Wait! This was spoken, right? Perhaps there’s a problem with the spelling?
In the north of England ‘owt’ means ‘something’ or anything.
Do you want owt?
Ave you got owt to eat? (Has tha got owt fur t’eat?)
I can’t understand owt that Sandman ses.
The negative is slightly different.
There’s nowt in t’fridge.
Tom Hill’s got nowt to show for all that time he spent in Taiwan.
[quote=“Tigerman”] [quote=“gao_bo_han”]A co-worker of mine asked me to analyze the following sentence for grammatical correctness:
“She wants out.”
This is referring to a pet who wants to go outside. The infinitive “to go” is missing, but does it function as part of the verb or part of the object? Is “out” the object or a preposition? Is the sentence incorrect without “to go”?
I’m getting rusty. Any help would be appreciated.[/quote]
That’s perfectly acceptable in Pittsburgh, where we normally omit the verb, to be.[/quote]
It’s not a verb if it is preceeded by the word “to”. Verbs exist in relation to subjects by telling what the subject “does” or by connecting it to a word or phrase that describes what it “is”. Action verbs and linking verbs essentially. “To go out” exists, grammatically, directly in relation to the main verb, not the subject and so is not strictly speaking, a verb. It is an infinitive functioning as a noun object. It refers to an action of course so is a verb on a meaning level, but not on a grammatical level.
English is weird this way. If something is the grammatical subject or object of a sentence it has to be a noun grammatically even if it refers to an action, and we indicate this usually by adding “to” before the verb (infinitive) or ing (gerund) after depending upon the main verb. For example, “I want to go outside,” but “I enjoy going outside.” Sometimes you can use an infinitive or a gerund but with a different meaning. For example, “I forget to go,” and “I forget going.” It depends, again, on the preceding main verb. Not every language is as complicated as English in this respect of course…
Dui bu qi, wo zhidao ni juede zhege zhuti hao youqu, keshi xianzai wo yao qu waimian. Wo xihuan qu waimian wan, tebie shi tianqi hao de shihou.
You are a bunch of nerds. It wasn’t “to go” that she forgot to say. She dropped the “an in and”.
:homer:
Why? Aren’t you going to pay for them?
I never pay for anything. It is beneath my station in life as an intellectual, artist, linguistic marvel and part time provider of intimate comforts.
It is true: You might be better saying I want “a” out, or “the” out, “some” outs? Doubts? I feel another poem coming on… 
[/quote]
bob,
I don’t get it.
The noun sense of out is a synonym for outside and the verb want can imply to go.
One can want many nouns in the form She wants X, so why then is it incorrect to say that out functions as a noun in She wants out?
Are some nouns permitted to be wanted and others not? Who made this rule?
Speak me a poem.
It can imply that but it implies it as result of the context that it is in. Context provides the missing elements. In some instances it is perfectly OK to say “she wants out,” it just isn’t grammatically correct, or if you’d rather grammatically complete. If the sentence is “she wants out,” how do you know she wants “to go” out? Perhaps she wants “to come” out. There is no way to know that unless 1) You can see the context or 2) The missing elements are provided. As soon as you provide the missing elements you fill in the grammar.
Because she doesn’t want “an” out, she wants “that she herself go out”. This is reduced to the infinitive form “She wants to go out.” You can’t put a determiner in front of “out” because it doesn’t make any sense to put one there. It isn’t a noun. It isn’t what the person wants. Grammatically, it is not the object of the noun. I can’t think of another way to put it. Anyway, this is really basic grammar and my guess is that at least 50% of English teachers in Taiwan and at least and 99.9% of English students here don’t understand it. I have never met a student who understood the concept of a grammatical object.
Grammatically any noun can can fill the object slot because that is what a noun is, a word that can be used as the subject or object of a sentence.
Some say God, others the big bang, I like to go with the nature of meaning.
[quote=“myury”]
Anyway, you can’t buy a simpler S-V-O sentence. Merriam Webster (mainly US usage) even uses a comparable example in the definition for want, "4 : to desire to come, go, or be <the cat wants in> "[/quote]
These are perfect example sentences, but they are not examples of nouns, nor is the dictionary claiming they are nouns. They are phrasal verbs.
By the way, I don’t think anyone is claiming it is incorrect usage. The OP just wanted an explanation of the usage - that is, an explanation of what part of speech ‘out’ is in the sentence.
out can equate to outside. In that sense it is a noun. “I like the outside.”
The determiners don’t make any sense in reference to the concept of “outside”. Outside is neither yours nor mine, nor can it be counted, nor is there “this” outside or “that” outside. Adding any determiner to “outside” fundamentally alters the meaning.
Outside is refershing. Inside is confining. Out is refershing. In is confining.
www.websters.com lists a noun function for the word out, one of which includes the meaning “outside”.
I agree with that. However, I believe this is a case of an idiomatic usage.
Then what is? the omitted infinitive phrase? I’d say that here, out is functioning as a noun in place of the entire infinitive phrase. Conceptually, outside is not what the pet wants, but syntactically it is. “out” is a noun referring to the concept of being allowed to go to the outside.
I believe that is the simplest way of looking at it. The verb “want” is transitive, it requires an object, and “out” is the only thing there.
out can equate to outside. In that sense it is a noun. “I like the outside.” [/quote]
If that is true why did you not provide us with the example “I like the out”?
My outside is a vast expanse of arctic tundra. I don’t know what yours is but I hope it is as pleasant. In any event I will maintain that some outsides are preferable to others and that it is always possible to find some kind of determiner to put in front of almost any noun. That is not a bad definition of a noun, any word that you can put a determiner before.
Out of what? Out of your house? That means “the” outside of your house is refreshing. “The out of your house is refreshing” isn’t grammatical and that is because “out” is not a noun.
[quote]www.websters.com lists a noun function for the word out, one of which includes the meaning “outside[/quote]”.
Yes, but not with the meaning being discussed here.
I agree with that. However, I believe this is a case of an idiomatic usage.[/quote]
Exactly. And when it is expressed non-idiomatically it becomes “I want to go out.” That is what it “means.”
Then what is? the omitted infinitive phrase? [/quote]
It is part of a true idiom. Not comprehensible through a standard grammatical analysis.
[quote]I’d say that here, out is functioning as a noun in place of the entire infinitive phrase. Conceptually, outside is not what the pet wants, but syntactically it is. “out” is a noun referring to the concept of being allowed to go to the outside[/quote].
OK, but that is only possible if you already know what the sentence means.
I don’t think it makes sense to analyze an idiom in grammatical terms since an idiom, in this context, is a group of words whose meaning is not comprehensible by means of a standard semantic and grammatical analysis. You can say that the “pissed” and “off” in “He pissed me off” is a phrasal verb but that just gives it a name. Actually it is an idiom. “Pissed” and “off” have no standard grammatical connection whatsoever, neither do the “want” and “out” in “She wants out.” It is an idiom. It cannot be analyzed grammatically because it isn’t grammatical. It doesn’t actually make sense or convey a complete meaning. If you want it to do so you need to specify go or come and as soon as you do that you require the infinitive marker “to.”
Sure, the easiest way to explain this is by saying that “out” is the object of the sentence and nobody will complain, but it isn’t actually correct logically or grammatically, and by calling it an object you teach that it is a noun, which it isn’t, unless it is referred to as a word or whatever that usage was cited by webster.
It is true: You might be better saying I want “a” out, or “the” out, “some” outs? Doubts? I feel another poem coming on… [/quote]
bob,
I don’t get it.
The noun sense of out is a synonym for outside and the verb want can imply to go.
One can want many nouns in the form She wants X, so why then is it incorrect to say that out functions as a noun in She wants out?
Are some nouns permitted to be wanted and others not? Who made this rule?
Speak me a poem.[/quote]
Nouns also describe states of being, which this could be as in: Out of this relationship/ nightmare/ responsibility etc…
I think this phrase is informal at best and colloquial at worst. I would not mark it as incorrect, but I would never suggest it be written where formal or technical writing was required.
Nope. Same problem as before. I want out of this relation ship means “I want to be outside of this relationship”
out can equate to outside. In that sense it is a noun. “I like the outside.” [/quote]
If that is true why did you not provide us with the example “I like the out”?[/quote]
How about: Two outs don’t make an in.
It seems to work.
Really? That might explain why people think of you as cold sometimes. And I’m probably making this cold joke because I’m near your outside.
“your outside” is the equivalent of “the outside of you”. So, it is no longer referring to the general concept of “outside” it is now referring to your surface.
The determiner test is a good way to determine if something is a noun, but it isn’t a foolproof test. There are nouns that resist it, and “out” in this case is perfect example.
Out of what?[/quote]
Not of anything. Just “out”.
It’s a usage issue. I’m saying “out” as a noun refers to the concept of being allowed to go out.
[quote][quote]www.websters.com lists a noun function for the word out, one of which includes the meaning “outside[/quote]”
Yes, but not with the meaning being discussed here.[/quote]
We’re saying “out” means “outside”. That’s exactly what’s being discussed here.
Right.
Right, because the pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic functions don’t jive. Syntactically it’s an object, semantically it means “outside”, and pragmatically it means “the concept of being allowed out”.
You can say the answer is “empty set” and grammar rules are not applicable, or you can interpret it according to syntactic function and assume “out” is performing as a noun here.
[quote][quote]I’d say that here, out is functioning as a noun in place of the entire infinitive phrase. Conceptually, outside is not what the pet wants, but syntactically it is. “out” is a noun referring to the concept of being allowed to go to the outside[/quote].
OK, but that is only possible if you already know what the sentence means. [/quote]
Right, because it’s idiomatic the meaning of the entire utterance is already known.
Right, but it still has a structure, even if the meaning cannot be derived by following that structure.
But you could still say that “me” is the object of “pissed off”, and “pissed off” is still the verb. It can be diagrammed. “out” is acting idiomatically, but within the structure presented it is functioning syntactically as a noun.
Webster calls it a noun in several uses, including meaning “outside”. I believe their reason for including that meaning is exactly for such instances as when it occurs in places like in this idiom.
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]
If that is true why did you not provide us with the example “I like the out”?
How about: Two outs don’t make an in.
It seems to work. [/quote]
It does, doesn’t it?
Are we neighbours? Anyway, yes it is true I am cold sometimes. I sometimes look in the mirror and wonder who that evil bastard is anyway.
No it isn’t. My outside is the arctic tundra. Remember?
How many more examples can you give? You have devoted however much energy to this already, why not push on through.
Impossible. “Out” has no meaning except in opposition to “in.”
We have not even agreed whether “she wants out” means “she wants to come out” or “she wants to go out” and already we are adding allowed? I dunno…
I thought we were discussing whether or not “out” was a noun in the expression “she wants out”. Outside wouldn’t be a noun there either so I don’t see why “out” would be.
I’ll agree that “want out” could be called a phrasal verb, but an intransitive one.
That would be preferable. A lot of English functions on the idiom principle, why not introduce this as one of those cases and discourage people from thinking of out as a noun. It practically never is.
Either that or introduce it as a nontransitive verb phrase, both make sense to me.
Q. What do you want? A. Out.
You are right. It passes the object test. You may be wearing me down. Don’t be too sure though, it could be a trick.
It isn’t already known. “She wants out.” Huh? She wants to come out? She wants to go out? Which is it? People can use the idiom “I want out” but they can only use it because the context of the uisage fills in the blanks. The cars on fire. She wants out. Clear enough. “She wants out” typed onto a computer screen has no definite meaning.
I am not talking about the relationship between “pissed off” and “me” I am talking about the relationship between “pissed” and “off.” Likewise here we are not talking about the relationship between the “want out” and “of here” in “I want out of here” but about the relationship between the “want” and “out.” It’s phrasal verb, and like all phrasal verbs it is a verb/ preposition combination. Either that or it’s a full banana, flat out real idiom and there is no grammatical relationship between them whatsoever.
It called it a noun in several uses, none resembling the usage under consideration here.
Here it is…
[quote=“websters”]
Out n.
One that is out, especially one who is out of power.
Informal A means of escape: The window was my only out.
Baseball
A play in which a batter or base runner is retired.
The player retired in such a play.
Sports A serve or return that falls out of bounds in a court game. [/quote]
Number two is deceptively close, if it can be a predicate noun it can probably be a noun object too. Problem is that here “out” implies “way out” with way being the noun and out the adverb. Out just doesn’t seem to cut it really in the noun department as far as I can see, relying as it does constantly on implied words to back it up.
That doesn’t make sense to me. Not the way I conceive of ‘outside’.
How many more examples can you give? You have devoted however much energy to this already, why not push on through.[/quote]
Proper nouns are a prime example. If you put a determiner in front of it, you introduce an entirely new idea. “Bob” vs. “some Bob”. “Bob” is unique. It refers to a specific entity of which there cannot be another. “a Bob” is not. It refers to one of many entities of which the name “Bob” applies.
Besides, I already put a determiner in front of “out”. And in the structure we are looking at, “she wants out,” we’re dealing with an idiom, which means you cannot alter the structure because it has been fossilized.
So, within the structure it can function as a noun even though it would fail the determiner test in this context because it is idiomatic, and altering the structure and trying to follow the structure to achieve the meaning are incompatible.
Impossible. “Out” has no meaning except in opposition to “in.”[/quote]
In that sentence out means outside. If you have to say “of what” the answer would be of anything and everything. Outside is outside of everything. Out is out of everything. Inside is inside of something. In is in something.
That’s why it is idiomatic. Its a noun referencing more than the scope of “outside”
Agree with whom? I never said “want out” was a phrasal verb. That is a fair argument as an alternative to “out” being a noun, but then you have to think of what constitutes a phrasal verb. Are the basic semantic meanings of “want” and “out” changed by pairing them?
The answer is “no”. Essentially the verb “want” functions in its normal capacity and “out” fills a meaning near enough to its meaning of “outside” that their combination does not change their fundamental meanings.
That would be preferable. A lot of English functions on the idiom principle, why not introduce this as one of those cases and discourage people from thinking of out as a noun. It practically never is.[/quote]
As I said, that’s an option. But I think “out” does function as a noun, even though the meaning of out is altered to fill a greater role here-- which is why it is idiomatic.
Q. What do you want? A. Out.
You are right. It passes the object test, but semantically it is still an idiom, which I earlier mentioned was not relevant to a discussion of grammar. You may be wearing me down. Don’t be too sure though, it could be a trick.[/quote]
Right. Semantically it means more than it says, but structurally it works just fine.
It isn’t already known. She wants out. Huh? She wants to come out? She wants to go out?[/quote]
As you said, the context fills in the gaps. But, the speaker knows what the idiomatic meaning of the phrase is and assumes the listener will know as well. The speaker knows that the phrase is not parsed exactly literally, but structurally if follows the simple SVO syntax.
So, your earlier objection to “out” not being a noun meaning exactly what it would mean if it were not being used idiomatically because it would have to be known beforehand doesn’t really add up.
Ah, but unlike “wants” and “out”, “pissed” and “off” combine to create an entirely new meaning. It actually is a phrasal verb and should be thought of as a single term. “wants” and “out” should not considered to be a single term since “wants” still means the same thing it would if you replaced “out” with any other noun phrase, gerund phrase, or infinitive phrase.
It’s idiomatic, but lexically, still a noun. Else, how could it be the object of want?
Look:
[quote=“websters dictionary under the heading of ‘out’”]Main Entry: 5out
Function: noun
1 : OUTSIDE
2 : one who is out of office or power or on the outside
3 a : an act or instance of putting a player out or of being put out in baseball b : a player that is put out
4 : a way of escaping from an embarrassing or difficult situation
I am unclear here. Are we refering to that bob god of the abstract nonsensical, or the bob we know who is drunk and a sailor?
I am not sure. If I say that two withouts don’t make a together am I really using the two words as nouns in any way that can be extrapolated to other meaningful instances?
If it is fossilized then it is not part of any generative grammar system. It functions as an example of an oddity that can be analyzed and explained but not used as part of the grammar system as it now exists.
Sorry but this is bonkers. I can take a book out of a box but the book and the box remain inside my house.
That bob character we discussed earlier. Bababa as well.
[quote]I never said “want out” was a phrasal verb. That is a fair argument as an alternative to “out” being a noun, but then you have to think of what constitutes a phrasal verb. Are the basic semantic meanings of “want” and “out” changed by pairing them?
The answer is “no”. Essentially the verb “want” functions in its normal capacity and “out” fills a meaning near enough to its meaning of “outside” that their combination does not change their fundamental meanings.[/quote]
Let me put on an album and think about it.
Huh?
[quote]Look:
[quote=“websters dictionary under the heading of ‘out’”]Main Entry: 5out
Function: noun
1 : OUTSIDE
2 : one who is out of office or power or on the outside
3 a : an act or instance of putting a player out or of being put out in baseball b : a player that is put out
4 : a way of escaping from an embarrassing or difficult situation
Yes, but Websters has always been a third rate, democratic sort of dictionary hasn’t it? Certainly not one that you would refer to when plumbing the metaphysical depths of “out.” I know that I for one would never submit to such an authority and would be suprised if you would either.
P.S. I know this is weak but honestly I have a migraine headed my way and if I don’t get the fan on and the lights out here quick I’l be sicker sin in no time. I’ll try and manage a decent response later, I promise.
Er, not sure if I’m meant to take that seriously or not. I’m going with not, but if you were trying to make a point I’ll be glad look at it again.
I am not sure. If I say that two withouts don’t make a together am I really using the two words as nouns in any way that can be extrapolated to other meaningful instances?[/quote]
I thought that had been too easy. I was expecting a rebut to that earlier. 
So, we’re back to it being idiomatic.
It becomes non-productive. But that doesn’t mean it lacks any internal structure.
Sorry but this is bonkers. I can take a book out of a box but the book and the box remain inside my house. [/quote]
“out of a box” and “inside your house” are a different meaning than just “outside” and “inside”. When you go outside you don’t mean outside your little room. You mean outdoors.
That bob character we discussed earlier. Bababa as well. [/quote]
Alright. But wasn’t with me 
I’m plowing ahead here despite my migraine so I hope you’ll forgive me if I can’t summon the courage to deal with the quote function just now. Besides we perhaps need a fresh go here anyway…
The original question:
Q: Is “out” the object of the sentence “She wants out.”
A: Yes, if you can accept that it is the reduced form of a infinitive phrase.
That is about it.
I can’t accept that it is the reduced form of an infinitive phrase however because I don’t know which infinitive phrase it is the reduction of. Could be “She wants to come out,” or “She wants to go out.” The only way to answer that question is to fill in the missing words and at that point you have to provide the infinitive marker. You can’t say that the context makes that meaning clear because what the context does in that case is fill in the missing words, which is what you would have to do if you wanted to use the language as pure symbol, that is if you wanted to describe the situation to somebody who wasn’t there or didn’t already know what you meant.
We agreed then, perhaps somewhat mistakenly in retrospect, that it was an idiom but you suggested that it is still possible to analyze the “internal structure” of an idiom. I don’t think so. A pure idiom to me is fixed in essential structure and absolutely beyond grammatical/ semantic analysis. They are groups of words that may function as a part of speech together but internally follow no rules. Expressions like:
Of course
Put up with
Thank you
feel up to
get it over with
There is nothing to be derived from a grammatical analysis of these expressions. That is what makes them pure idioms. “Put up with” might be a transitive verb but what is it internally? A verb preposition preposition combination? Not helpful.
Finally we came to the notion that “want out” is a phrasal verb. I think this is it. It would explain why no article is possible before out.
Also phrasal verbs do not always involve the loss of the original sense of the composite words. “Sit down” is a good example.
Finally there is a question of how to classify similar expression involving want and a preposition.
I want by/ through/ around. These work in much the same way as “I want out,” as phrasal verbs.
Or are we to suggest that by, through and around are nouns too?
Webster mentioned that out could be a noun with the meaning outside as we are using it here, but did not give an exmple of a sentence where this is actually possible, and I don’t think this is one.
Indeed I have yet to see an exmple of a situation where out could be used as a noun meaning outside.
In one of what will no doubt be many conclusions I will thus state that “Want out” is a partially transparent, that is not particularly idiomatic, phrasal verb.
Sorry about your headache. Feel better.
After doing several searches, I found that several sources do consider “want out” to be a phrasal verb.
Most important is the American Heritage Dictionary. (Most other sources I found in my search actually referred to the same entry from American Heritage).
[quote=“The American Heritage Dictionary”]
want (wŏnt, wônt) Pronunciation Key
Phrasal Verb(s):
want in Slang
1. To desire greatly to enter: The dog wants in.
2. To wish to join a project, business, or other undertaking.
want out Slang
1. To desire greatly to leave: The cat wants out.
2. To wish to leave a project, a business, or other undertaking.[/quote]
However, I also found an example in Webster’s dictionary which seems to contradict it. It lists “want” as a transitive verb and givies the exact example we’re looking at with the word “want” italicized but the word “out” is not.
[quote=“Webster’s online dictionary in its entry for want”]Main Entry: 1want
Pronunciation: 'wont also 'wänt & 'w&nt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse vanta; akin to Old English wan deficient
intransitive verb
1 : to be needy or destitute
2 : to have or feel need
3 : to be necessary or needed
4 : to desire to come, go, or be <the cat wants in> <wants out of the deal>
transitive verb
1 : to fail to possess especially in customary or required amount : LACK
2 a : to have a strong desire for b : to have an inclination to : LIKE <say what you want, he is efficient>
3 a : to have need of : REQUIRE b : to suffer from the lack of
4 : OUGHT – used with the infinitive <you want to be very careful what you say – Claudia Cassidy>
5 : to wish or demand the presence of
6 : to hunt or seek in order to apprehend
synonym see DESIRE[/quote]
webster.com/dictionary/want
So, it seems that there is a disagreement between two authorities on this. I tend to agree with Websters, and you tend to agree with American Heritage. So, I think in terms of appealing to authority we have to call it a draw.
If “want out” is a phrasal verb, then “out” does not have another function other than being part of the verb. But, if it is not a phrasal verb, but simply an idiomatic usage, then it can still have underlying structure. Most idioms do have structure, you just can’t derive the meaning from it.
Example: kick the bucket.
It has structure- kick is a verb and the object is “the bucket”. But you can’t follow that structure and find the meaning “to die”.
That does not hold true for phrasal verbs, and if you take “want out” as a phrasal verb then, no it wouldn’t be a noun. But I agree with the Webster’s definition.
An honorable ending for both parties then, 
Very nice. Thank you.
And with this I enter the “No English” segment of my weekly program. Yihuir jian…