Compound preposition: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Compound preposition (view source)

Revision as of 18:42, 21 January 2020

479 bytes added , 21 January 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-A [[preposition]], only more tedious, and therefore beloved of our old friend the mediocre attorney.
+{{pe}}A [[compound preposition]] — a “[[prepositional phase]]”, for those with a yen to the [[Adjectivisation|adjectival]] — does the same job as a plain old [[preposition]], only more [[Tedious|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.
-Why, for example, exercise your rights [[under]] a {{tag|contract}} when you can do so [[in accordance with]] or [[pursuant to]] it?
+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}}?
+{{Loose prepositional phrases}}
+{{Sa}}
+*[[Flannel]]
+*[[Nominalisation]]
 {{c2|plain English|Preposition}}
+{{Ref}}