Passed vs Past

I walk PAST her. or I walked PAST her.

I passed the onions.

Or...

I passed her.

"Passed" is a verb. "Past" isn't.

I can't think of any simpler way to say it. I can think of many complicated ways...

I think a good way to look at it is Past is temporal and Passed is linear: Time vs. Space.

Past, here, is a preposition. It can be an adjective or an adverb as well, but never a verb.

Past.

Past is an adverb here: I walked past her.

Passed is the past tense of the verb "pass": I passed her.

maestrowork said:

Past.

Past is an adverb here: I walked past her.

Passed is the past tense of the verb "pass": I passed her.

Click to expand...

Isn't it a preposition?

"I walked past her."

Replace with "I walked beyond her."

"Her" is the object of the preposition.

Danger Jane said:

Isn't it a preposition?

"I walked past her."

Replace with "I walked beyond her."

"Her" is the object of the preposition.

Click to expand...

It's indeed a preposition. A preposition, unlike an adverb, requires an object, as you pointed out.

In "I walked past", "past" is an adverb. Correct me if I'm wrong.

ErylRavenwell said:

It's indeed a preposition. A preposition, unlike an adverb, requires an object, as you pointed out.

In "I walked past", "past" is an adverb. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it still be a preposition, just one with an implied object?

"I walked over." Over doesn't become an adverb just because there's no object written. A preposition doesn't need an explicit object, just an implicit one. An adverb, however, must modify the verb--and "over" in this example (or "past" in the previous) doesn't modify the verb, it rather explains/clarifies it.

I passed out.

I passed gas.

I was past (I had gone beyond) caring.

Danger Jane said:

Wouldn't it still be a preposition, just one with an implied object?

"I walked over." Over doesn't become an adverb just because there's no object written. A preposition doesn't need an explicit object, just an implicit one. An adverb, however, must modify the verb--and "over" in this example (or "past" in the previous) doesn't modify the verb, it rather explains/clarifies it.

Click to expand...

I'm at a loss for an explanation, Jane. But for what I can tell:

He allowed him through. Here, "though" is an adverb.

A fox slipped through a hole. Here it is a preposition.

Maybe it is in fact modifying the verb. We'll need an authority on the matter.

ErylRavenwell said:

In "I walked past", "past" is an adverb. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Danger Jane said:

Wouldn't it still be a preposition, just one with an implied object?

Click to expand...

ErylRavenwell said:

I'm at a loss for an explanation, Jane. But for what I can tell:

He allowed him through. Here, "though" is an adverb.

A fox slipped through a hole. Here it is a preposition.

Maybe it is in fact modifying the verb. We'll need an authority on the matter.

Click to expand...

You summoned the grammar imp?

You're both right, but you're using different theories.

Eryl is using traditional grammar, where parts of speech are defined in an odd mixture of form and function. A preposition is defined by preceding a nounphrase and giving information as to the wehere, where to, when etc. (It's not an adjective, because an adjective precedes a noun and is "part" of the noun phrase: "the blue cat", not "blue the cat" vs. "for the cat" not "the for cat".)

If the word doesn't precede a noun-phrase, it's viewed an adverb. Adverbs - in traditional grammar - are a very large class. (This has implications for the semantics of "to be", too; for example, in "I am here," "here" is an adverb; this often leads traditional grammarians to interpret the sentence as "I exist here".)

Jane's theory is newer (but more convincing to me). In this theory, the wordclass "preposition" functions similarly to verbs - i.e. there are transitive prepositions and intransitive prepositions. So "up" in "Tim climbed up," and "Tim climbed up the tree," differ in that the former is intransitive, so that the direction is all you get, while the latter is transitive so that the direction is viewed relative to the prepositional object "tree". In the "up" might be an implied object, same as there could be one in "I am eating." This is not a syntactic question so much, as it is a semantic one. There is no implied object in "I am here," or "Come here," but "here" is still an intransitive preposition, in this theory.

Note that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. The second approach is better at dealing with the "piling on" of prepositions:

"He went out through the door." "He looked back down into the void."

They generally frame it as a preposition phrase functioning as the object of a preposition:

He went [out [through the door]].

He looked [back[down[into the void]]].

The adverb theory has problems with this, as all the adverbs would have to tie back to the verb, but the problem is that in "through the door" "through" is a preposition, so you'd have a prepositional phrase modifying either an adverb (subordination with "out") or the verb (coordination with "out"). This complicates the theory, as now you make a difference between "adverbial" (as sentence function) and adverb (as word type) that you failed to make when the phrase (the "preposition/adverb") was just a word long. There are lots of papers about this.

The other theory, however, has troubles dealing with "prepositions of time":

For example, "now" looks like the temporal equivalent to "here", but in certain respects it behaves like an adjective, not like a preposition. Take word-order:

Adverb:

He quickly comes. -- Quickly he comes. -- He comes quickly.

Temporal adverb/preposition:

He now comes. -- Now he comes. -- He comes now.

Spatial adverb/preposition:

*He here comes. -- Here he comes. -- He comes here.

No theory pans out completely if you scrutinise them, but I do prefer the second theory that prepositions have transitivity, like verbs.

Grammar imp sings out.

holy cow. i love how these simple question threads blossom to so many answers. i thought i answered the question succinctly. but i guess it's more helpful to explain why. i only showed examples. go team...

Like I said, I could think of several more complicated ways to say it.

I lacked the courage. Others did not.

That's what we do. Besides, It helps me to know the whys as well as the whats. Teach me to fish

I'm late to the discussion, and forgive me if I missed somebody stating this already, but ... in fact, an adverb doesn't have to modify a verb. Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs.

Modifying a verb: "You sing beautifully." Beautifully is an adverb that modifies the verb sing.

Modifying an adjective: "The sky was beautifully cloudless." Beautifully is an adverb that modifies the adjective cloudless, which modifies the noun sky.

Modifying another adverb: "You sing so beautifully." So is the adverb modifying beautifully, which is an adverb modifying the verb sing.

*sigh* I remember when I used to get paid to say this stuff ...