Talk:List of English prepositions

message: I believe that "-ing" words, such as "baring", are not prepositions, but instead the gerund form of verbs (e.g. to bar).  These should be removed from a list of prepositions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtkinnyc (talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several valid prepositions in the English language that end in "ing". For example, there is "concerning", as in "Concerning your recent question, there are exceptions to your proposed rule." The phrase "Concerning your recent question" is an adverbial prepositional phrase, and it modifies the entire sentence, just like some other ones do. 98.81.4.38 (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gerunds

message: I would have to say that 'versus', 'circa' and most of the rest of their fellow loaners do not fit the descriptors 'archaic' or 'infrequently used'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.157.2 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Loan Words

message: Now perhaps this is just some quirk that I've somehow acquired, but it seems to me "with respect to" is a multi-part preposition just like "with regards to."  I've added it, but if I'm being dialectical feel free to remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.90.55 (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "With Respect To" 

message: Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, this is not a dicdef, and there's precedent for pages like this (e.g. -onym).
On the other hand, this is rather on the dictionary side, so I'm not opposed to eventual transwikification. But before you shout "transwiki and delete!", please ensure that there is a place for this on the Wiktionary where it won't languish in obscurity. A list of prepositions is useful tool, and therefore it should exist on the Wiki project in some form. There is such an animal at wikt:Wiktionary:By part of speech, but it's woefully inadequate, containing exactly two prepositions!
:See wikt:Category:English_prepositions--BrettR 13:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep!! Keep keep keep!!! This page is important because English has a closed class of prepositions, and it is encyclopedic to document them.  This is not a dictionary definition, this is a list of the prepositions in English. eigenlambda 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for this page's existence 

message: Instead of organizing alphabetically by number of words, it might be more useful to organize this list by function. E.g., attributive, locative, temporal, etc. Only problem is that some prepositions overlap. • Benc • 05:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible reorganization 

message: Before I change it — is there a reason for using numbered lists here? It seems to be that bullets would be more natural. Ruakh 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why numbered lists? 

message: What's with the "preposition-like modifiers of quantified noun phrases"? Why not put "apart from" under 2-word prepositions and but, except, plus, and save under single-word prepositions? Most dictionaries would list these words as prepositions, not "preposition-like modifiers". And note that minus is listed as a preposition here.--Mbenoit 12:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute of headings 

message: Neither the word "grammaticalised" nor "grammaticalized" is found in any common dictionaries.  Besides the question of "What on Earth could this'word' mean?", there is the fact the the Wikipedia is a reference sourch that is written for the general reader, and that for subjects like this one, it should not use any obscure words.  On the other hand, in highly-technical and specialized articles, words and phrases like "gallium arsenide field-effect transistor" must be used, but then, a significant part of the article needs to be spent telling what it does mean. 98.81.4.38 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Grammaticalised" ? 

message: Contrary to the article's assertion, these words are most definitely adverbs in that they modify other adverbial expressions (in the article, one of time and one of place).http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adverbhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awayhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ago  It is not in any way "wrong" to classify them as such.  I believe the article needs to be corrected to reflect this fact.
Vmedlock (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ago" and "away" 

message: I would presume that the incorporation until now of "a" in the list is a reference to the "a" of, say, "a-hunting we will go", "she lay a dying", etc. Although ultimately derived from "on", this word, where it still used at all in Modern English, is more properly classified as a prefix than as a preposition. Unlike all the other, true prepositions in the list it cannot, for example, be used before "the". It is more akin to the "a(-)" of such words as "aglow". Moreover, the note (see "an" for usage in front of vowels) is surely a reference to "a/an", the indefinite article; as far as I am aware the prefix "a" is used indifferently before both consonants and vowels: e.g. "all a-eating and a-drinking". -- Picapica (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefix a(-) 

message: Is "as" a preposition? It seems like one to me, but I have heard that it is questionable whether it may be technically considered one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.243.101 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As" 

message: The criteria for inclusion in this list seem unclear. For example:
*why is "an" included but not "the"?
*why is "following" included but not "preceding"?
*why is "subsequent to" included but not "faster than" or "in a more disgusting fashion than"?
*why is "times" included but not "divided by"?
--Ehrenkater (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion 

message: I noticed that the OED has an entry for "for the sake of", listed as a preposition and conjunction. Should there be something mentioned here about such cases, if nothing else, to explain why they are not included? TomS TDotO (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, by Quirk, Greenbau, Leech & Svartik, section 9.11 there is a longer list of three-word prepositions. It notes that "The most numerous category is the type ... Prep1 + Noun + Prep2" and also "With three-word sequences we also include complex prepositions where the noun is preceeded by a definite or indefinite article" as in in the light of or as a result of. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The results of further reading: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum and others, chapter 7, section 7.1, treats "Expressions of the type for the sake of X, at odds with X. After a list of examples, they note that "These differ in two respects from free expressions such as: She put it [on the photo of her son]." (1) the meaning is not systematically derivable from the components (2) they do not allow all ordinary syntactic changes in the components. I think that some reworking of our section on three-word prepositions could use some changes in the light of these observations (which I intend to do when I get around to it). TomS TDotO (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "For the sake of" 

message: 'our' is not a preposition. If you disagree, please explain.  TomS TDotO (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  our 

message: Removed lest, which as far as I can tell is always classified as a conjunction. neatnate (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  lest 

message: I noticed some of the sections are useless in the way they are organized. For example, the "multiple words" sections should not be presented as an inclusive list. The English language allows for these to be expansive; allowing words to be used that would otherwise not be considered prepositions in English. Putting almost any word in front of "to," "of," "by," etc. makes the utterance a "multiple word preposition," making compiling an exhaustive list nearly impossible. Instead of having a list maybe we should add the formula and a few common examples. If anyone objects please say so and explain why.
Bstoopmarine (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless Sections 

message: looks to be missing Mayumashu (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  whence 

message: The Language Log considers because a preposition. Read article here. Tl;dr is that while most dictionaries consider it a conjunction, it doesn't act like a conjunction, but does act like a preposition. The argument is easily seen in the table in the article. I'm not adding it to the list, though, lest I be shunned. Brooksmith's (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Because 

message: I don't want to revert this recent major revision. Someone put a lot of work on it. It is obviously a "good faith" effort. But I don't understand the point of all that work. Are we going to accept any change just because someone puts a lot of work on it? IMHO, it would be better to start with a discussion on these talk pages about there being some improvements needing a lot of work, and after there were people agreeing that those improvements were worthwhile, then going on with the work. As things stand, someone is going to revert these changes, and there will be ill will generated. I'm starting with a discussion on these pages, and I hope that the editor will notice this and explain the improvements that these changes make. I hope that the editor does not ignore the chance to discuss. I hope that someone will not have to get that editor's attention by reverting the changes. Or maybe some "third party" will tell me that I'm mistaken. Let's discuss, first.     TomS TDotO (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehaul article 

message: The song on this is so nifty, and I don't want to remove it because it seems novel and interesting.
However, it's totally out of the tone for this page :/
Song to remember the prepositions
(Sung to the tune of Yankee Doodle)
About Above Across Against Among Around At After Before Beside Behind Between Beyond By Down During Into For From In Except Near Of Off To Over Past Throughout Through Towards On Up Without Until With Under
Should it be removed? Normally I'd just cut it but this seems nice. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 00:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song? 

message: Title 2600:1007:B02B:9BA1:59E4:F736:D317:F3FF (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this meant to be a comprehensive list?