phrasal

English uses phrasal verbs instead of reflexives and circumlocution in place of most subjunctives, but they're just as complicated.

And why the approach should not be based on idealizations of languages, but rather on ad hoc phrasal patterns.

Of course Basic English cheats by including all the phrasal verbs, without considering that they are usually separate lexical items.

I think that was a poor example, especially since it was phrasal rather than lexical.

I should note that the term 'kernel hacker' has more or less developed on its own, separately, as a phrasal noun.

Most Germanic languages have constructs similar to English´s phrasal verbs.

'look', when not part of any phrasal verb ('look at', 'look for'), is actually a copula in English.

An entry such as 'go' will have 30-40 different senses of the raw word itself, and then as many again in various phrasal verbs and idiomatic usage.

For talking to (or teaching) non-native English speakers in English, using the Norman-derived verbs can often be useful for avoiding 2-word phrasal verbs (and 3-word prepositional verbs).

In that case, using a single-word noun in an identifier when you intend a phrasal verb is a substantive error (most particularly when that semantic unit is the whole of the identifier).

Are you just handling white spaced words, or do you handle lexical items as well such like polywords (inside out), phrasal verbs (put up with, beat up), idioms, etc.?

* Basic English's claim to a limited vocabulary only makes sense if you ignore the many implicit phrasal verbs that are even more inaccessible to learners that ten-dollar words are.

There is a new phrasal verb “be a thing” which lets us conveniently talk about such constructions.

PS: Read about "phrasal verbs" and you may stop plaguing actually useful submissions with pointless comments.

The author isn't arguing that "set up" isn't a verb, but that it's a phrasal verb, which should be written as two words.

Another way to phrasal this might be "the laptop bad fad is over".