docs: Conflicting guidelines: verb particles in Germanic languages

I don’t really care about this deeply, since they are unambiguous in xpos (RP), but I also think it should be ADV, across the board actually, because:

1. ‘intransitive preposition’ sounds like an oxymoron to me (I know CGEL uses this term, but for me “adposition” means it has an argument, which it stands next to)
2. Some words in this class aren’t homonyms of prepositions at all (e.g. @nschneid 's examples “away”, “apart”)
3. They are interrogable using WH adverbs - “where did it go?” “away”
4. They can coexist with PP arguments with the same word form as head (“pull out everything out of Lexis Nexis”), which suggests that they are not the same
5. They are etymologically adverbs (this isn’t really a strong argument, but if anything, the Germanic adpositions are derived from adverbs, not the other way around)
6. They are in the R* series in the PTB tagset (RB, RP - not a subtype of IN)

I don’t know Swedish, but for German I think they would also be best tagged as ADV, since there is even more of a tendency to distinguish the forms than in English (particle “®ein” vs. prep. “in”). But there too they have a special xpos (PTKVZ), so it would be easy to decide either way or even change our minds later if needed.

I think the claim is that adverbs are ADV also when used as verb particles and the same is true of adpositions when used verb particles. The problem is that some words can be either, depending on the context (She fell down vs, She walked down the alley). Using ‘in’ as an example for both ADV and ADP as in the pages you are referring to may of course be confusing. For Swedish I tend to use the most common part-of-speech if context does not help. Thus, ‘inne’ (indicating a state of being inside something) is an ADV, while ‘i’ (in, into, usually indicating direction) is an ADP when used as verb particles.