4
I was walking with a friend and we saw a sign that said
Do not park here your motorbike. Thank you.
To me, it looks incorrect, and I think the correct sentence should be
Do not park your motorbike here. Thank you.
My friend insisted that the order of the words could be changed, though, and that the first sentence is correct.
Are both sentences correct?
Nuria
Posted 2016-06-05T12:27:27.800
Reputation: 143
4
In this sentence, here is an adverb of place that applies to the verb park.
According to this guide, it is normal to put adverbs of place at the end of a clause. They sometimes go at the start of the clause.
Do not park your motorbike here. Thank you. - this follows the guide
Do not park here your motorbike. Thank you. - this does not
As per the pirates code, it's more a guideline than a rule.
For example, it is possible to put information other than the direct object after the adverb:
We will be there at that table - this is OK
Do not park here your motorbike - this is not OK
JavaLatte
Posted 2016-06-05T12:27:27.800
Reputation: 43 538
The guide you linked doesn't say "never in the middle". Do you mean "We will be there at that table." is wrong? – None – 2016-06-05T13:35:20.873
1It's an oversimplified guide, but the fact remains that do not park here your motorbike is not idiomatic in any sense. – Alan Carmack – 2016-06-05T14:22:30.387
2@Ranthony, did I use the word "wrong"? I think not. To quote the Dalai Lama, "Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively." – JavaLatte – 2016-06-05T14:39:02.750
@JavaLatte You are the one who wrote "but never in the middle". You need to explain why. – None – 2016-06-05T14:44:33.663
I'm sorry, but this is totally wrong. It is absolutely normal for an adverb to appear in the middle of a clause with fundamental/non-comma-separable information afterward; consider e.g. "he hardly ate", "she spoke rudely to the waiter", "I came here to talk". The problem with the OP's example is simply that it puts the adverb between a verb and its direct object. – ruakh – 2016-06-05T23:39:45.057
@ruakh, neither hardly nor rudely are adverbs of place. As for to talk, it's a statement of purpose (in order to) which is eminently separable. It is not at all unusual to move such elements to the front of the sentence, for example "To talk, press the button on the side of the microphone." It sounds unconventional with a comma, but not wrong. Insert just after the comma and it sounds completely natural. – JavaLatte – 2016-06-06T05:24:35.540
@JavaLatte: Re: "hardly", "rudely": My bad. I missed that you specified "of place". Re: "I came here to talk": Not at all. *"I came here, to talk" would be completely wrong. ("To talk, I came here" is possible when there's a contrast -- "To talk, I came here; to listen, I will leave" -- but that doesn't support your argument, since you can also write, "Your motorbike, do not park here; but all other vehicles are allowed".) – ruakh – 2016-06-06T05:41:59.253
@ruakh, clearly the comma placement is too opinion-based. I have updated my answer to instead state that you can put information other than the direct object after the adverb. – JavaLatte – 2016-06-06T06:04:56.277
2
?? Do not park here your motorbike.
Frankly, it sounds like something a learner would write. But it is simply not idiomatic.
This is because adverbs modifying verbs do not appear between the verb and its object. See page 257 of, A teacher's grammar of English.
The version of the sentence with here after motorbike is correct and idiomatic and natural.
Alan Carmack
Posted 2016-06-05T12:27:27.800
Reputation: 11 630
Your link is an old (maybe too basic) rule. There could be many sentences where an adverb is placed between a verb and its direct object, especially when the object is long. Like "split to-infinitive rule", it doesn't work in contemporary English. If you can't find any example, let me know. I will find you a lot. – None – 2016-06-05T15:39:04.923
1 It is not an old rule. The book was published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press. The rule may not be comprehensive (introductory grammars rarely are), but it certainly "works in contemporary English", and it suffices for a question of this type here on ELL.
1@Rathony: This is completely different from the "split infinitive" rule. The split-infinitive rule is a made-up prescriptivist rule that has never had any basis in English usage. (It was invented at a time when Latin was considered the model for good grammar; in Latin, to-infinitives are single words, and are never split.) The "no adverbs between verbs and their direct objects" is a descriptivist rule that accurately describes the usage of all native speakers. This doesn't mean it's correct 100.0% of the time -- exceptions do exist -- but it's pretty close. – ruakh – 2016-06-05T23:33:19.257
0
I don't think it is a matter of whether the first sentence is correct or incorrect. Rather, it is a matter of which sentence is more idiomatic and your second example is far more idiomatic.
Positioning of adverbs in English is very tricky. Some are very flexible and some aren't without hard-and-fast rule.
Usually, adverbs are placed before a main verb and after an auxiliary or modal verb. However, this rule doesn't apply to every sentence. It will mainly depend on which word you want to emphasize or stress and whether their position will change the meaning of a sentence or not. For example, if you contrast
I will be waiting here. vs I will be here waiting.
Basically two sentences have the same meaning, however, the adverb here is positioned differently. The former places emphasis on "waiting" and the latter on "here". Usually, "waiting" in the former is stressed while "here" in the latter is.
As @JavaLatte explained, an adverb of place is usually, most of the time placed at the end or beginning of a sentence. However, it is not always the case as the second example sentence above shows.
Your second example will be far more broadly used than the first example. However, I don't see any reason why you can't use the first example if you want to emphasize "here".
2Because no native speaker writing normal, everyday, idiomatic English would write Do not park here your motorbike –in order to stress here or for any other reason. It's not that it's far less idiomatic, it's not at all idiomatic. – Alan Carmack – 2016-06-05T14:17:57.783
3Correct me if I'm wrong, but your example and mine are completely different, because in my example, here kind of "intrudes" between the verb and its direct object, while in yours it does not. – Nuria – 2016-06-05T14:42:20.713
@Nuria My example sentences are there to illustrate you can position "here" freely. Of course it is different from your example sentence and your first example is not idiomatic. – None – 2016-06-05T14:48:35.730
That's exactly right @Nuria. An adverb of place doesn't come in between the verb and its direct object. – Alan Carmack – 2016-06-05T15:03:05.670
So the first sentence is not idiomatic–which is exactly what I said. Contrary to your answer, which still implies that it is merely far less idiomatic and far less broadly used, and still says it's okay to put here after park, when in fact it's not. – Alan Carmack – 2016-06-05T15:16:48.097
But it is not "not as idiomatic as the second one," it is not idiomatic at all. – Alan Carmack – 2016-06-05T15:21:52.433
In what way is Don't park here your motorbike correct? Your statement However, I don't see any reason why you can't use the first example if you want to emphasize "here". reflects an unintuitive and unnatural view of looking at the sentences. Therefore it is misleading to learners to say it is correct. – Alan Carmack – 2016-06-05T16:13:40.867
2The correct way of saying it would be "Do not park your motorbike here". It was probably an error on the sign maker's part. – James Wirth – 2016-06-05T13:14:53.180
1The rule is not absolute but depends on a number of factors. Do not park in those spaces marked with a red (X) any vehicle longer than 15', wider than 7', or taller than 6'. or Do not park here on the grass any vehicle leaking oil. But "Do not park your motorbike here." – Tᴚoɯɐuo – 2016-06-05T13:15:11.040
1@TRomano - Those longer examples sound odd to me. I'd expect to see those phrased something like Vehicles longer than 15`, wider than 7', or taller than 6' must not be parked in spaces marked with an X. Or The following vehicles not permitted in spaces marked with an X: [list]. – nnnnnn – 2016-06-05T13:46:00.177
@nnnnnn: Such sentences abound in formal texts; you're unlikely to hear people speaking this way in informal conversation.. The reordering is to package the info for emphasis and clarity. – Tᴚoɯɐuo – 2016-06-05T15:47:36.047