I lately lost a preposition

[Joel S. Berson]

At 2/10/2008 10:33 AM, Arnold M. Zwicky wrote:
>so maybe the "proceed" cases are just instances of a small-scale
>idiom, now vanished.

Not quite vanished?  My instance is in the print  2004 _Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography_.

I did notice that "agreed" took an "a" and "proceeded" did not, but
being a non-professional I do not know whether that is significant
(how many other verbs in British usage can/do follow either model?)
-- nor do I know what "arthrous" means!

Joel

>On Feb 9, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Joel Berson wrote (in reply to Mark Mandel):
>
>>I thought "proceeded DD" was a case of lost preposition just like the
>>"agreed"s previously on this chain.
>>
>>"Iraqi leaders finally agree a draft constitution" = "agreed to a"
>>"Hall proceeded DD in 1596" = "proceeded to a" [Doctor of Divinity]
>>
>>
>>At 2/9/2008 08:32 PM, Mark Mandel wrote:
>
>>>... THEREFORE... the DNB quotation is not a case of dropped
>>>preposition, or
>>>British D.O. vs. US prepositional object, but a meaning that
>>>doesn't occur
>>>in the US at all, with its own valency.
>
>the "proceeded" and "agreed" cases are not entirely parallel.  the
>british "agreed" cases cited so far all have a full NP (with an
>article, in the non-headline instances), and with a range of these,
>but "proceed" seems to be used (well, have been used) with an
>anarthous object, and then only one naming a university degree.  so we
>have
>   Hall proceeded DD in 1596
>not
>   Hall proceeded a DD in 1596
>(which is what you'd expect if this use of "proceed" was just
>transitivization via loss of a preposition) or
>   Hall proceeded (a) new position in 1596.
>
>so maybe the "proceed" cases are just instances of a small-scale
>idiom, now vanished.
>
>arnold
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org