?] A stawberry tart.

This also emphasizes how ridiculous the "no prepostion at the ned of a sentence rule" is.  

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Outsider said:
			
		

> I disagree. I think _behind_ is a preposition in the second sentence. It connects two nouns. In the first sentence, _before_ refers to a single noun.
> 
> The Merriam Webster agrees that _behind_ can be a preposition, and gives the following examples:
> 
> _the conditions behind the strike;_
> _the story behind the story_
> 
> which I find perfectly analogous to your sentence 2.


I'm late reading this thread. The only thing I am sure of is that I almost have a headache trying to follow the logic. I'm serious.

The only thing I agree strongly with is this:

"A high wall with a field *behind it."*

I do believe that the final pronoun is omitted but understood. So I would agree that "behind" is a preposition here.

But these bother me:

_the conditions behind the strike;_
_the story behind the story_

I don't think "behind" is a preposition at all. I think words have been omitted

the conditions *that are* behind the strike.
the story *that is* behind the story.

After all, what about these:

The cat [who/that is] under the table.

The rainbow [that is] in the sky.

As for classifying "before", there are so many ways of looking at the function of this word.

The night before, to me, is the same as: 

"The night that came before it."

I think we are dealing with "shortcuts", staccato ways of expressing ideas that logically should use more words but that are universally understood withou them. Inventing new classifications for such words (or usages) to me seems more difficult than learning to use English correctly. The terms start becoming more important that the language.

Adjectives that modify nouns? I think this is the point at which grammar becomes something very stupid, a handicap rather than an aid.  

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Another way to analyze this:
> 
> What did I ask for? [For what did I ask?] A stawberry tart.
> 
> This also emphasizes how ridiculous the "no prepostion at the ned of a sentence rule" is.
> 
> Gaer



Yes.

The point of this exercise was to show that "for" has a visible, incontrovertible object in this sentence = "what."


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> But these bother me:
> 
> _the conditions behind the strike;_
> _the story behind the story_
> 
> I don't think "behind" is a preposition at all. I think words have been omitted
> 
> the conditions *that are* behind the strike.
> the story *that is* behind the story.
> 
> After all, what about these:
> 
> The cat [who/that is] under the table.
> 
> The rainbow [that is] in the sky.



But even if you insert "that are/is," "before" is still a preposition.  The only grammatical difference that the insertion makes is that it changes the adjective phrases into adverb phrases (in the first case they are adjective phrases modifying conditions, story, cat, and rainbow, respectively; in the second case they become adverb phrases modifying "are" or "is" by answering the question "where?" 



> Adjectives that modify nouns? I think this is the point at which grammar becomes something very stupid, a handicap rather than an aid.
> 
> Gaer



Do you mean "adverbs that modify nouns"?  After all, adjectives have been modifying nouns for ages without there being any problems.  The suggestion we were bewildered by was that an adverb might be able to modify a noun.


----------



## Artrella

> Do you mean "adverbs that modify nouns"? After all, adjectives have been modifying nouns for ages without there being any problems. The suggestion we were bewildered by was that an adverb might be able to modify a noun.




No, never!  An adverb, just as its name suggests, is a word that is used "by" a verb...  It can modify a verb or an adjective, but never a noun.  That is the function of an adjective, an article.


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> No, never!  An adverb, just as its name suggests, is a word that is used "by" a verb...  It can modify a verb or an adjective, but never a noun.  That is the function of an adjective, an article.



Thank you, Artrella.  That's what I've been trying to say for oh-so-many posts.  However, did you see Post #36?  

I personally still consider those words adjectives, as I explain in a later post.


----------



## Artrella

> the conditions behind the strike;
> the story behind the story
> 
> I don't think "behind" is a preposition at all. I think words have been omitted
> 
> the conditions that are behind the strike.
> the story that is behind the story.




Yes, you are right Gaer, there has been an *ellision* of part of the clause (a relative clause) turning it into a "_verbless clause_" but still, "behind" is a preposition that modify the noun "conditions".  So you have a _relative clause _ that has been turned into a _prepositional phrase_, whose head is the preposition _"behind_".


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> Thank you, Artrella.  That's what I've been trying to say for oh-so-many posts.  However, did you see Post #36?
> 
> I personally still consider those words adjectives, as I explain in a later post.




Well, syntactically they modify a noun inside of a relative clause (also called "adjectival clauses") Because the sentence "The concert tomorrow" comes from "The concert that'll take place tomorrow".  So the clause "that'll take place .." has been cut and only left with the adverb "tomorrow" but acting as a modifier of the noun "concert".  So functionally it is an adjective, but morphologically ii's an adverb. At least this is what I think and I will try and find something more accurate.


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes, you are right Gaer, there has been an *ellision* of part of the clause (a relative clause) turning it into a "_verbless clause_" but still, "behind" is a preposition that modify the noun "conditions".  So you have a _relative clause _ that has been turned into a _prepositional phrase_, whose head is the preposition _"behind_".



Exactly.  Call it a "verbless clause" if you will, but it's definitely a prepositional phrase.  The preposition is "before," the object, "conditions."  Super explanation!


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, syntactically they modify a noun inside of a relative clause (also called "adjectival clauses") Because the sentence "The concert tomorrow" comes from "The concert that'll take place tomorrow".  So the clause "that'll take place .." has been cut and only left with the adverb "tomorrow" but acting as a modifier of the noun "concert".  So functionally it is an adjective, but morphologically ii's an adverb. At least this is what I think and I will try and find something more accurate.



I think you're on the right track.  The point is that if we say "the concert tomorrow" it's still FUNCTIONING as an adjective - which is the most important thing.  Who cares if it LOOKS like an adver?  Look at the following sentences:

I went home. (adverb)
My home is beautiful. (noun)
He scored a home run. (adjective)

I think it's clear the same word can serve many grammatical functions in English.  After all, if it didn't, we wouldn't be on post #57 concerning the grammatical classification of "before"!


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> I think you're on the right track.  The point is that if we say "the concert tomorrow" it's still FUNCTIONING as an adjective - which is the most important thing.  Who cares if it LOOKS like an adver?  Look at the following sentences:
> 
> I went home. (adverb)
> My home is beautiful. (noun)
> He scored a home run. (adjective)
> 
> I think it's clear the same word can serve many grammatical functions in English.  After all, if it didn't, we wouldn't be on post #57 concerning the grammatical classification of "before"!



Well, yes, it's like that.  Syntactically a noun can only be modified by an adjective (that is the definition of a relative clause= adjectival clause>> the function is "adjectival").  Look at these lyrics of a song by the Beatles >>



> We said our goodbyes, ah, the night before.
> Love was in your eyes, ah, the night before.
> Now today I find you have changed your mind.
> Treat me like you did the night before.



What would be "before" here? Where does it come from? Is it a "relative clause"?  mmm, I am doubting ...


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, yes, it's like that.  Syntactically a noun can only be modified by an adjective (that is the definition of a relative clause= adjectival clause>> the function is "adjectival").  Look at these lyrics of a song by the Beatles >>
> 
> 
> 
> What would be "before" here? Where does it come from? Is it a "relative clause"?  mmm, I am doubting ...



I think it's a preposition governing an elliptical object...("the night before [some other night]")...the prepositional phrase, in turn, is adjectival, modifying "night."


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, yes, it's like that. Syntactically a noun can only be modified by an adjective (that is the definition of a relative clause= adjectival clause>> the function is "adjectival"). Look at these lyrics of a song by the Beatles >>
> 
> 
> 
> What would be "before" here? Where does it come from? Is it a "relative clause"? mmm, I am doubting ...


 
Well, how about the Abba song "the day before you came" eg "I'm pretty sure it must have rained the day before you came".

The before following this day seems to be extremely similar to that of your example, yet this is an adjectival clause, surely.


----------



## LV4-26

Artrella said:
			
		

> So functionally it is an adjective, but morphologically ii's an adverb.


I can see nothing wrong with this statement and I can but agree with it


			
				elroy said:
			
		

> it's still FUNCTIONING as an adjective - which is the most important thing. Who cares if it LOOKS like an adver?


How about the reverse statement ?
Morphologically it's an adverb - which is the most important thing. Who cares if it's functioning as an adjective ?


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well, how about the Abba song "the day before you came" eg "I'm pretty sure it must have rained the day before you came".
> 
> The before following this day seems to be extremely similar to that of your example, yet this is an adjectival clause, surely.



No...and this brings us back to our earlier discussion a few dozen posts ago.   

Adjective clauses are not governed by subordinationg conjunctions, but by relatives.  The reason Art's example is different is that the "before" is just hanging there, so we can assume it's a preposition governing an elliptical object.  In your example, though, it is a clear clause, but the problem is that it looks like an adverb clause but functions as an adjective clause.  

I think we decided to settle this dilemma by agreeing there was also an ellipsis here (the day [that took place] before you came.)


----------



## elroy

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> I can see nothing wrong with this statement and I can but agree with it
> 
> How about the reverse statement ?
> Morphologically it's an adverb. Who cares if it's functioning as an adjective ?



Wouldn't work, because it's the _function _ of a word that determines its grammatical assignment.

According to your system, we would have to indiscriminately designate "home" as a noun, no matter what its function is in the sentence...


----------



## LV4-26

elroy said:
			
		

> According to your system, we would have to indiscriminately designate "home" as a noun, no matter what its function is in the sentence...


Agreed...... 

Thus, when the dictionnary gives three different classifications for "before", we have to assume that one is its "morphological" classification and the other two are "functional" classifications ?


----------



## Artrella

I have been reading my " A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" by Quirk et al (longman, 1999), and found that the postmodifying time adverbs appear to be limited to those denoting time, position, or time duration>> _ the meeting yesterday; the day before; the meal afterwards; his return home_
You cannot premodify those nouns >> * the yesterday meeting; *the before day; * his home return.
However there are certain adverbs that can be placed in both positions such as:
The downstairs hall = The hall downstairs
His home journey = His journey home
... Despite their similarity to peripheral adjectives like "utter", paraphrases of words like "away" show their essential adverb force: 
 _an away game =  a game that we play away_
 _the then chairman= He was a chairman at the time_


----------



## LV4-26

Artrella said:
			
		

> found that the postmodifying time adverbs appear to be limited to those denoting time, *position*, or time duration


From the end of your sentence I gather you meant "_postmodifying adverbs_" and not "posmodifying *time* adverbs"

Anyway, this is very interesting.

As for my own question, I think the answer is that there's not always a clear-cut distinction between morphology and function.


----------



## elroy

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Agreed......
> 
> Thus, when the dictionnary gives three different classifications for "before", we have to assume that one is its "morphological" classification and the other two are "functional" classifications ?



Or simply that all three are functional...

There doesn't always have to be an incontrovertible "morphological" classification.


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> I have been reading my " A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" by Quirk et al (longman, 1999), and found that the postmodifying time adverbs appear to be limited to those denoting time, position, or time duration>> _ the meeting yesterday; the day before; the meal afterwards; his return home_
> You cannot premodify those nouns >> * the yesterday meeting; *the before day; * his home return.
> However there are certain adverbs that can be placed in both positions such as:
> The downstairs hall = The hall downstairs
> His home journey = His journey home
> ... Despite their similarity to peripheral adjectives like "utter", paraphrases of words like "away" show their essential adverb force:
> _an away game =  a game that we play away_
> _the then chairman= He was a chairman at the time_



So they are adjectives with essential adverb force.   

No harm done.


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> I have been reading my " A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" by Quirk et al (longman, 1999), and found that the postmodifying time adverbs appear to be limited to those denoting time, position, or time duration>> _the meeting yesterday; the day before; the meal afterwards; his return home_
> You cannot premodify those nouns >> * the yesterday meeting; *the before day; * his home return.
> However there are certain adverbs that can be placed in both positions such as:
> The downstairs hall = The hall downstairs
> His home journey = His journey home
> ... Despite their similarity to peripheral adjectives like "utter", paraphrases of words like "away" show their essential adverb force:
> _an away game = a game that we play away_
> _the then chairman= He was a chairman at the time_


 
By Elroy's definition, though, these are adjectival clauses because they are introduced by relatives. "the game *that* we play away" "the man *who* was chairman at the time".


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> By Elroy's definition, though, these are adjectival clauses because they are introduced by relatives. "the game *that* we play away" "the man *who* was chairman at the time".



Yup, in those examples it's clear.

It's only questionable when you say "the away game" and "the then chairmen" (in which cases I personally still maintain they're adjectives).


----------



## Artrella

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> From the end of your sentence I gather you meant "_postmodifying adverbs_" and not "posmodifying *time* adverbs"
> 
> Anyway, this is very interesting.
> 
> As for my own question, I think the answer is that there's not always a clear-cut distinction between morphology and function.




JM, well, you know the book says that "Postmodifying "time" advers appear to be limited to those denoting time, position or time duration:

Examples
Time: _The meeting yesterday_
Place : _The way ahead_
Time Duration: _We didn't speak to each other during he entire afternoon_

Something else about postmodification by adverb phrase>>  examples:
_The road back is dense with traffic (1)
The way out  was hard to find (2)
The people behind were talking all the time (3)_

We can paraphrase these examples like this:
(1) The road which leads back to London
(2) The people who were sitting behind [in these cases we can see that the adverbs "back" and "behind" are clear adverbs which modify the verbs "leads" and "were talking"].  HOWEVER in sentence (2) we can alos regard "behind" as a preposition >> "The people who were sitting behind *us*"

As I posted before, adverbs which postmodify nouns signify "time" or "place". 
Most examples can be explained as adverbial and few as prepositional, so it seems best to regard the few that must be prepositional as being modelled upon the adverbial ones.


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> Yup, in those examples it's clear.
> 
> It's only questionable when you say "the away game" and "the then chairmen" (in which cases I personally still maintain they're adjectives).




Well, I don't agree Elroy.  Because when you paraphrase them you clearly see that they are modifying a verb >>>  The game which was away>> here away is not referred to "game" directly but to the verb "be".


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, I don't agree Elroy.  Because when you paraphrase them you clearly see that they are modifying a verb >>>  The game which was away>> here away is not referred to "game" directly but to the verb "be".



Yes, but we're talking about grammatical function here.  When you reword the sentence the content may be the same but the grammatical function is different.

It is very clear to me, for example, that "away" in "the away game" is an adjective describing the type of game.


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> Yes, but we're talking about grammatical function here.  When you reword the sentence the content may be the same but the grammatical function is different.
> 
> It is very clear to me, for example, that "away" in "the away game" is an adjective describing the type of game.




Well, then syntactically it is a premodifier (adverbial phrase>> the head of the phrase is an adverb).  IMHO


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, then syntactically it is a premodifier (adverbial phrase>> the head of the phrase is an adverb).  IMHO



What is the "head of a phrase"??


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> What is the "head of a phrase"??




Oh! Look for instance in this sentence " The book *of physics * is on the table"

"of physics" is a prepositional phrase which modifies the noun "book" >> of is the head of the prepositional phrase.

"The book" >> noun phrase >> "the" is the modifier and "book" is the head of the NP

*Jane is tall.*  "Jane" is a NP (noun phrase) and it is the head of it because we don't have a modifier in this noun phrase.


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Oh! Look for instance in this sentence " The book *of physics * is on the table"
> 
> "of physics" is a prepositional phrase which modifies the noun "book" >> of is the head of the prepositional phrase.
> 
> "The book" >> noun phrase >> "the" is the modifier and "book" is the head of the NP
> 
> *Jane is tall.*  "Jane" is a NP (noun phrase) and it is the head of it because we don't have a modifier in this noun phrase.



But in "the away game" "away" isn't a phrase, is it?


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> But in "the away game" "away" isn't a phrase, is it?




Well, give me a sentence.  For instance "The away game is supposed to be great"

The away game >>> Noun phrase >>> The: premodifier (definite article) ; away= modifier (adverb); game = head (noun).

To me it's an adverb, not an adjective because it comes from "The game which is (played away) is supposed to be great"


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, give me a sentence.  For instance "The away game is supposed to be great"
> 
> The away game >>> Noun phrase >>> The: premodifier (definite article) ; away= modifier (adverb); game = head (noun).
> 
> To me it's an adverb, not an adjective because it comes from "The game which is (played away) is supposed to be great"



Well, if you consider it an ellipsis, then yes, it is an adverb.

I'm confused about the whole head thing, though, because earlier you said



> Well, then syntactically it is a premodifier (adverbial phrase>> *the head of the phrase is an adverb*). IMHO



 ????


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> Well, if you consider it an ellipsis, then yes, it is an adverb.
> 
> I'm confused about the whole head thing, though, because earlier you said
> 
> 
> 
> ????




Yes, you are right Elroy.  I was mistaken >> The away game is tomorrow

*The away game*>>since it is the subject it MUST BE a noun or a NP, it cannot be an adverb or and adverbial phrase.

The game which is played away >>>  the game = subject (NP >> head= game; Premod= the> definite article)
which is played away>> defining relative clause >>> away = circumstancial of place => Adverbial Phrase = head: "away"

It was my mistake what I said in the previous post >>> SUBJECT ==> NP always!!!


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> But even if you insert "that are/is," "before" is still a preposition. The only grammatical difference that the insertion makes is that it changes the adjective phrases into adverb phrases (in the first case they are adjective phrases modifying conditions, story, cat, and rainbow, respectively; in the second case they become adverb phrases modifying "are" or "is" by answering the question "where?"


Yes, it is a preposition. What was I thinking about last night? My problem is the idea of "before" being a conjunction. But by the time you get into adverb phrases, adjective phrases, I become convinced that I know nothing about my own language. 


> Do you mean "adverbs that modify nouns"? After all, adjectives have been modifying nouns for ages without there being any problems. The suggestion we were bewildered by was that an adverb might be able to modify a noun.


Yes.  

ADVERBS!!! Ah, the temptation to answer one too many threads…  

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes, you are right Gaer, there has been an *ellision* of part of the clause (a relative clause) turning it into a "_verbless clause_" but still, "behind" is a preposition that modify the noun "conditions". So you have a _relative clause _that has been turned into a _prepositional phrase_, whose head is the preposition _"behind_".


Actually, I got totally mixed up, Art. I thought we were looking at examples that people were claiming showed "before" used as a conjunction.

In short, I read to quickly and very carelessly. 

Believe it or not, I agree 100% with Elroy—I THINK. But I had better read on…

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, syntactically they modify a noun inside of a relative clause (also called "adjectival clauses") Because the sentence "The concert tomorrow" comes from "The concert that'll take place tomorrow". So the clause "that'll take place .." has been cut and only left with the adverb "tomorrow" but acting as a modifier of the noun "concert". So functionally it is an adjective, but morphologically ii's an adverb. At least this is what I think and I will try and find something more accurate.


Here's yet another way to look at it:

The concert tomorrow
"The concert of tomorrow"
Tomorrow's concert

This may have nothing to do with grammar, but it has a lot to do with logic.

Think also:

The evening's concert
The evening concert

I smell possessive/genitive here, and it would be fascinating to be able to go back many centuries and examine where these constructions came from. They certainly are a problem. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes, you are right Elroy.  I was mistaken >> The away game is tomorrow
> 
> *The away game*>>since it is the subject it MUST BE a noun or a NP, it cannot be an adverb or and adverbial phrase.
> 
> The game which is played away >>>  the game = subject (NP >> head= game; Premod= the> definite article)
> which is played away>> defining relative clause >>> away = circumstancial of place => Adverbial Phrase = head: "away"
> 
> It was my mistake what I said in the previous post >>> SUBJECT ==> NP always!!!



I think I'm gonna forget about the "head" thing as it seems to be getting more and more confusing.  

It is clear that "the away game" is a noun phrase, though - the question was about "away."  I had assumed your "head" explanation was supposed to clarify why you think it's an adverb...


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Yes, it is a preposition. What was I thinking about last night? My problem is the idea of "before" being a conjunction. But by the time you get into adverb phrases, adjective phrases, I become convinced that I know nothing about my own language.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ADVERBS!!! Ah, the temptation to answer one too many threads…
> 
> Gaer



Not to make this more complicated or anything, but "before" CAN indeed be a conjunction - a subordinating conjunction introducing an adverb clause!   

Example:

I came to your house before the party started.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Not to make this more complicated or anything, but "before" CAN indeed be a conjunction - a subordinating conjunction introducing an adverb clause!
> 
> Example:
> 
> I came to your house before the party started.


You're right. God, I am SO weak in English grammar!!!

Somewhere along the line I got sidetracked with other terminology and completely forgot basics.  

I'll probably be wrong about this too, but at the moment I would vote for "away" as an adjective in "away game".

But I'd like to make what I think is the most important point. Look at the number of posts! Doesn't this mean that we've stumbled across something that is easier to master and use than to analyze? I can't remember another discussion that has been so confusing. After all, we aren't debating what is right in terms of usage. Only what is right in terms of labeling.

I can't help but conclude that the real problem here is trying to agree on what to call something.  

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> You're right. God, I am SO weak in English grammar!!!
> 
> Somewhere along the line I got sidetracked with other terminology and completely forgot basics.
> 
> I'll probably be wrong about this too, but at the moment I would vote for "away" as an adjective in "away game".
> 
> But I'd like to make what I think is the most important point. Look at the number of posts! Doesn't this mean that we've stumbled across something that is easier to master and use than to analyze? I can't remember another discussion that has been so confusing. After all, we aren't debating what is right in terms of usage. Only what is right in terms of labeling.
> 
> I can't help but conclude that the real problem here is trying to agree on what to call something.
> 
> Gaer



You are absolutely right.  Grammar is "supposed to" make sense, so we're trying to get this bizarre phenomenon to fit into that mold.  Is it working?  We have yet to find out..


----------



## timpeac

gaer said:
			
		

> I can't help but conclude that the real problem here is trying to agree on what to call something.
> 
> Gaer


 
This is my over-riding conclusion of this thread. Time and time again we have seen that "before" seems to behave in a certain way, yet also has traits which rule it out as being that particular form of speech, based on traditional definitions.

"Grammar" such as defined and written down (as opposed to any underlying "unity" that the language may or may not possess at a more fundamental (spoken) level) can only ever at best be an approximation. English often suffers because the traditional approximation is taken from Latin.

However, in this case with "before", it seems to me we have a truely exceptional word which defies the traditional classifications. I don't think it's much of a problem, as long as 99% of words do not defy analysis in this way (and they don't, there can't be many words in English that would cause a thread of this length simply trying to classify them). It is just deeply unsatisfying to conclude ""before" is weird". I think that is what the problem is, not having a black and white definition offends our keen linguistic sensibilities !!


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> I think I'm gonna forget about the "head" thing as it seems to be getting more and more confusing.
> 
> It is clear that "the away game" is a noun phrase, though - the question was about "away."  I had assumed your "head" explanation was supposed to clarify why you think it's an adverb...




Well, no Elroy...I'm sorry but the "head" explanation has to do with "X-bar Theory" (trees). It wouldn't help you with the morphological classification of words, just with syntax.  However, I think that the "proof" that a word is an adverb lies in the paraphrasing.  If the word -in the original sentence, or paraphrase or unfolding of the ellipsis- modifies a verb or an adjective, then it is an adverb (IMHO).  

If you want to read about heads and X-bar theory I recommend you "English Grammar- a generative perspective" by Haegeman and Guéron.


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> Not to make this more complicated or anything, but "before" CAN indeed be a conjunction - a subordinating conjunction introducing an adverb clause!
> 
> Example:
> 
> I came to your house before the party started.




I = subject
came= verb ( head of the VP = predicate)
before the party started = Adverbial clause of time : it has adverbial functions ==> "before" (as you have said) is a "subordinating conjunction" and in most of the cases these "subordinating conjunctions" have no function within the clause they introduce. These clauses are called "Adverbial Clauses" because of the function they have in the sentence.


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> I = subject
> came= verb ( head of the VP = predicate)
> before the party started = Adverbial clause of time : it has adverbial functions ==> "before" (as you have said) is a "subordinating conjunction" and in most of the cases these "subordinating conjunctions" have no function within the clause they introduce. This clauses are called "Adverbial Clauses" because of the function they have in the sentence.



That is 100% correct.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> This is my over-riding conclusion of this thread. Time and time again we have seen that "before" seems to behave in a certain way, yet also has traits which rule it out as being that particular form of speech, based on traditional definitions.
> 
> "Grammar" such as defined and written down (as opposed to any underlying "unity" that the language may or may not possess at a more fundamental (spoken) level) can only ever at best be an approximation. English often suffers because the traditional approximation is taken from Latin.
> 
> However, in this case with "before", it seems to me we have a truely exceptional word which defies the traditional classifications. I don't think it's much of a problem, as long as 99% of words do not defy analysis in this way (and they don't, there can't be many words in English that would cause a thread of this length simply trying to classify them). It is just deeply unsatisfying to conclude ""before" is weird". I think that is what the problem is, not having a black and white definition offends our keen linguistic sensibilities !!



You're absolutely right.  Which is why I'm going to keep on pondering it...


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, no Elroy...I'm sorry but the "head" explanation has to do with "X-bar Theory" (trees). It wouldn't help you with the morphological classification of words, just with syntax.  However, I think that the "proof" that a word is an adverb lies in the paraphrasing.  If the word -in the original sentence, or paraphrase or unfolding of the ellipsis- modifies a verb or an adjective, then it is an adverb (IMHO).
> 
> If you want to read about heads and X-bar theory I recommend you "English Grammar- a generative perspective" by Haegeman and Guéron.



Hmm...I think I had a sufficient dosage of "heads" presenting Carol Myers-Scotton's Matrix Language Frame model for code-switching last week.  Just in case you're wondering, it is apparently the most unabridged and recognized linguistic model analyzing the grammatical outcomes of code-switching...complete with heads and all!


----------



## gaer

timpeac said:
			
		

> It is just deeply unsatisfying to conclude ""before" is weird".


Strangely I am quite comfortable with that idea now! 

I've had enough experience with enough languages at this point to be quite convinced that the easiest way to explain whey something are as they are is:

"That just the way it is." 

Gaer


----------

