Click here to play

base for this usage

   Share on Facebook  
Anonymous  #394276  Fri, 20 Jul 07 11:22 AM

Hi,

I do read a lot and sometimes certain sentential patterns throw me off, like this one.

...use them interchangeably, preferring one to the other for reasons of personal style, appearance of text, and others.

How would you classify the nouns 'style' and 'appearance'? The word style in my dictionary was noted as being something to do with being elegant and the word appearance was all noted as a countable noun.   

  
Clive  #394350  Fri, 20 Jul 07 03:46 PM

Hi,

I do read a lot and sometimes certain sentential patterns throw me off, like this one.

...use them interchangeably, preferring one to the other for reasons of personal style, appearance of text, and others.

How would you classify the nouns 'style' and 'appearance'? There are various ways to classify nouns. In what way do you want to classify these?

The word style in my dictionary was noted as being something to do with being elegant That's true. You are talking about the definition of the word.

and the word appearance was all noted as a countable noun.  But here you are talking not about definition but about grammar, in terms of 'count/nocount'. 

I'm not clear about what you are really asking.. The words 'style' and 'appearance' can be used in both a countable and a non-countable way. In your sentence, they are used in a non-countable, general way.

Please post again if I have not answered the question you have in mind.

Best wishes, Clive

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Oct 28 2004
Canada
Veteran Member (21,162)
ModeratorTeachers
El tango argentino es un pensamiento triste que se puede bailar (The tango argentino is a sad thought which can be danced) Enrique Santos Discépolo
Anonymous  #394528  Sat, 21 Jul 07 01:41 AM

Thank you, Clive

It is that I and I presume many others would most like rely on the dictionary to figure out the usage of a certain word. Then, you also has to make an allowance for the fact that most, if not all, nouns can be used both countably and uncountably, irrespectively of the categorization by the source I mentioned, at least in the realm of a theory.     

I looked at the dictionary for the word 'appearance' and the several definitions and usage examples   showed the fact they were based on its countable nature. Normally, it would be safe to assume the word 'appearance' would be used as a countable noun, unless you make a deliberate attempt to make it into types or instances of it.

I cannot think of any case where a deliberate attempt to make into a special or specific instance of a noun  would make it countable. Can you give me a few examples? I see plenty of cases where making a noun into types causes it to be used countably, though. 

Here are more examples where typical dictionary definitions, if used generically, of them would confuse some unfortunate people who otherwise do not know any better.

in amount or degree

Here, I think you would say the word 'degree' is used generally, not according to its typical definitions. By the way, when you say it is used grammatically, not definitionally, what do you mean? Are you saying grammar of the phrase or sentence dictates a certain usage of the word?

Another example that might create some conflict in the mind of some people who don't otherwise unfortunately know better:

based on color, sex, and race

Here, at least one word, 'race', wouldn't fit nicely with the thinking pattern of someone who unfortunately doesn't know any better.   

So, are you saying virtually any word can be used differently (ie. different than typical definitions would indicate) if used grammatically in a general term?

Thank you for your much patience. 

  
Clive  #394546  Sat, 21 Jul 07 03:55 AM

Hi,

I hesitate to discuss the uses of nouns in such a very theoretical way. I'd just prefer to say that English vocabulary seems to me to be very flexible, and that a very great deal depends on the context.

So, are you saying virtually any word can be used differently (ie. different than typical definitions would indicate) if used grammatically in a general term?

Did I say that? Let's try. horse One horse. Two horses. A horse has four legs. The horse is a noble animal. English people don't like to eat horse. These usages are all fine.Smile [:)]

Despite your modesty, you seem to have quitea good understanding of this. Are there any sample sentences that you are not sure of? 

Best wishes, Clive

  
Anonymous  #394949  Sun, 22 Jul 07 12:47 AM

Thank you for your explanation and invitation to present some more example sentences. I cannot think of them right now but I am sure some will be presented in the future.

Your last example sentence, "English people don't like to eat horse," is what likely to raised some doubt as to its valid usage by some people who are not yet in possession of good knowledge on the subject.

Most people would be more inclined to write "English people don't like to eat horse meat" and that would seem reasonable to most people.

Why 'eat horse' and not 'eat horse meat'? I am sure both are acceptable, but why a person would resort to using an abtract form of  noun, which I think is what is being done or has been done depending on how you look at the situation?       

  
Clive  #394959  Sun, 22 Jul 07 01:29 AM

Hi,

Why 'eat horse' and not 'eat horse meat'? I am sure both are acceptable, but why a person would resort to using an abtract form of  noun, which I think is what is being done or has been done depending on how you look at the situation? 

I can't really answer such questions, other than to say that that is just how we like to say it.

It's rather similar to saying 'I had chicken for dinner'. We don't say 'I had chicken meat for dinner'. I think perhaps it is related to the fact that we often don't like to state what is obvious. If I say 'I ate chicken', the listener knows that I mean the meat and not, for example, the feathers.

Clive     

  
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL General English Grammar Questions
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service