 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / August 2009'past' as a postposition
I'm wondering when, if ever, the use of the word "past" as a postposition (following a noun) is acceptable. Here is the sentence: "Interwoven with these historical currents lies also the philosophical impetuses for fashioning participation as an unshakable solution to the ills of development past." The phrase "development past" implies the methods of international development that existed in the past (and have evolved into something different today). Is this acceptable? Am I completely wrong to think that it sounds fine? Can anyone give other good examples of using past as a postposition, as in "The Ghost of Christmas Past"? Please enlighten. Thanks for the help. > I'm wondering when, if ever, the use of the word "past" as a > postposition (following a noun) is acceptable. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Can anyone give other good examples of using past as a postposition, > as in "The Ghost of Christmas Past"? I think I see your reasoning. Not too bad, however I think this is possible only in some combinations, such as "in years past," "in times past." Marius Hancu > I think I see your reasoning. Not too bad, however I think this is > possible only in some combinations, such as "in years past," "in times > past." > > Marius Hancu And how about following words that don't specifically indicate time (i.e., "years" and "times")? Thanks for the response. > > I think I see your reasoning. Not too bad, however I think this is > > possible only in some combinations, such as "in years past," "in times > > past." > And how about following words that don't specifically indicate time > (i.e., "years" and "times")? The only thing I could recommend is a detailed look at the results in published books: 85 on "in development past" http://tinyurl.com/lev3jj I don't see anything similar to your case. It could work, but it would give a "literary" flavor, as opposed to a more technical one. Marius Hancu >> I think I see your reasoning. Not too bad, however I think this is >> possible only in some combinations, such as "in years past," "in times [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Thanks for the response. Try this: 1. Go to http://www.americancorpus.org/ 2. After you enter the site (you may have to register, but it's free), type "* past" (without the quotes) in the Words(S) box in the Search String panel. I get a total of 108,880 instances in the corpus of "past" occurring after another word. "minutes past" occurs 1160 times "years past" 639 times "recent past" 526 times Click on any of the entries and you will be shown the text from which they were taken. Marius Hancu: >>> ...I think this is possible only in some combinations, such as >>> "in years past," "in times past." It's a literary usage and, as Marius said, limited in scope. "Sam": > Try this: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "years past" 639 times > "recent past" 526 times But this tells you nothing about the usage being asked about, where "past" is an *adjective*, despite its position after the noun. In "minutes past" the word "past" is almost certainly a preposition or adverb; in "years past" it could be the same usage or it could be the adjective; in "recent past" it's almost certainly a noun.  SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Those who cannot Google the past are destined to msb@vex.net | repost it." -- Huey Callison, after Santayana My text in this article is in the public domain. >Marius Hancu: >>>> ...I think this is possible only in some combinations, such as [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >or adverb; in "years past" it could be the same usage or it could >be the adjective; in "recent past" it's almost certainly a noun. OK, I'll hold your hand a bit more. That site has all kinds of search parameters for filtering on part of speech. I've only used it a little, but I believe a search string something like "* past.[j*]" might provide more narrowly-focused data. > I'm wondering when, if ever, the use of the word "past" as a > postposition (following a noun) is acceptable. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Can anyone give other good examples of using past as a postposition, > as in "The Ghost of Christmas Past"? ... I can think of one or two when to the sessions of sweet silent thought I summon up remembrance of things past. In general, "noun past" strikes me as an affectation of an old- fashioned poetic style. It doesn't go well with "development". Just my taste. That sentence has other problems. I can't understand it, but maybe I'm being dense. I doubt impetuses can lie or can be interwoven with currents. Neither "fashioning" nor "unshakable" seems like the right word. The placement of "also" seems strange. And I'm sure "impetuses" doesn't agree with "lies". -- Jerry Friedman >> I'm wondering when, if ever, the use of the word "past" as a >> postposition (following a noun) is acceptable. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I can think of one or two when to the sessions of sweet silent thought > I summon up remembrance of things past. And I am, on the whole, in accord with the idea that Time present and time past Are both perhaps present in time future, And time future contained in time past. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > In general, "noun past" strikes me as an affectation of an old- > fashioned poetic style. Fully agree. Marius Hancu > That sentence has other problems. I can't understand it, but maybe > I'm being dense. I think it's pompous nonsense. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> That sentence has other problems. I can't understand it, but maybe >> I'm being dense. > >I think it's pompous nonsense. Since pompous nonsense deserves any break it can get, here's a second serving should anyone have missed the line: "Interwoven with these historical currents lies also the philosophical impetuses for fashioning participation as an unshakable solution to the ills of development past." SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Since pompous nonsense deserves any break it can get, here's a second > serving should anyone have missed the line: > > "Interwoven with these historical currents lies also the philosophical > impetuses for fashioning participation as an unshakable solution to > the ills of development past." OK, hands up. Did anyone reading "the ills of development past" NOT think of "the Ghost of Christmas Past"? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Since pompous nonsense deserves any break it can get, here's a second >> serving should anyone have missed the line: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >OK, hands up. Did anyone reading "the ills of development past" NOT >think of "the Ghost of Christmas Past"? I thought of it only after you drew our attention to the segment a second ago. There was much to gloss over and little to concentrate on in the line, after all. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > I'm wondering when, if ever, the use of the word "past" as a > postposition (following a noun) is acceptable. Just for your reference: --- Syntactic functions of adjectives Postpositive "Appointed," "desired," required;" "following," "past," "preceding;" and "positive" also occur in either position: at the appointed time ~ at the time appointed in past years ~ in years past the preceding years ~ the years preceeding positive proof ~ proof positive Quirk et al, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, 1985, p. 419 ---- You may (or not) consider as an official license this to put "past" in either position. However, see the discussion herein:-) Marius Hancu > You may (or not) consider as an official license this to put "past" in > either position. However, see the discussion herein:-) consider THIS Thanks so much for all the responses. I know that the sentence as a whole is difficult to understand, particularly when taken out of context. The paper in its entirety is pretty technical/dense. That's academia for you. And as for the criticism (in typical a.u.e fashion) of writing "pompous nonsense", I had hoped for some of that, too. It does help. Again, I appreciate all the feedback. js > I'm wondering when, if ever, the use of the word "past" as a > postposition (following a noun) is acceptable. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Please enlighten. Thanks for the help. Good grief! I used to know a few people who wrote like that. That's all they could do, though. Great for Mission Statements and such -- stuff that no one reads. Also, "... lies ... impetuses ..."? Arrgh! SignatureSkitt (AmE) > I'm wondering when, if ever, the use of the word "past" as a > postposition (following a noun) is acceptable. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Please enlighten. Thanks for the help. Impetuses? Aw, c'MON. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.