Is ’wait for’ a phrasal verb?

Hello, Deepcosmos—Whether "wait for" is a phrasal verb depends in part on what you understand by "phrasal verb." For it is obvious that "wait" and "for" collocate exceptionally well. For this answer I use Quirk et al. (1985).

Since one cannot simply "wait for," intransitively, we can eliminate right away the idea that it is an intransitive phrasal verb. And since one cannot *"wait it for," we can also eliminate the idea that "wait for" is a transitive phrasal verb.

In Quirk et al.'s categorization scheme, "wait for (NP/TP)"  is a prepositional verb, as can be seen by the fact that the preposition cannot come after the NP (*"wait it for") and by the fact that we can have sentences like this:

(3) He waited patiently for it.
(4) He waited patiently for the door to open.

Notice that with phrasal verbs, an adverb cannot be thus inserted. E.g., we can't change "The terrorist blew up the building," in which "blow up" functions as a single verb, to *"The terrorist blew completely up the building."

Another argument that can be made for the prepositional-verb status, as opposed to the phrasal-verb status, of "wait for" is that, in the passive voice, it is the lexical verb, not the preposition (or particle), that would receive stress:

(5a) *The building was blown up.
(5b) The building was blown up.

(6a) The doctor was waited for.
(6b) *The doctor was waited for.

Regarding cases in which a nonfinite infinitival clause, rather than a noun phrase, follows "wait for," as in "He waited for the door to open," Quirk et al. state the following about "They arranged for Mary to come at once":

Quote:

"In this case the construction is that of a prepositional verb arrange for ([B8pr]), the infinitive clause acting as prepositional object. Other examples where for occurs as part of a prepositional verb are: ask for, call for, ache for, aim for, burn for, burst for, care for, clamour for, crave for, hope for, itch for, long for, plan for, prepaire for, wait for, yearn for" (pp. 1193-1194, emphasis mine).

- Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, 1985.

Lastly, we can see that the infinitival clause in "wait [for [TP]]_PP" is properly parsed as such, rather than as "wait [for [TP]]_CP" (as, for example, "He would like [for] the door to open") from the results of gerund replacement:

(7a) He waited for the door to open.
(7b) He waited for the opening of the door.
(7c) *He waited the opening of the door.

(8a) He would like for the door to open.
(8b) *He would like for the opening of the door.
(8c) He would like the opening of the door.

@David, Moderator posted:

Hello, Deepcosmos—Whether "wait for" is a phrasal verb depends in part on what you understand by "phrasal verb." For it is obvious that "wait" and "for" collocate exceptionally well. For this answer I use Quirk et al. (1985).

Since one cannot simply "wait for," intransitively, we can eliminate right away the idea that it is an intransitive phrasal verb. And since one cannot *"wait it for," we can also eliminate the idea that "wait for" is a transitive phrasal verb.

In Quirk et al.'s categorization scheme, "wait for (NP/TP)"  is a prepositional verb, as can be seen by the fact that the preposition cannot come after the NP (*"wait it for") and by the fact that we can have sentences like this:

(3) He waited patiently for it.
(4) He waited patiently for the door to open.

Notice that with phrasal verbs, an adverb cannot be thus inserted. E.g., we can't change "The terrorist blew up the building," in which "blow up" functions as a single verb, to *"The terrorist blew completely up the building."

Another argument that can be made for the prepositional-verb status, as opposed to the phrasal-verb status, of "wait for" is that, in the passive voice, it is the lexical verb, not the preposition (or particle), that would receive stress:

(5a) *The building was blown up.
(5b) The building was blown up.

(6a) The doctor was waited for.
(6b) *The doctor was waited for.

Regarding cases in which a nonfinite infinitival clause, rather than a noun phrase, follows "wait for," as in "He waited for the door to open," Quirk et al. state the following about "They arranged for Mary to come at once":

Quote:

"In this case the construction is that of a prepositional verb arrange for ([B8pr]), the infinitive clause acting as prepositional object. Other examples where for occurs as part of a prepositional verb are: ask for, call for, ache for, aim for, burn for, burst for, care for, clamour for, crave for, hope for, itch for, long for, plan for, prepaire for, wait for, yearn for" (pp. 1193-1194, emphasis mine).

- Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, 1985.

Lastly, we can see that the infinitival clause in "wait [for [TP]]_PP" is properly parsed as such, rather than as "wait [for [TP]]_CP" (as, for example, "He would like [for] the door to open") from the results of gerund replacement:

(7a) He waited for the door to open.
(7b) He waited for the opening of the door.
(7c) *He waited the opening of the door.

(8a) He would like for the door to open.
(8b) *He would like for the opening of the door.
(8c) He would like the opening of the door.

Hello, David, thanks a million. Even though your response is frankly difficult to me at moment, I'll chew on yours and look up the book - A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.

@David, Moderator posted:

Lastly, we can see that the infinitival clause in "wait [for [TP]]_PP" is properly parsed as such, rather than as "wait [for [TP]]_CP" (as, for example, "He would like [for] the door to open") from the results of gerund replacement:

(7a) He waited for the door to open.
(7b) He waited for the opening of the door.
(7c) *He waited the opening of the door.

(8a) He would like for the door to open.
(8b) *He would like for the opening of the door.
(8c) He would like the opening of the door.

Hi, David,

I've understood your last lengthy explanation with sincere thanks except the following abbreviated terminology - TP, [TP]pp, [TP]cp. Please let me know the full word.

Hi, Deepcosmos—As you know, "the door to open" in "waited for the door to open" is a nonfinite infinitival clause. In formal syntax, it is a nonfinite Tense Phrase (TP), whose T head is lexically realized by "to" (the stem of the infinitive, not the preposition "to") rather than by tense (present or past).

"For" can either be a preposition or a complementizer introducing an infinitival clause. It is the latter in "I would like for the door to open." In that sentence, "for the door to open" is a Complementizer Phrase (CP), headed by the C "for," and containing the nonfinite TP.

In "I waited for the door to open," "for" is a preposition rather than a complementizer, as I argued above, and as is confirmed by Quirk et al. (1985). In that sentence "for the door to open" is a Prepositional Phrase (PP), headed by the P "for," and containing the nonfinite TP.

@David, Moderator posted:

Hi, Deepcosmos—As you know, "the door to open" in "waited for the door to open" is a nonfinite infinitival clause. In formal syntax, it is a nonfinite Tense Phrase (TP), whose T head is lexically realized by "to" (the stem of the infinitive, not the preposition "to") rather than by tense (present or past).

"For" can either be a preposition or a complementizer introducing an infinitival clause. It is the latter in "I would like for the door to open." In that sentence, "for the door to open" is a Complementizer Phrase (CP), headed by the C "for," and containing the nonfinite TP.

In "I waited for the door to open," "for" is a preposition rather than a complementizer, as I argued above, and as is confirmed by Quirk et al. (1985). In that sentence "for the door to open" is a Prepositional Phrase (PP), headed by the P "for," and containing the nonfinite TP.

Hi, David, thank you so much. I've learnt many things!

@David, Moderator posted:

Hi, Deepcosmos—As you know, "the door to open" in "waited for the door to open" is a nonfinite infinitival clause. In formal syntax, it is a nonfinite Tense Phrase (TP), whose T head is lexically realized by "to" (the stem of the infinitive, not the preposition "to") rather than by tense (present or past).

"For" can either be a preposition or a complementizer introducing an infinitival clause. It is the latter in "I would like for the door to open." In that sentence, "for the door to open" is a Complementizer Phrase (CP), headed by the C "for," and containing the nonfinite TP.

In "I waited for the door to open," "for" is a preposition rather than a complementizer, as I argued above, and as is confirmed by Quirk et al. (1985). In that sentence "for the door to open" is a Prepositional Phrase (PP), headed by the P "for," and containing the nonfinite TP.

Hello, David, long time, no see.

Very recently a question hit on me. If I interpret the original sentence "he waited for the door to open" to mean semantically "he waited until the door opened", If I'm right, I feel  the part of Prepositional Phrase (PP) - "for the door to open" is functioning as an adverbial phrase not as an objectival one of the prepositional verb - waited for. Since no explanation is available at all in any book around me and also on the internet materials, I would really appreciate, if you kindly shed light on this question.

What an interesting thread, Deepcosmos and David.

@deepcosmos posted:

If I interpret the original sentence "he waited for the door to open" to mean semantically "he waited until the door opened", If I'm right, I feel  the part of Prepositional Phrase (PP) - "for the door to open" is functioning as an adverbial phrase not as an objectival one of the prepositional verb - waited for.

I'd say that the meaning of the two sentences above is similar but not identical. In "wait for something to happen," there is a sense of expectancy which is not present in "wait until something happens," which is merely temporal. Just as you say "wait for the bus" or "wait for a person," in "wait for something to happen" you wait for that event (object). Notice how different "wait" can be depending on whether it is prepositional (and transitive) or intransitive:

- He waited for the bus to come (to take it).
- He waited until the bus came (perhaps to do something else).

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

I'd say that the meaning of the two sentences above is similar but not identical. In "wait for something to happen," there is a sense of expectancy which is not present in "wait until something happens," which is merely temporal. Just as you say "wait for the bus" or "wait for a person," in "wait for something to happen" you wait for that event (object). Notice how different "wait" can be depending on whether it is prepositional (and transitive) or intransitive:

- He waited for the bus to come (to take it).
- He waited until the bus came (perhaps to do something else).

Hi, Gustavo, thanks for your explanation, by which 'a sense of expectancy' could be a good point to differentiate two sentences above. Then, do you think the part of Prepositional Phrase (PP) - "for the door to open" is functioning as an objectival phrase of the prepositional verb - waited for ?

@deepcosmos posted:

Do you think the part of Prepositional Phrase (PP) - "for the door to open" is functioning as an objectival phrase of the prepositional verb - waited for ?

He waited for the door to open.

I'd analyse this as a catenative construction of the for-complex kind.

"For" is not a preposition here, but a subordinator marking the start of the non-finite clause and is obligatorily followed by the subject NP.

Note that when a to-infinitival clause contains a subject, it also contains the clause subordinator "for", which always appears at the beginning of the clause, right before the subject.

@billj posted:

He waited for the door to open.

I'd analyse this as a catenative construction of the for-complex kind.

"For" is not a preposition here, but a subordinator marking the start of the non-finite clause and is obligatorily followed by the subject NP.

Note that when a to-infinitival clause contains a subject, it also contains the clause subordinator "for", which always appears at the beginning of the clause, right before the subject.

Hi, BillJ, very glad to hear a good guidance from you.

Since I've once heard from an American friend that ’wait for’ is not a phrasal verb but 'a prepositional verb', thus it's not a catenative verb, I haven't noted to 'The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language' (CaGEL). However, interestingly as per your point, Huddleston classified 'wait for', 'arrange for' into the same category of catenative construction (2Aiii: for-complex (He longed to return home; He longed for her to return home) ), by which 'to open' is functioning as a complement of the catenative verb 'wait'.

@deepcosmos posted:

Since I've once heard from an American friend that ’wait for’ is not a phrasal verb but 'a prepositional verb', thus it's not a catenative verb, I haven't noted to 'The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language' (CaGEL). However, interestingly as per your point, Huddleston classified 'wait for', 'arrange for' into the same category of catenative construction (2Aiii: for-complex (He longed to return home; He longed for her to return home) ), by which 'to open' is functioning as a complement of the catenative verb 'wait'.

That accords with my analysis, whereby "for" is a subordinator, not a preposition, thus "wait" is not here a prepositional verb.

Note that "wait" does select for PPs, as in "Please wait for me", where here "for" is not a subordinator but a preposition with an NP complement.

Hi, Deepcosmos and BillJ,

Before you throw overboard my analysis at the beginning of this thread, which accords with Quirk et al.'s (who expressly categorize "wait for" in the pattern "wait for [infinitival clause]"), please revisit the reason I gave for deeming "for" a preposition rather than a complementizer/subordinator:

@David, Moderator posted:

Lastly, we can see that the infinitival clause in "wait [for [TP]]_PP" is properly parsed as such, rather than as "wait [for [TP]]_CP" (as, for example, "He would like [for] the door to open") from the results of gerund replacement:

(7a) He waited for the door to open.
(7b) He waited for the opening of the door.
(7c) *He waited the opening of the door.

(8a) He would like for the door to open.
(8b) *He would like for the opening of the door.
(8c) He would like the opening of the door.

The other parts of my analysis in my first post may be worth your review, as well, Deepcosmos, before you reject them. To add to the reason I gave above for deeming "for" a preposition rather than a complementizer in this construction, I'd like you to consider what happens in questions:

Sentence: I would like very much for the door to open.
Question: What would you like? (NOT: *What would you like for?)

Sentence: I am waiting for the door to open.
Question: What are you waiting for? (NOT: *What are you waiting?)

"Like" takes an infinitival-clause complement, one that may or may not have the complementizer/subordinator "for" included. "Wait" does not take such an infinitival-clause complement. It is "wait for" that takes an infinitival-clause complement. The infinitival clause follows, but does not include, "for," which is clearly a preposition here, not a complementizer/subordinator.

@David, Moderator posted:

Before you throw overboard my analysis at the beginning of this thread, which accords with Quirk et al.'s (who expressly categorize "wait for" in the pattern "wait for [infinitival clause]"), please revisit the reason I gave for deeming "for" a preposition rather than a complementizer/subordinator:

The other parts of my analysis in my first post may be worth your review, as well, Deepcosmos, before you reject them. To add to the reason I gave above for deeming "for" a preposition rather than a complementizer in this construction, I'd like you to consider what happens in questions:

Sentence: I would like very much for the door to open.
Question: What would you like? (NOT: *What would you like for?)

Sentence: I am waiting for the door to open.
Question: What are you waiting for? (NOT: *What are you waiting?)

"Like" takes an infinitival-clause complement, one that may or may not have the complementizer/subordinator "for" included. "Wait" does not take such an infinitival-clause complement. It is "wait for" that takes an infinitival-clause complement. The infinitival clause follows, but does not include, "for," which is clearly a preposition here, not a complementizer/subordinator.

Hi, David, I'm very fortunate to have your response before sleeping. Since I'm still a learner only for English grammar, who has recently broadened my sight just upto catenative verbs in the long grammar voyage, I'm not in the position at all enough to throw overboard your analysis. Frankly, it is far beyond my ability to judge this 'for' to be a preposition or a complementizer, but I learn it through Q and As.

David, returning back to my question, I'll appreciate on your further reply;

1) if the part of Prepositional Phrase (PP) - "for the door to open" is functioning as an adverbial phrase or as an objectival one of the prepositional verb - waited for?

2) do you agree to categorize "wait for" in catenative verbs?

@deepcosmos posted:

Hi, David, I'm very fortunate to have your response before sleeping. Since I'm still a learner only for English grammar, who has recently broadened my sight just upto catenative verbs in the long grammar voyage, I'm not in the position at all enough to throw overboard your analysis. Frankly, it is far beyond my ability to judge this 'for' to be a preposition or a complementizer, but I learn it through Q and As.

David, returning back to my question, I'll appreciate on your further reply;

1) if the part of Prepositional Phrase (PP) - "for the door to open" is functioning as an adverbial phrase or as an objectival one of the prepositional verb - waited for?

2) do you agree to categorize "wait for" in catenative verbs?

Hi deepcosmos,

With respect, I think you have had adequate responses to your question.

Personally, I have no doubt whatsoever that what H&P say is right.

@deepcosmos posted:

Hi, David, I'm very fortunate to have your response before sleeping. Since I'm still a learner only for English grammar, who has recently broadened my sight just upto catenative verbs in the long grammar voyage, I'm not in the position at all enough to throw overboard your analysis. Frankly, it is far beyond my ability to judge this 'for' to be a preposition or a complementizer, but I learn it through Q and As.

David, returning back to my question, I'll appreciate on your further reply;

1) if the part of Prepositional Phrase (PP) - "for the door to open" is functioning as an adverbial phrase or as an objectival one of the prepositional verb - waited for?

2) do you agree to categorize "wait for" in catenative verbs?

1) As I have explained to you at great length, the infinitival clause has a subject ("the door") but no subordinator and functions as complement of the prepositional verb "wait for." There is no adverbial or "objectival," whatever that is.

2) I'm away from my grammar library at present (3000 miles away). When I return home next week, I'll take a look at the treatment of "wait for NP to VP" in CGEL and tell you whether, apart from mere differences in technical jargon, I find it consistent with my analysis here.

For now, I reject BillJ's dismissal of the prepositional-verb analysis, which is Quirk et al.'s analysis, and for which I have provided a handsome amount of persuasive evidence in this thread, including not just Quirk et al.'s points, but syntactic observations of my own.

@David, Moderator posted:

1) As I have explained to you at great length, the infinitival clause has a subject ("the door") but no subordinator and functions as complement of the prepositional verb "wait for." There is no adverbial or "objectival," whatever that is.

2) I'm away from my grammar library at present (3000 miles away). When I return home next week, I'll take a look at the treatment of "wait for NP to VP" in CGEL and tell you whether, apart from mere differences in technical jargon, I find it consistent with my analysis here.

For now, I reject BillJ's dismissal of the prepositional-verb analysis, which is Quirk et al.'s analysis, and for which I have provided a handsome amount of persuasive evidence in this thread, including not just Quirk et al.'s points, but syntactic observations of my own.

Hi, David, I might have bothered you without knowing you're away from your grammar library. I'm always appreciating the fact that I have joined G/Exchange, from which I have been informed of / have found wonderful and reliable explanation from all of your members, including ex. moderators - Richard, Rachel, Amy, Marilyn, etc,.

Hi, deepcosmos,

He waited for the door to open

I can tell you now that H&P’s CGEL treats "for" as a subordinator in infinitival clauses that contain a subject. There’s no question of that, see pp. 1181-1183.

It also (p1230) unequivocally treats "wait" as a catenative verb belonging to the for-complex subtype, as I said previously. An example is given with "long", which belongs in the same subgroup: He longed for her to return home.

Regarding “for”, the history goes back to the preposition “for”, and we see a strong similarity in meaning between I longed for your return and I longed for you to return. But this "for" behaves like a subordinator.

I believe you have a copy of CGEL. If you look at pp. 1182-3 you’ll find that the authors give a number of solid reasons for treating this "for" as a subordinator rather than a preposition. For example, for clauses occur in positions where for PPs cannot, such as subject, as in [For them to refuse you a visa] was quite outrageous.

Finally, may I ask why you find this point of grammar so important? As a learner of the English language, the status of "for" is not really that important in the overall scheme of things. I suggest you simply note the different approaches and leave it at that.

@billj posted:

Regarding “for”, the history goes back to the preposition “for”, and we see a strong similarity in meaning between I longed for your return and I longed for you to return. But this "for" behaves like a subordinator.

That is a poor reason for treating the "for" in "longed for you to return" as a subordinator. Where "for" is indisputably a subordinator/complementizer in infinitival constructions, as in "We would hate for that to happen," there is not a corresponding prepositional phrase construction: *"We would hate for it."

@billj posted:

I believe you have a copy of CGEL. If you look at pp. 1182-3 you’ll find that the authors give a number of solid reasons for treating this "for" as a subordinator rather than a preposition. For example, for clauses occur in positions where for PPs cannot, such as subject, as in [For them to refuse you a visa] was quite outrageous.

This point is irrelevant for how "for" should be classified in "wait for NP to VP" or "long for NP to VP" constructions. If you really wish to try to undermine my case for the prepositional-verb analysis, you might want to try to refute, or at least challenge, the arguments I have given, or make a point that is relevant, besides articulating your unswerving allegiance to Huddleston and Pullum's grammar.

@billj posted:

He waited for the door to open

I can tell you now that H&P’s CGEL treats "for" as a subordinator in infinitival clauses that contain a subject. There’s no question of that, see pp. 1181-1183.

Hi, BillJ, really appreciate your further explanation. You're also one of the persons who help me a lot to broaden my grammar knowledge. When I search google for my question, I've often read your threads in various well-known web sites.

I sincerely respect both of your approaching ways to analyze the constituent of the sentence above, and feel there might sometimes exist different analyzing methods for the same constituent such as for according to each expert's style.

@billj posted:

Finally, may I ask why you find this point of grammar so important? As a learner of the English language, the status of "for" is not really that important in the overall scheme of things. I suggest you simply note the different approaches and leave it at that.

I think it is my pure curiosity that drives me to dig a little deeper the structure of sentences than what is addressed at a practical level, which also has been one of my pleasure with English.

@deepcosmos posted:

Hi, BillJ, really appreciate your further explanation. You're also one of the persons who help me a lot to broaden my grammar knowledge. When I search google for my question, I've often read your threads in various well-known web sites.

I sincerely respect both of your approaching ways to analyze the constituent of the sentence above, and feel there might sometimes exist different analyzing methods for the same constituent such as for according to each expert's style.

I think it is my pure curiosity that drives me to dig a little deeper the structure of sentences than what is addressed at a practical level, which also has been one of my pleasure with English.

Thank you. I always try to answer questions in a way that is based on straightforward traditional descriptive grammar (except that the tradition has been fundamentally mistaken on numerous points for 200 years or more!)

I think this is better than invoking arcane theoretical concepts and formalisms.

Incidentally, the term 'phrasal verb' is a misnomer; it's thoroughly misleading. For example, in They fell out, ("argued") "fell out" is not a single word, not a constituent, at word level. It’s a VP. Verb is a word category, like noun, adjective, etc., and it’s "fell" that is a verb: this is the word that takes verbal inflections. So we have:

They had fallen out but not *They had fall outed.

The same applies to the  "blow up" example given earlier in this thread: not a single verb but two words.

Good luck, and don't take things too seriously.

@billj posted:

Incidentally, the term 'phrasal verb' is a misnomer; it's thoroughly misleading. For example, in They fell out, ("argued") "fell out" is not a single word, not a constituent, at word level. It’s a VP. Verb is a word category, like noun, adjective, etc., and it’s "fell" that is a verb: this is the word that takes verbal inflections. So we have:

They had fallen out but not *They had fall outed.

The same applies to the  "blow up" example given earlier in this thread: not a single verb but two words.

Actually, they are currently more frequently known as "multi-word verbs."

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

Actually, they are currently more frequently known as "multi-word verbs."

Yes, and BillJ should pay heed to the fact that none of us is saying that a phrasal (i.e., multi-word) verb is a single word! Phrasal/multi-word verbs are given separate entries in dictionaries because, taken together, the words have a meaning that is not a composite of the words of which they are composed.

For example, we say that "put up with" is a phrasal/multi-word verb, but nobody in their right mind would claim that "put up with" is a phrasal constituent in syntactic representation, or that it can inflect after the last word ("put up withs/withed/withing")!

A phrasal/multi-word verb will often have a verb with which it can be substituted which is not a phrasal/multi-word verb. Thus, "put up with" finds its one-word correlate in the verb "tolerate." And it inflects on the word verb in the construction: "He puts up with his disrespect"; "He tolerates his disrespect."

In "put up with," we have a verbal head ("put"), an adverbial particle ("up"), and a preposition ("with"). That the adverbial-particle category and preposition category are not the same is evidenced by Churchill's famous "up with which I shall not put," which works fine as "with which I shall not put up."

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

Actually, they are currently more frequently known as "multi-word verbs."

I wouldn't call them multi-word verbs, since that implies that all the components are verbs, which is not the case.  Of course, we are all aware of the idiomatic meaning of such expressions, but grammatically in an example like , "They fell out" ("disagreed"), "fell out" is not a multi-word verb, but verb+preposition.

If "out" really was part of a multi-word verb, one would expect it to take verbal inflections. But it can't because it's a preposition.

The term 'phrasal verb' implies that the combination of "fell+out" forms a syntactic constituent belongs to the category verb. It doesn't, which is why the term 'phrasal verb' is best avoided.

@David, Moderator posted:

Yes, and BillJ should pay heed to the fact that none of us is saying that a phrasal (i.e., multi-word) verb is a single word!

Yes, you did. In your first answer you said:

"Notice that with phrasal verbs, an adverb cannot be thus inserted. E.g., we can't change "The terrorist blew up the building," in which "blow up" functions as a single verb, ...

@billj posted:

Yes, you did. In your first answer you said:

"Notice that with phrasal verbs, an adverb cannot be thus inserted. E.g., we can't change "The terrorist blew up the building," in which "blow up" functions as a single verb, ...

No, I didn't. To say that a combination of words functions as a single word is not to say that it is a single word. Ice cream consists of two words (ice and cream), but it functions as one word. The point is that the separate words of a phrasal/multi-word verb are, when taken together, a unitary lexical item. They function as single words even though they consist of more than one word. Honoring unitary-lexical-item status is not to deny morphosyntactic complexity.

@David, Moderator posted:

No, I didn't. To say that a combination of words functions as a single word is not to say that it is a single word. Ice cream consists of two words (ice and cream), but it functions as one word. The point is that the separate words of a phrasal/multi-word verb are, when taken together, a unitary lexical item. They function as single words even though they consist of more than one word. Honoring unitary-lexical-item status is not to deny morphosyntactic complexity.

But "blow up" does not 'function' as a single word. At word level, it consists of two distinct constituents: "blow" + "up" (verb + prep comp)'. In They blew up the building, "blew up" is not a constituent since the words can be separated: They blew the building up.

To say that a combination of words functions as a single word but is not actually a single word is misleading, especially to learners – the people we're trying to help here. In a tree diagram, learners are likely to label "blow up" at word level as a grammatical unit, a single constituent, which is not the case.

The term 'multi-word verb' is misleading since it incorrectly implies that together the components constitute a single verb. This is why I said earlier that the term 'phrasal verb' is a misnomer.

As far as compound words are concerned, it's better to say that they consist not of two words but of two smaller bases. "Ice-cream" thus consists of the two bases "ice" and "cream".