What part of speech is “back” in “If you want it back”?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
2
down vote

favorite
3













If you want it back ...




I'm doing a school project and need to figure out parts of speech in my letter that I wrote, but, I dont know what "back" is, can anyone help?






prepositions adverbs parts-of-speech grammatical-structure







share|improve this question









New contributor




CJ Gross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1




    I would say it is a noun of condition, equivalent to "I want it returned/improved/cooked/raw/scrambled etc"
    – WS2
    5 hours ago










  • @WSJ None of your examples are nouns, they are adjectives.
    – Mark Beadles
    44 mins ago
















up vote
2
down vote

favorite
3













If you want it back ...




I'm doing a school project and need to figure out parts of speech in my letter that I wrote, but, I dont know what "back" is, can anyone help?






prepositions adverbs parts-of-speech grammatical-structure







share|improve this question









New contributor




CJ Gross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1




    I would say it is a noun of condition, equivalent to "I want it returned/improved/cooked/raw/scrambled etc"
    – WS2
    5 hours ago










  • @WSJ None of your examples are nouns, they are adjectives.
    – Mark Beadles
    44 mins ago












up vote
2
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
3






3






If you want it back ...




I'm doing a school project and need to figure out parts of speech in my letter that I wrote, but, I dont know what "back" is, can anyone help?






prepositions adverbs parts-of-speech grammatical-structure







share|improve this question









New contributor




CJ Gross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












If you want it back ...




I'm doing a school project and need to figure out parts of speech in my letter that I wrote, but, I dont know what "back" is, can anyone help?






prepositions adverbs parts-of-speech grammatical-structure




prepositions adverbs parts-of-speech grammatical-structure






share|improve this question









New contributor




CJ Gross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




CJ Gross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









Araucaria

34.2k963137




34.2k963137






New contributor




CJ Gross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









CJ Gross

181




181




New contributor




CJ Gross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





CJ Gross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






CJ Gross is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1




    I would say it is a noun of condition, equivalent to "I want it returned/improved/cooked/raw/scrambled etc"
    – WS2
    5 hours ago










  • @WSJ None of your examples are nouns, they are adjectives.
    – Mark Beadles
    44 mins ago












  • 1




    I would say it is a noun of condition, equivalent to "I want it returned/improved/cooked/raw/scrambled etc"
    – WS2
    5 hours ago










  • @WSJ None of your examples are nouns, they are adjectives.
    – Mark Beadles
    44 mins ago







1




1




I would say it is a noun of condition, equivalent to "I want it returned/improved/cooked/raw/scrambled etc"
– WS2
5 hours ago




I would say it is a noun of condition, equivalent to "I want it returned/improved/cooked/raw/scrambled etc"
– WS2
5 hours ago












@WSJ None of your examples are nouns, they are adjectives.
– Mark Beadles
44 mins ago




@WSJ None of your examples are nouns, they are adjectives.
– Mark Beadles
44 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













This is a good question. Traditional nineteenth century grammarians and most twentieth century ones classified it as an adverb. The reason is that it did not fit their definitions of nouns, verbs, adjectives or prepositions.



However, many twentieth century grammarians since the 1920's, realised that back and similar words have none of the properties of adverbs and nealy all the properties of traditional prepositions. They recognised that the traditional word class preposition was badly concieved and needed to be rethought, because these types of word, like back, away, out and so forth were clearly the same types of words as in, on and at. They also recognised that the name for this category of word, preposition, is a bad one. However, they thought it would be too difficult to change.



Most serious twenty-first century grammarians and syntacticians now reognise words like back and away to be intransitive prepositions. They are described as intransitive because they take no 'object'.



These are the ways that words like back are not like adverbs:




  1. Adverbs cannot be used as predicative complements of the verb BE:



    • *The guards are locally. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards are back.



  2. In standard Englishes, adverbs cannot usually be modified by the specialised adverbs straight and right



    • *The guards returned right recently. (ungrammatical)

    • *The guards returned straight recently. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back.



  3. Most adverbs can be modified by the adverb very.



    • very recently

    • *very back. (ungrammatical)



  4. It is extrmely rare for adverb phrases to be able to modify nouns, but back-phrases can:



    • *the very beautifully people (ungrammatical)

    • *the people very beautifully (ungrammatical)

    • the people back home



  5. Adverbs cannot be used as locative complements of verbs such as put:



    • *Put the pen locally. (ungrammatical)

    • Put the pen back.


Now see that regular prepositions, that take noun phrase complements, pattern just like back:




  1. Complements of BE:



    • The guards are back.

    • The guards are in town.



  2. Modification by straight and right:



    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back

    • The guards ran straight through the building.

    • The guards ran right through the building.



  3. modification by *very:



    • *very back (ungrammatical)

    • *very through the tunnel (ungrammatical)



  4. noun modification:



    • people back home

    • people in France



  5. Locative complements:



    • put the pen back

    • put the pen on the table


Conclusion



Traditional twentieth century grammars (and hence most dictionaries, which are wildly out of date) regard back as an adverb. Modern academic grammars classify back as a preposition. Unless the Original Poster has a lot of time to explain why back is a preposition, they might be better off describing it as an adverb in their project.



Alternatively, they could cite a modern academic reference grammar such as:




  • Oxford Modern English Grammar by Bas Aarts, 2011.


  • A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.





share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    OED still has back as an adverb, but it hasn't been updated since 1885. However, it also says "aphetic for aback" which is definitely an adverb. It's not clear what they intend aphetic to mean.
    – Andrew Leach♦
    2 hours ago










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






CJ Gross is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468152%2fwhat-part-of-speech-is-back-in-if-you-want-it-back%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote













This is a good question. Traditional nineteenth century grammarians and most twentieth century ones classified it as an adverb. The reason is that it did not fit their definitions of nouns, verbs, adjectives or prepositions.



However, many twentieth century grammarians since the 1920's, realised that back and similar words have none of the properties of adverbs and nealy all the properties of traditional prepositions. They recognised that the traditional word class preposition was badly concieved and needed to be rethought, because these types of word, like back, away, out and so forth were clearly the same types of words as in, on and at. They also recognised that the name for this category of word, preposition, is a bad one. However, they thought it would be too difficult to change.



Most serious twenty-first century grammarians and syntacticians now reognise words like back and away to be intransitive prepositions. They are described as intransitive because they take no 'object'.



These are the ways that words like back are not like adverbs:




  1. Adverbs cannot be used as predicative complements of the verb BE:



    • *The guards are locally. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards are back.



  2. In standard Englishes, adverbs cannot usually be modified by the specialised adverbs straight and right



    • *The guards returned right recently. (ungrammatical)

    • *The guards returned straight recently. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back.



  3. Most adverbs can be modified by the adverb very.



    • very recently

    • *very back. (ungrammatical)



  4. It is extrmely rare for adverb phrases to be able to modify nouns, but back-phrases can:



    • *the very beautifully people (ungrammatical)

    • *the people very beautifully (ungrammatical)

    • the people back home



  5. Adverbs cannot be used as locative complements of verbs such as put:



    • *Put the pen locally. (ungrammatical)

    • Put the pen back.


Now see that regular prepositions, that take noun phrase complements, pattern just like back:




  1. Complements of BE:



    • The guards are back.

    • The guards are in town.



  2. Modification by straight and right:



    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back

    • The guards ran straight through the building.

    • The guards ran right through the building.



  3. modification by *very:



    • *very back (ungrammatical)

    • *very through the tunnel (ungrammatical)



  4. noun modification:



    • people back home

    • people in France



  5. Locative complements:



    • put the pen back

    • put the pen on the table


Conclusion



Traditional twentieth century grammars (and hence most dictionaries, which are wildly out of date) regard back as an adverb. Modern academic grammars classify back as a preposition. Unless the Original Poster has a lot of time to explain why back is a preposition, they might be better off describing it as an adverb in their project.



Alternatively, they could cite a modern academic reference grammar such as:




  • Oxford Modern English Grammar by Bas Aarts, 2011.


  • A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.





share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    OED still has back as an adverb, but it hasn't been updated since 1885. However, it also says "aphetic for aback" which is definitely an adverb. It's not clear what they intend aphetic to mean.
    – Andrew Leach♦
    2 hours ago














up vote
4
down vote













This is a good question. Traditional nineteenth century grammarians and most twentieth century ones classified it as an adverb. The reason is that it did not fit their definitions of nouns, verbs, adjectives or prepositions.



However, many twentieth century grammarians since the 1920's, realised that back and similar words have none of the properties of adverbs and nealy all the properties of traditional prepositions. They recognised that the traditional word class preposition was badly concieved and needed to be rethought, because these types of word, like back, away, out and so forth were clearly the same types of words as in, on and at. They also recognised that the name for this category of word, preposition, is a bad one. However, they thought it would be too difficult to change.



Most serious twenty-first century grammarians and syntacticians now reognise words like back and away to be intransitive prepositions. They are described as intransitive because they take no 'object'.



These are the ways that words like back are not like adverbs:




  1. Adverbs cannot be used as predicative complements of the verb BE:



    • *The guards are locally. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards are back.



  2. In standard Englishes, adverbs cannot usually be modified by the specialised adverbs straight and right



    • *The guards returned right recently. (ungrammatical)

    • *The guards returned straight recently. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back.



  3. Most adverbs can be modified by the adverb very.



    • very recently

    • *very back. (ungrammatical)



  4. It is extrmely rare for adverb phrases to be able to modify nouns, but back-phrases can:



    • *the very beautifully people (ungrammatical)

    • *the people very beautifully (ungrammatical)

    • the people back home



  5. Adverbs cannot be used as locative complements of verbs such as put:



    • *Put the pen locally. (ungrammatical)

    • Put the pen back.


Now see that regular prepositions, that take noun phrase complements, pattern just like back:




  1. Complements of BE:



    • The guards are back.

    • The guards are in town.



  2. Modification by straight and right:



    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back

    • The guards ran straight through the building.

    • The guards ran right through the building.



  3. modification by *very:



    • *very back (ungrammatical)

    • *very through the tunnel (ungrammatical)



  4. noun modification:



    • people back home

    • people in France



  5. Locative complements:



    • put the pen back

    • put the pen on the table


Conclusion



Traditional twentieth century grammars (and hence most dictionaries, which are wildly out of date) regard back as an adverb. Modern academic grammars classify back as a preposition. Unless the Original Poster has a lot of time to explain why back is a preposition, they might be better off describing it as an adverb in their project.



Alternatively, they could cite a modern academic reference grammar such as:




  • Oxford Modern English Grammar by Bas Aarts, 2011.


  • A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.





share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    OED still has back as an adverb, but it hasn't been updated since 1885. However, it also says "aphetic for aback" which is definitely an adverb. It's not clear what they intend aphetic to mean.
    – Andrew Leach♦
    2 hours ago












up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









This is a good question. Traditional nineteenth century grammarians and most twentieth century ones classified it as an adverb. The reason is that it did not fit their definitions of nouns, verbs, adjectives or prepositions.



However, many twentieth century grammarians since the 1920's, realised that back and similar words have none of the properties of adverbs and nealy all the properties of traditional prepositions. They recognised that the traditional word class preposition was badly concieved and needed to be rethought, because these types of word, like back, away, out and so forth were clearly the same types of words as in, on and at. They also recognised that the name for this category of word, preposition, is a bad one. However, they thought it would be too difficult to change.



Most serious twenty-first century grammarians and syntacticians now reognise words like back and away to be intransitive prepositions. They are described as intransitive because they take no 'object'.



These are the ways that words like back are not like adverbs:




  1. Adverbs cannot be used as predicative complements of the verb BE:



    • *The guards are locally. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards are back.



  2. In standard Englishes, adverbs cannot usually be modified by the specialised adverbs straight and right



    • *The guards returned right recently. (ungrammatical)

    • *The guards returned straight recently. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back.



  3. Most adverbs can be modified by the adverb very.



    • very recently

    • *very back. (ungrammatical)



  4. It is extrmely rare for adverb phrases to be able to modify nouns, but back-phrases can:



    • *the very beautifully people (ungrammatical)

    • *the people very beautifully (ungrammatical)

    • the people back home



  5. Adverbs cannot be used as locative complements of verbs such as put:



    • *Put the pen locally. (ungrammatical)

    • Put the pen back.


Now see that regular prepositions, that take noun phrase complements, pattern just like back:




  1. Complements of BE:



    • The guards are back.

    • The guards are in town.



  2. Modification by straight and right:



    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back

    • The guards ran straight through the building.

    • The guards ran right through the building.



  3. modification by *very:



    • *very back (ungrammatical)

    • *very through the tunnel (ungrammatical)



  4. noun modification:



    • people back home

    • people in France



  5. Locative complements:



    • put the pen back

    • put the pen on the table


Conclusion



Traditional twentieth century grammars (and hence most dictionaries, which are wildly out of date) regard back as an adverb. Modern academic grammars classify back as a preposition. Unless the Original Poster has a lot of time to explain why back is a preposition, they might be better off describing it as an adverb in their project.



Alternatively, they could cite a modern academic reference grammar such as:




  • Oxford Modern English Grammar by Bas Aarts, 2011.


  • A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.





share|improve this answer














This is a good question. Traditional nineteenth century grammarians and most twentieth century ones classified it as an adverb. The reason is that it did not fit their definitions of nouns, verbs, adjectives or prepositions.



However, many twentieth century grammarians since the 1920's, realised that back and similar words have none of the properties of adverbs and nealy all the properties of traditional prepositions. They recognised that the traditional word class preposition was badly concieved and needed to be rethought, because these types of word, like back, away, out and so forth were clearly the same types of words as in, on and at. They also recognised that the name for this category of word, preposition, is a bad one. However, they thought it would be too difficult to change.



Most serious twenty-first century grammarians and syntacticians now reognise words like back and away to be intransitive prepositions. They are described as intransitive because they take no 'object'.



These are the ways that words like back are not like adverbs:




  1. Adverbs cannot be used as predicative complements of the verb BE:



    • *The guards are locally. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards are back.



  2. In standard Englishes, adverbs cannot usually be modified by the specialised adverbs straight and right



    • *The guards returned right recently. (ungrammatical)

    • *The guards returned straight recently. (ungrammatical)

    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back.



  3. Most adverbs can be modified by the adverb very.



    • very recently

    • *very back. (ungrammatical)



  4. It is extrmely rare for adverb phrases to be able to modify nouns, but back-phrases can:



    • *the very beautifully people (ungrammatical)

    • *the people very beautifully (ungrammatical)

    • the people back home



  5. Adverbs cannot be used as locative complements of verbs such as put:



    • *Put the pen locally. (ungrammatical)

    • Put the pen back.


Now see that regular prepositions, that take noun phrase complements, pattern just like back:




  1. Complements of BE:



    • The guards are back.

    • The guards are in town.



  2. Modification by straight and right:



    • The guards ran straight back.

    • The guards ran right back

    • The guards ran straight through the building.

    • The guards ran right through the building.



  3. modification by *very:



    • *very back (ungrammatical)

    • *very through the tunnel (ungrammatical)



  4. noun modification:



    • people back home

    • people in France



  5. Locative complements:



    • put the pen back

    • put the pen on the table


Conclusion



Traditional twentieth century grammars (and hence most dictionaries, which are wildly out of date) regard back as an adverb. Modern academic grammars classify back as a preposition. Unless the Original Poster has a lot of time to explain why back is a preposition, they might be better off describing it as an adverb in their project.



Alternatively, they could cite a modern academic reference grammar such as:




  • Oxford Modern English Grammar by Bas Aarts, 2011.


  • A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 4 mins ago

























answered 2 hours ago









Araucaria

34.2k963137




34.2k963137







  • 1




    OED still has back as an adverb, but it hasn't been updated since 1885. However, it also says "aphetic for aback" which is definitely an adverb. It's not clear what they intend aphetic to mean.
    – Andrew Leach♦
    2 hours ago












  • 1




    OED still has back as an adverb, but it hasn't been updated since 1885. However, it also says "aphetic for aback" which is definitely an adverb. It's not clear what they intend aphetic to mean.
    – Andrew Leach♦
    2 hours ago







1




1




OED still has back as an adverb, but it hasn't been updated since 1885. However, it also says "aphetic for aback" which is definitely an adverb. It's not clear what they intend aphetic to mean.
– Andrew Leach♦
2 hours ago




OED still has back as an adverb, but it hasn't been updated since 1885. However, it also says "aphetic for aback" which is definitely an adverb. It's not clear what they intend aphetic to mean.
– Andrew Leach♦
2 hours ago










CJ Gross is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









 

draft saved


draft discarded


















CJ Gross is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












CJ Gross is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











CJ Gross is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468152%2fwhat-part-of-speech-is-back-in-if-you-want-it-back%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
Read more

Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugins nextgis share | improve this question edited 3 hours ago PolyGeo ♦ 51.9k 17 77 233 asked 4 hours ago IanGS 16 4 New contributor IanGS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugin...
Read more

One-line joke

A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
Read more