Compound preposition: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}{{pe}}A [[compound preposition]] does the same job as a plain old [[preposition]], only more tediously. Therefore it is beloved of our old friend the [[mediocre lawyer|mediocre attorney]].  
{{g}}{{pe}}A [[compound preposition]] — a [[prepositional phase]] for those with a yen to the adjectival — does the same job as a plain old [[preposition]], only more tediously. Therefore it is beloved of our old friend the [[mediocre lawyer|mediocre attorney]].  


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.
Line 5: Line 5:
Why, for example, would rights be exercised “[[under]]” a {{tag|contract}} “[[by]]” a party when they could be “[[subject to]] execution”<ref>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}}?
Why, for example, would rights be exercised “[[under]]” a {{tag|contract}} “[[by]]” a party when they could be “[[subject to]] execution”<ref>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}}
{{Loose prepositional phrases}}
{{Sa}}
*[[Flannel]]
*[[Flannel]]
*[[Nominalisation]]
*[[Nominalisation]]