82,891
edits
Compound preposition: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
We know that our legal brethren delight in perverting the ordinary use of words - [[nominalisation|nominalising]] {{tag|verb}}s into {{tag|noun}}s, and so on, and the [[compound preposition]] is a neat way of co-opting {{tag|noun}}s, {{tag|conjunction}}s — all kinds — into the servile business of putting one noun in relation to another. | We know that our legal brethren delight in perverting the ordinary use of words - [[nominalisation|nominalising]] {{tag|verb}}s into {{tag|noun}}s, and so on, and the [[compound preposition]] is a neat way of co-opting {{tag|noun}}s, {{tag|conjunction}}s — all kinds — into the servile business of putting one noun in relation to another. | ||
Why, for example, would rights be exercised “[[under]]” a {{tag|contract}} [[by]] a party when they could be [[subject to]] | Why, for example, would rights be exercised “[[under]]” a {{tag|contract}} “[[by]]” a party when they could be “[[subject to]] execution”<re>Strictly speaking, this is a [[nominalisation]], not a compound preposition, of course.</ref> “[[on the part of]]” that party “[[in accordance with]]” the {{t|contract}}? | ||
{{Seealso}} | |||
*[[Flannel]] | |||
*[[Nominalisation]] | |||
{{plainenglish}} | {{plainenglish}} | ||
{{c2|plain English|Preposition}} | {{c2|plain English|Preposition}} | ||
{{Ref}} | |||