Talk:forwards

A rollback like this with no explanation is really unhelpful and actually quite disrespectful. Reverting a well-established user with no explanation is frowned upon at every wiki I've been a part of, probably because common sense says it's just plain rude. If you have a reason for your reversion, it would be appreciated if you would explain it, as I did when I made my change. I believe I have a valid argument for it being marked as an adverb (I gave 2 reasons, in fact). You would do well to share whatever reason you think you have. Thanks. · Ty grrr... 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further only modifies prepositions, just as straight and right do. There are no prototypical adverbs that can be modified by these. Adverbs also may not appear as complements to linking verbs (e.g., *The movement is quickly.) Prepositions, however, can. By both of these tests, forwards is a preposition, not an adverb. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language also lists forwards as a preposition and not an adverb.--Brett 15:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet these dictionaries all list forwards as an adverb: MSN Encarta Dictionary.com Merriam-Webster Your Dictionary Cambridge Online EN Wiktionary American Heritage Infoplease Rhyme Zone Webster's 1913 ed. All Words Free Dictionary WordNet. I can't possibly imagine they're all wrong and you're right. Based on the overwhelming evidence, I'm returning the listing to adverb. · Ty grrr... 16:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And none of those dictionaries listed determiners either. Yet, now, thanks largely to my input, en.wikt, lists determiners. Moreover, as of this spring, the OED has begun describing words as determiners (of course, I had nothing to do with this). The world moves forward and people look at the evidence and realise that old analyses were incorrect. There's no benefit in propagating the mistakes of the past. The evidence clearly shows that forwards is not an adverb.--Brett 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett, how can you possibly justify your reversion of my edit again? You have provided no evidence whatsoever that your opinion is backed by a number of reputable sources. You cannot do whatever you please, whenever it pleases you. Wikipedia and Wiktionary are not for original research and you are wrong to use your own original research to enforce your opinion. Please do not change the page from "Adverb" without backing up your opinion. Thanks. · Ty grrr... 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tygrrr, it is you who has not justified anything. All you've done is cite a bunch of sources. Where sources are conflicting, this provides no means of resolution short of some kind of tally. Where there is disagreement, then, the only way to resolve it is to consider the reasons each side provides for its view. If one side's reasons can be shown to be faulty, then the other side should prevail.

I have explained why your sources are wrong but you have not explained why they are right (merely asserted that they are). Nor have you made any attempt to explain why my sources are wrong.

Your basis for disbelieving me is your own lack of imagination: "I can't possibly imagine they're all wrong and you're right." These are the same kinds of arguments that are used to back up creationism, but they don't work there and they don't work here. I have even given you an example of an instance in which I am right and the dictionaries were wrong (at least, such can be inferred from the changes in the OED).

There is no original research happening here. This is not my idea, nor is it a new idea. It has been around at least since 1863 when Alexander Bain discussed it in his An English Grammar. It is similarly supported by many eminent linguists throughout the last century, including:

JACKENDOFF, RAY S. 1973. The base rules for prepositional phrases. In: Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds.), Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 345-356.
JESPERSEN, OTTO. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
EMONDS, JOSEPH. 1972. Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8, 546-61.
LANGACKER, RONALD W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1 Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
LEE, DAVID. 1999. Intransitive prepositions: are they viable? In: Peter Collins and David Lee (eds.), The Clause in English. In Honour of Rodney Huddleston. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 45.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 133-147.

If you would like to explain why these folks are wrong and you're right, I'd be happy to consider it. Otherwise, please leave this as a preposition.--Brett 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Brett, you have not explained at all why or how all those dictionaries are wrong. You have also not provided a single source, let alone 13 of them, that specifically lists "forwards" as a preposition. It's not a "lack of imagination" as you so lamely put it that I can't believe thirteen dictionaries are wrong and you are right, and I think you know it. You have allowed your opinion to cloud your judgment of what is accurate and should not be allowed to add your incorrect ideas (i.e. not facts) to this page. It is an adverb. End of story. The burden of proof lies on you to prove so many reputable sources (that I provided) as wrong. You have certainly not done so. You are marring the accuracy of this dictionary with your reversion and the only thing stopping me from putting back the correct information is that I refuse to participate in a wheel war, which is what you've diminished this discussion to. · Ty grrr... 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you can say I have not provided a single source. See, for example, the list on p. 614, [30] vii in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, where it says: "The main prepositions of this kind are as follows: ... forward(s)". And if you find my brief explanation (my first entry in this discussion) problematic, please show why rather than simply denying that I have explained anything when clearly I have.

I also don't see how I've diminished the discussion. I acknowledge your points and refute them. You, on the other hand, accuse me of being disrespectful and rude, of contravening guidelines, of marring the dictionary, and of being a liar. You simply deny what is in front of your face and ignore relevant facts that don't suit your POV. This hardly elevates the discussion.--Brett 21:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All you've done is cite a bunch of sources."

Precisely, I have backed up the fact, not my POV, that "forwards" is an adverb. With 13 sources nonetheless.

"Where sources are conflicting..."

What is conflicting in my sources? They all say "forwards" is an adverb.

"The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language says..."

Okay, you have provided me with one source. But the fact remains that I have provided you with 13. And you have not said why all these dictionaries are wrong. Let me be so bold as to propose that perhaps they aren't wrong...

"You accuse me of being disrespectful and rude, of contravening guidelines, of marring the dictionary, and of being a liar"

Yes, your blind reversion with no explanation was disrespectful and rude. Yes, this has turned into a wheel war (which I took part in, but now refuse to). Yes, I believe that removing accurate, well-sourced information mars the dictionary. No, I have not called you a liar.

I still believe the burden of proof lies on you at this point. I hope that you can either sufficiently provide it, or do the responsible thing and return the accurate, well-sourced information I had placed on the page. · Ty grrr... 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although prepositions can act as adverbs, traditionally the difference between the two is that a preposition requires an object when used as an adverb, while an adverb does not. Since "forwards" does not need an object to make grammatical sense ("He stepped forwards." as opposed to "He stepped forwards us."), "forwards" is an adverb, not a preposition.--TBC 22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBC, thank you for your contribution. If we consider the taking of an object as a prerequisite for membership in the preposition category, then we run into other problems:

most if not all of the dictionaries Tygrrr lists in support give from as a preposition, not an adverb. (I admit to not checking all of them, but let's take MW as an example).
MW gives the following definition for up: "from below the horizon". In this phrase, from takes below the horizon as a complement and below takes the horizon as an object. But from has no object.
Therefore, either this criterion is wrong or all the dictionaries are wrong about the categorisation of from. And the problem is not limited to from; there are a number of core prepositions that run into the same issue.
There are other good reasons to think that from is a preposition (see my explanation near the top of this page), so it makes sense to say that the dictionaries are correct in this case, but that the rule is faulty.

We have a similar but slightly different problem with as.

The dictionaries take as (e.g., he is thought of as a good man) to be a preposition.
The dictionaries do list as as an adverb, but this is not in the above sense.
In the above sentence, a good man can be replaced with an adjective (e.g., he is though of as helpful).
In verbs where there is this kind of noun/adjective alternation, the position is said to be a complement, not an object.
Therefore, either the criterion is wrong or all the dictionaries are wrong about the categorisation of as.
Again, there are other good reasons to think that as is a preposition, so it makes sense to say that the dictionaries are correct in this case, but that the rule is faulty.

Consider also that no other category is based on complementation. For example, we don't take intransitive verbs and say they're actually nouns because they don't take an object. Nor do we distinguish between nouns that take complements and those that don't, or adjectives, or indeed any other category. For these reasons, it becomes clear that the traditional rule is wrong. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of the linguists cited above, among many others.--Brett 01:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the example you gave, "below the horizon" is a clause functioning as the object of the preposition. If the word "from" has nothing following it, as in something like "John Smith was a man from.", then the sentence wouldn't make any grammatical sense, making the word a preposition. As for the word "as", the word can stand alone without an object (like in the sentence "He was not worried what he was thought of as.", making it an adverb. But I do agree with you that the object rule is more of a general one; in English, along with any other language, there are hundreds of grammatical exceptions.--TBC 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the above example, below the horizon is neither a clause nor an object. A clause requires a verb. An object must be a noun, not simply some words following the preposition or verb. Below is a preposition, and consequently below the horizon is a prepositional phrase. In the sentence, the sun sank below the horizon, sank is intransitive for exactly this reason. The sun didn't sink something as in the cannon sank the ship where sank is transitive. Prepositional phrases are never objects.

By the way, TBC is also wrong in claiming that "If the word "from" has nothing following it..., then the sentence wouldn't make any grammatical sense." I can easily provide a counter example: Where was John Smith from?

In TBC's example for as, we have what is called preposition stranding. This happens when the object (or complement in this case) is moved to a position earlier in the sentence as in the man whom he gave it to __ went home. Here the object of the preposition to is the relative pronoun whom which has been moved from the position indicated by the underscores. The choice of whom as opposed to who is only available when it is functioning as an object or complement. So, again we see that an object denotes a special kind of grammatical relationship, not just something that follows the preposition. In the case above, the relative pronoun what is functioning as the complement of the preposition as, which, I will repeat, does not take an object.

The number of exceptions in traditional grammar is often the result of ad hoc "rules" like this one that a preposition must have an object. When such rules are scrutinised, they are often found wanting. Rejecting many of these old ideas allows us to describe things more accurately with the result that there are far fewer exceptions. This reconceptualisation of prepositions is a case in point. The so-called "rule" is wrong. And it follows then that forwards is a preposition.--Brett 11:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]