Skip to main content

word order - "put X down to" vs. "put down X to": subjects of verbs with two particles



I expect I would have to put down many coats to do the job. (SOURCE)



One factor to distinguish phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs is particle movement. Phrasal verbs can place the particle before or after direct object, whereas the preposition in prepositional verbs must precede the noun. (Biber et al. 1999)


So, I'm confused when analyzing the fragment "put down many coats to" because I'm not able to distinguish whether "put ... " is a phrasal verb or a prepositional verb. The confusion arises when I read in the Oxford Dictionary of English, under 'put' → 'phrasal verb', the form "put something down to" is correct.


So, the above sentence would be rewritten as follows :



I expect I would have to put many coats down to do the job.



Am I right? If not, how do I correctly distinguish phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs in the cases, like this one, where there are two particles (in this case 'down' and 'to')?



Answer



In this case, the phrasal verb is put down as you have correctly said that the particle can go either side of its direct object



to put down many coats
to put many coats down



The to immediately following that phrase is part of to do the job.



In order to completely hide the horrible colour, I expect I would have to put down many coats of paint.




Now, there is an idiom to put down to, as in "I put the high cost of food down to the price of fuel" which means "I believe the reason for the high cost of food is the price of fuel". Your original example doesn't use this, and it's not a separable phrasal verb (as in your Biber reference) because down to can only come after the direct object. You can tell the difference because the idiomatic put down to is always followed by a noun or noun phrase.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more