Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prepositional adverb

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prepositional adverb

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and not notable. The phenomenon itself is notable, and is discussed in our article Phrasal verb. However this particular terminology and implied category is not one that linguists would recognize. A Google search shows that a few language teachers are using the phrase, but not serious sources, and not enough to make this "a thing". In language history, words do migrate from one part of speech to another, and there is nothing unusual about dig sometimes being a verb and sometimes a noun, or down sometimes a preposition and sometimes an adverb. Prepositions and adverbs do often have the same form in many languages, but "prepositional adverb" is not a standard term. Delete or possibly convert to a redirect? Doric Loon (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the article's WP:OR and its use of terminological quackery. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linguists would recognize it, not least from its entry in Chalker's and Weiner's 1998 Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar where it is on page 311. It's in Blake's 1988 Traditional English Grammar and Beyond, too. I hardly think that either Edmund Weiner or Norman Blake invents "terminological quackery". Very poor research, people. Uncle G (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The terms themselves aren't quackery; the quackery is in the article's convoluted use of the terms – so much convolution and conflation beyond simple fixes, esp. since the subject matter is well covered elsewhere. Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject matter is not covered in that article--and of course it's not covered well in this current article, but that's not for AfD. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linguists do recognize it (present!), and besides by Uncle's book hits, JSTOR is full of references where the term is used commonly. And if the Shakespeare Quarterly has proper editorial control against quackery, then we can even speak of a "quasi-prepositional adverb". Paull F. Baum (needs an article--look at what links there) recognized as "bi" (in Beowulf l. 3047) as a prepositional adverb, and five examples as "mid", and that article is so ancient that he calls it "the Beowulf". Worth citing as a possible example of 1902 quackery is Gildersleeve, Basil L. (1902). "Problems in Greek Syntax". The American Journal of Philology. 23 (1): 1–27.: "We can see how habit brings about love (consuetuda concinnat amorem)--how the independence of the prepositional adverb gives way to the seduction of the verb". I don't know what he means but it sure is pretty. So, keep.
(As for grammar, modern grammarians like Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum and Drmies would simply call it a preposition and do away with that whole nonsensical "must govern a noun" nonsense, but that's for another day. Still, Doric Loon, this isn't really about Denominal verb or Deverbal noun--this isn't a matter of diachronic linguistics; it's a matter of definition, and the influence of 18th-c linguists--some of whom were indeed quacks who in turn influenced more quacks, which is how we end up with a bunch of silly "rules" and the intellectual laziness of the College Board.) Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect) because it's unsourced, doesn't say much, and I believe the topic is best treated elsewhere (preposition and/or adverb) - it could redirect to Preposition and postposition#Adverbs and particles as it should NOT redirect to English phrasal verbs as that's specific for English. But as others points out, there's not actually any quackery or the like to the term itself (which could argue for a redirect). Replayful (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Replayful, "unsourced" is not an argument for deletion; it has been pointed out in this AfD that at least two books and two academic articles discuss the term. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.