# phrasal verb + off = separable?



## Arrow1

Been thinking about the word off and noticed that most of the phrsal verbs with off are separable, am I right?
I now that for exemple, "fall off" is non-separable, but my thinking is that here off means from, therefore all the phrsal verbs where off means "from" are non- separable. For exemple:
The pencil fell off (from) the table.
I cannot think of any more example, but is my theory true?
Help would be appreciated.
Thanks.


----------



## fenixpollo

I'm not sure it would be possible for us to give you a list of all phrasal verbs with 'off' as the particle. The forum usually works the other way around: the person who asks the question must provide a sample sentence. To help us get started, could you provide another example or two of phrasal verbs in which "off" does not mean (or can't be interchanged with) "from"?


----------



## Forero

Arrow1 said:


> Been thinking about the word off and noticed that most of the phrsal verbs with off are separable, am I right?
> I now that for exemple, "fall off" is non-separable, but my thinking is that here off means from, therefore all the phrsal verbs where off means "from" are non- separable. For exemple:
> The pencil fell off (from) the table.
> I cannot think of any more example, but is my theory true?
> Help would be appreciated.
> Thanks.


"Fall off" as you have used it here is not a phrasal verb. It is just intransitive "fall" and a prepositional phrase with "off", and the preposition "off" means "off from".


----------



## Arrow1

So, as long as it admits a direct object the verb will be separable, isn't it?


----------



## Forero

Arrow1 said:


> So, as long as it admits a direct object the verb will be separable, won't it?


I am not sure what you mean.

A direct object is generally more closely connected to the verb than an adverb is:

_Don't blow me off._

But "blow off" = "discount", as above, does require "off" to be close to "blow" or it tends to lose its meaning:

_Don't blow all those astronauts and cosmonauts on the space station off._
_Don't blow off all those astronauts and cosmonauts on the space station._

The sentence I have marked with "" is possible, but the meaning is not "blow off" = "discount" but "blow" = "propel" and "off" = "away". "Blow off" = "discount" is really "blow off" = "propel away" used as a metaphor, but the metaphor does not work in context that brings out the literal meaning.


----------



## Arrow1

Yep,
I mean that I have learned lots phrasal verbs with off which you can set the pronoun between the verb and the preposition,
For example: kiss sth off, shake sth off, block sth off, dry sth off, cool sth off...
The only ones that are not separable are the ones who do not admit a direct object.
That's why I guess that these phrasal  verbs (the transitives ones) are them all separable.
Am I right?


----------



## djwebb1969

I think the object is normally inserted in-between:

To tell someone off.
To finish your work off.

I don't recognise "blow off" as good English -- I'm not even sure I understand what it means. I thought at first glance it referred to oral sex.

If I understood the meaning, I would say "write off": to write someone off. The reason why "don't write off [all the astronauts on the mission]" has "off" before the object is because of the length of the object phrase. The "off" would be separated too far from the verb otherwise - and indeed you would think, before you got to "off", that the speaker was asking you not to fellate the astronauts. Don't blow the astronauts - don't give them blow-jobs


----------



## gengo

Arrow1 said:


> I mean that I have learned lots phrasal verbs with off which you can set the pronoun between the verb and the preposition,
> For example: kiss sth off, shake sth off, block sth off, dry sth off, cool sth off...



Remember that a phrasal verb is not just a verb plus a preposition, but rather a verb and a following particle that act as a complete syntactic and semantic unit.  For example, "she looked up the word in the dictionary" includes a phrasal verb because the meaning is different from that of "to look."  However, as forero has mentioned, in "the pencil fell off the table," there is no phrasal verb because "fell" here has the meaning of "to fall."  The pencil fell.  Where?  Off the table.



djwebb1969 said:


> I don't recognise "blow off" as good English -- I'm not even sure I understand what it means. I thought at first glance it referred to oral sex.



That's surprising, because it is extremely common in AmEn.

Ex.
I don't feel like working today.  Let's blow off work and go see a movie.


----------



## stonerocks

Arrow1: As far as I can see, after about 15 minutes of consideration, you seem to be right - the transitive verbs with 'off' all seem to be separable. 

A helpful 'trick', which you probably already know, to tell whether a phrasal verb is separable is to use a pronoun rather than a full noun as the object, and see where the pronoun goes. In a separable transitive phrasal verb, the pronoun MUST go between the verb and the 'particle'.
(In Forero's example of the astronauts, we'd say 'Don't blow/write them off',       NOT 'Don't blow/write off them.' That demonstrates that blow/write off is separable.)

One case which made me pause was 'get off', as in 'We'll get off the bus at the next stop.' However, I don't think this is transitive (despite what the second entry at this link says: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/phrasal-verbs/get+off.html ); we don't have to mention the object (we could say 'We'll get off at the next stop') and we wouldn't use a pronoun in this construction (NOT: 'We'll get off it at the next stop', nor 'We'll get it off at the next stop' - the latter would have a different, racier meaning...   )

So, Arrow 1, as far as I can tell your 'pattern' is valid - well spotted. We'll see if others can think of exceptions...


----------



## djwebb1969

gengo said:


> I don't feel like working today.  Let's blow off work and go see a movie.



_[Message partially deleted by moderator]_

I don't recognise "go see" as good English, either.

I think I read somewhere, but I can't confirm, that forms like "take off your shirt" were common in Northern England/Scotland, whereas "take your shirt off" was originally associated with Southern dialects. Logically, there would have been dialectal variation in such things, but it's difficult to pin down some of these regional differences.



stonerocks said:


> One case which made me pause was 'get off', as in 'We'll get off the bus at the next stop.' However, I don't think this is transitive (despite what the second entry at this link says: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/phrasal-verbs/get+off.html ); we don't have to mention the object (we could say 'We'll get off at the next stop') and we wouldn't use a pronoun in this construction (NOT: 'We'll get off it at the next stop', nor 'We'll get it off at the next stop' - the latter would have a different, racier meaning...   )



Yes, I agree. "Get off the bus" appears to be a truncation of an original longer phrase, something like "get off (from the bus)" or "get off (out of the bus)", although I don't think "from" or "out of" would sound right today.


----------



## Forero

Arrow1 said:


> Yep,
> I mean that I have learned lots phrasal verbs with off which you can set the pronoun between the verb and the preposition,
> For example: kiss sth off, shake sth off, block sth off, dry sth off, cool sth off...
> The only ones that are not separable are the ones who do not admit a direct object.
> That's why I guess that these phrasal  verbs (the transitives ones) are them all separable.
> Am I right?


It depends on what the direct object is and on whether the verb itself has its normal meaning or one specific to the verb-adverb combination.

If the direct object is a pronoun, it does fit well between the verb and the adverb, but if the direct object is something longer, it may need to come after the adverb for the sake of balance.

On the other hand, shaking something off is actually shaking something, blocking something off is blocking it, drying or cooling something off is drying or cooling it, but kissing something off, at least in AmE, is not really kissing it. Thus "kiss off" has a meaning that requires the "off" not to be too far from the "kiss", but the other combinations are more "forgiving".

Another issue is what is to be shaken, blocked, dried, or cooled off what. If, for example, I said "shake off the dust", I would most likely mean to shake the dust off yourself or off something else, but if I say "shake off the rug" I would usually mean to shake things like dust off the rug. I would be more likely to say "shake the dust off your clothes" than "shake off your clothes the dust", and to say "shake the dust off" than "shake off the dust", but I would prefer "shake off the rug" to "shake the rug off".


----------



## djwebb1969

I don't think Forero is totally right when he says that some phrasal verbs contain unusual lexical meanings that require the "off" (or other preposition) to be closer to the verb. These can have the "off" later on.

To write someone off: here the meaning has nothing to do with "writing".

But you can say: don't write the astronauts at the base off, just because they've never made it to Mars.

I think the "off" in such sentences needs a stronger stress, to tie it together with the verb properly. You need to get the speed and intonation of the delivery right, so that the write...off is understood. 

But the longer the intervening phrase, the less viable this is:

1. Don't write everything someone says you don't agree with off, or not until you've considered it - this would be (just about) acceptable, although liable to revision by subeditors in a written context, as long as the speed and intonation was right. But
2. Don't write everything someone says you don't agree with and you find annoying off - this sentence would be suboptimal, because the intervening phrase is simply too long.


----------



## loudspeaker

stonerocks said:


> We'll see if others can think of exceptions...



Give off = send out

A transitive verb with a noun direct object. The adverb always comes just after the verb. 

Boiling water gives off steam. (gives steam off ) 
Subject + verb + adverb + obj.

This milk must be bad, it's giving off a nasty smell. (it's giving a nasty smell off ) 


Touch off/set off = to cause something violent to begin. 

His stupid remarks touched/set off a fight.  (set a fight off )


----------



## gengo

loudspeaker said:


> Touch off/set off = to cause something violent to begin.
> 
> His stupid remarks touched/set off a fight.  (set a fight off )



I'm not sure of that one.  To me it sounds acceptable to say "What is it that set the fight off?"  Not common, I admit, but acceptable.


----------



## djwebb1969

loudspeaker said:


> Give off = send out
> 
> A transitive verb with a noun direct object. The adverb always comes just after the verb.
> 
> Boiling water gives off steam. (gives steam off )
> Subject + verb + adverb + obj.
> 
> This milk must be bad, it's giving off a nasty smell. (it's giving a nasty smell off )
> 
> 
> Touch off/set off = to cause something violent to begin.
> 
> His stupid remarks touched/set off a fight.  (set a fight off )



Good examples. I wonder if there is an easy rule-of-thumb explanation that would allow a learner to be sure in all cases of what to say? I can't think of one.


----------



## stonerocks

Nice suggestions, loudspeaker, though if we replace the nouns with pronouns, those pronouns would have to go between the verb and particle, ie. separating the phrasal verb (thus showing them to be separable). 
Eg. 'Look at all the steam/smoke rising behind that hill! I wonder what's giving it off?' (Admittedly, I'd prefer 'producing it'...)
'There's a horrible smell in the fridge. What do you think can be giving it off?'
'The was a huge fight at school today. No-one knows what set it off.'

When you use the full noun form with a separable phrasal verb, I think it's generally a question of style, taste and practicality (especially ease of comprehension) whether you want to put the noun before or after the particle, though majority usage determines (and is in turn determined by) what sounds more 'natural'.


----------



## loudspeaker

gengo said:


> I'm not sure of that one.  To me it sounds acceptable to say "What is it that set the fight off?"  Not common, I admit, but acceptable.


I'm sorry, Gengo, but this does not sound good to me. It might be an AmE/BrE thing. 



djwebb1969 said:


> Good examples. I wonder if there is an easy rule-of-thumb explanation that would allow a learner to be sure in all cases of what to say? I can't think of one.



As far as I know, there are no rules; they just have to learn it. 



stonerocks said:


> Nice suggestions, loudspeaker, though if we replace the nouns with pronouns, those pronouns would have to go between the verb and particle, ie. separating the phrasal verb (thus showing them to be separable).
> Eg. 'Look at all the steam/smoke rising behind that hill! I wonder what's giving it off?' (Admittedly, I'd prefer 'producing it'...)
> 'There's a horrible smell in the fridge. What do you think can be giving it off?'
> 'The was a huge fight at school today. No-one knows what set it off.'
> 
> When you use the full noun form with a separable phrasal verb, I think it's generally a question of style, taste and practicality (especially ease of comprehension) whether you want to put the noun before or after the particle, though majority usage determines (and is in turn determined by) what sounds more 'natural'.




Thank you, Stonerocks. 
The exceptions in #13 refer to the following quote:



stonerocks said:


> A helpful 'trick', which you probably already know, to tell whether a phrasal verb is separable is to use a pronoun rather than a full noun as the object, and see where the pronoun goes. In a separable transitive phrasal verb, the pronoun MUST go between the verb and the 'particle'.
> (In Forero's example of the astronauts, we'd say 'Don't blow/write them off', NOT 'Don't blow/write off them.' That demonstrates that blow/write off is separable.




The examples given in #13 show exceptions of verbs that can take a pronoun right after them but are not separable when a full noun is used.


----------



## gengo

loudspeaker said:


> I'm sorry, Gengo, but this does not sound good to me. It might be an AmE/BrE thing.



Yes, it might be.  But it does sound fine to me, and it gets many Google hits, a few examples of which follow.

_One of the rappers hanging with Drake that night, Meek Mill, has denied reports that he *set the fight off* by tossing a bottle at Brown's group.

What *set the fight off* was the EPA's attempt to deny the mine a Clean Water Act permit necessary for the mine to operate.

The two of them aren't even on speaking terms since their split. It isn't clear what *set the fight off*, but it had to do with..._


----------



## djwebb1969

What set the First World War off was the killing of the archduke...

It's not a British vs. American thing. This is a possible sentence.


----------



## stonerocks

Arrow1, if you're still out there... 
I agree with gengo and djwebb that 'set sth. off' is separable. And the following online Cambridge and Oxford dictionary entries indicate that 'give off' is also separable, presenting the verb as 'give sth. off':
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/give-sth-off
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/give?q=give+off#give__28   (see section 4.1)

So _technically _your suggestion that 'all transitive phrasal verbs +off are separable' seems to be correct, so far. If you use a pronoun with them, you'll have to separate the verb and particle. However, as the above discussion indicates, _with certain verbs_ when you're using the _full noun_ it is overwhelmingly more common to put the noun AFTER the particle, and it would sound very strange if you separated the parts of the phrasal verb with the noun. Eg. DON'T say: 'The liquid gave a strange smell off.' Say: 'THe liquid gave off a strange smell.'

 So, you can learn that these phrasals +off are separable, but you should also learn which ones are NOT usually separated when using the full noun


----------



## loudspeaker

gengo said:


> The two of them aren't even on speaking terms since their split. It isn't clear what set the fight off, but it had to do with...





djwebb1969 said:


> What set the First World War off was the killing of the archduke...
> It's not a British vs. American thing. This is a possible sentence.



Fair enough. There is certainly no point of grammar that would make me question your examples. 


stonerocks said:


> [...] the following online Cambridge and Oxford dictionary entries indicate that 'give off' is also separable, presenting the verb as 'give sth. off':
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/give-sth-off
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/give?q=give+off#give__28   (see section 4.1)


 Stonerocks, with respect, I don't think the entries are  accurate. "Give off"  is separable when a pronoun is used, but it is NEVER separable when using a full noun. 
For example:
The air freshener has a jasmine smell and gives it off all through the day. (gives off it ) 

The air freshener gives off a nice jasmine smell. (gives a nice jasmine smell off ) 



stonerocks said:


> So, you can learn that these phrasals +off are separable, but you should also learn which ones are NOT usually separated when using the full noun



You probably meant "... you should also learn which ones are NEVER separated when using the full noun." 
For example:
Blow off (steam) (to give expression to anger, excitement, etc) eg Let the children blow off steam outside while the weather's fine, they get so restless indoors when it's raining. (blow steam off ) 

Break off (to cause to end, usually a relationship, agreement, engagement, etc.) eg Greece broke off relations with Turkey. (broke relations off ). Did you know Alan and June have broken off their engagement?

Clear off (or away) (to clear plates, knives, etc from (a table) eg Please help your mother to clear off/clear off the table. (clear the table off ) 

Etc.


----------



## djwebb1969

yes, loudspeaker, you are right in all you say, but it is "clear the table away", for some reason. I'm wondering if this problem mainly exists with "off" or not.

Looking at the full OED on CD-ROM, there is no explanation of this problem. But scanning through the list of phrasal verbs with "give", I couldn't help noticing: "to give up the ghost" (~to die). Not: he gave the ghost up...


----------



## Arrow1

Thanks everybody.


----------



## Forero

I don't see a problem with clearing the table off or breaking relations off, but clearing the table off sounds like a bigger task to me than merely clearing (the dishes) off the table. Clearing something off is of course similar to shaking, dusting, or cleaning something off.


----------



## loudspeaker

Forero said:


> I don't see a problem with clearing the table off or breaking relations off, but clearing the table off sounds like a bigger task to me than merely clearing (the dishes) off the table. Clearing something off is of course similar to shaking, dusting, or cleaning something off.



I'd use clear off/away or clean out for taking away dishes, and clean up for mopping, but it varies ...


----------



## stonerocks

How interesting that we have such varied usages! I'd say:
1. "Please can you clear the table?" - remove everything from the table to leave it 'clear'. 
2. "Please can you clear the things off the table?" - obviously you could specify what things should be removed.
3. "Please can you clear the things away/clear away the things?- put the things where they are supposed to be kept, leaving the table clear.
4. "Please can you clear away the table?" - (fold up and) remove the table from the space it's in, leaving the space clear.
I can't think of a situation where I'd say 'clear off the table' without mentioning 'the things' as shown in no. 2, and separating the parts of the phrasal verb...


----------



## djwebb1969

I say "clear the table away", not in the sense of folding up the table, but in the sense of taking the used dishes into the kitchen. The table = ~the things on the table. It's amazing someone can have been brought up in the same country and not have the same understanding.In our family, we called drying the dishes "doing the wiping up", although I understand most families had another term.


----------

