82,890
edits
Compound preposition: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}{{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 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 [[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 | 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]] 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}}? | ||