Account for something: phrasal verb with account verb. dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/account-for

Unaccounted: adjective dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/…

Accounted for in the NYT article is a verb. PP of account for. Other examples: sentence.yourdictionary.com/accounted-for

CGEL doesn't say that "accounted" is an adjective in [43ii], as you claim in your penultimate para. It says that "unnaccounted for" is a compound adjective in that particular example Thus, according to CGEL, the NYT's "accounted for" is an adjective. Furthermore, "seem" takes AdjPs as complement, not VPs.

@BillJ In [43ii] There's no accounted, there's only unaccounted, which CGEL does say is an adjective. "such examples as the following are unambiguously adjectival because there are no corresponding verbs unrepair, unaccount, unsee."

CGEL is very clear about this when it says that in "We accounted for the money", it's just "accounted" that is a verb. The prep "for" is thus a separate constituent. But in "The money was (un)accounted for", "(un)accounted for" is a compound adjective, i.e. unlike the VP, the adjective is "(un)accounted for". Which means that the NYT's "accounted for" is an adjective.

"accounted for" here seems a passive verb - you can add an agent "by the choreographer", which you couldn't do with an adjective.

The task has been seen to. How would CGEL handle that?

@StuartF You mean as in "The money was accounted for by the firm"? I think CGEL would treat this as the prepositional passive version of "The firm accounted for the money".

@BillJ Does that mean we can't figure out whether accounted is a verb or an adjective in the NYT sentence? If so, is taken a verb or an adjective in It's taken care of?

@JK2 "It is taken care of" -> "taken" is an adjective; "It has been taken care of" -> "taken" is a verb (i.e. it's part of the perfect indicative passive construction has been taken)

@QuackE.Duck I'm sure "taken" in "It has been taken care of" is a verb. That doesn't necessarily mean that "taken" in "It is taken care of" is an adjective. If you happen to know a reference to back up your claim, please write an answer.

@JK2 No: "accounted" in the NYT sentence is not a constituent, but part of the compound adjective "accounted for". CGEL argues that it can only be an adjective because the two words cannot be separated, whereas in the verbal use they can, as in"We accounted immediately for the money", where "accounted" is a verb and "for the money" is a PP headed by the prep "for".

@BillJ But CGEL (Page 1656) says about "compound adjectives": "Our initial classification here is again based on the category of the central element. We distinguish three categories: adjective-centred (cholesterol-free, red-hot), verb-centred (fun-loving, MIT-trained, germ-resistant), and a residual category centred on nouns (highbrow) or having the form of preposition + noun (upmarket)." So, clearly, CGEL is determining the part of speech of "part of a compound adjective".

The items shown in pp1656-1659 are all written as single words, whereas (un)acccounted for" is not. I suppose it follows that the latter is a special type, not a morphological compound like the others. I wouldn't fret about it too much. The analyses on P1440 seem plausible to me.

@BillJ If anything, morphological compounds are harder to determine the parts of speech of the components of, but CGEL does determine their parts of speech in pp1656. So I suppose you have it the other way around.

Every cubic inch of air is accounted for could be passive voice (Balanchine accounts for every cubic inch of air. --> Every cubic inch of air is accounted for [by Balanchine].) or a predicate adjective. But with seems, it must be a predicate adjective, unless you insert to be.

(And, as a verb, accounted for is a prepositional verb.)

@JK2 About the verb/adjective usage of "taken": while looking for examples to cite, I found a very interesting article here: journals.openedition.org/lexis/4146. To quote its central point: "instability is inherent to the use of V‑ED adjectives as any variation" - meaning the two usages are difficult to differentiate and can be ambiguous.

@TinfoilHat In the NYT article, I'm asking if accounted itself is an adjective or if accounted is still a verb but the VP accounted for is somehow functioning as a compound adjective.

I find the explanation clear that the un form disambiguates. But the regular form is open for interpretation by that very suggestion. While I see the adjective, if you see it as a verb phrase, it still is not true it "somehow functions as a compound adjective." Nope.

@YosefBaskin Then, do you think of "taken" as an adjective in "it's taken care of"? If so, what's the relationship between the adjective "taken" and "care of"?

I’m sort of losing your thread here — but in your sentence, accounted for must be something functioning as an adjective. cf. This bed looks slept in.

@TinfoilHat Are you saying, then, that accounted itself is not an adjective? (and that slept itself is not an adjective in your example?)

The participle adjectival accounted for is born of the prepositional verb account for. Is CGEL actually saying that Nearly half the money seems unaccounted for and Nearly half the money seems accounted for are different?

@TinfoilHat CGEL would treat both unaccounted for and accounted for as compound adjectives. But that's not the question. The question is whether unaccounted and accounted are verbs or adjectives in those sentences.

They are nothing without their preposition. ? Every cubic inch of air seems accounted.

@TinfoilHat What do you mean 'nothing'? Do you mean we can't figure out what they really are just because you can't omit the preposition? If so, the same can be said about CGEL's active sentence We have accounted already for the money, where, if for the money is omitted, the sentence doesn't make any sense: ? We have accounted already. But in the active sentence, we know accounted is a verb with or without the preposition. It's just that the prepositional phrase is necessary for the sentence to work.