Search results for 'tag:Abstract nouns tag:Verbs' matching tags 'Abstract nouns' and 'Verbs'

Re: The Enron scandal was a financial scandal involving Enron

26TMNTJG2PG — Tue, 27 May 2008 04:24:15 GMT

This is a very interesting discussion. Allow me to present views:-
Question: I would have written, ''fraud which perpetrated throughout.. What do you say? No. [reason being fraud (an abstract noun) having become the doer of the action of perpetrating. Even if you personified it, there must still be an object after the verb perpetrated as 'perpetrate' is a transitive verb which takes an object.] But you could say 'which was perpetrated throughout . . . ' turning the original adjective phrase iuto an adjective clause. Though the change is grammatically correct, it is not advisable as the original version is symmetrical with the earlier part of the sentence - a series of revelations. How does an asymmetrical sentence look like? Refer to a blog post titled "Asymmetrical sentence".
Actually, I'm not sure if 'perpetrated' is meant to qualify 'fraud' or 'procedures'. If the latter, then say 'which were . . . ' This cannot be since an adjective/adjective phrase/adjective clause qualifies a noun or pronoun (antecedent) nearest to it. It is also not idiomatic to say procedures perpetrated. Can procedures be perpetrated?
Question: I couldn't understand the above bold part. Please help. Enron's collapse was due to its income and gains were from inter-company transactions (where such deals including revenue and profits could be easily manupulated or inflated). Please note that the reason/explanation/clarification conveyed by the words within brackets are not in the original text.
Best regards.

Re: about the "gerund"

Grammar Geek — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:40:51 GMT

Well, here's one approach.

Think of the roles that nouns play in a sentence.

As a subject: Chocolate is great. Dogs are great.

As an object: I like dogs. I like chocolate.

Sometimes what you like, or what you want to say is great isn't a normal noun, one that you can touch, like chocolate or dogs. It's not even an abstract noun like "happiness." It's a verb-thing. It relates to the activity of doing what verb. That's when you need a gerund.

A geurnd is a "verb-thing" that can serve in a sentence where you need a noun.

Swimming is fun. Having you over for dinner would be our pleasure. I don't like riding the bus.

Re: GG's 6-letter word

Grammar Geek — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:37:24 GMT

A review:
It's a one-syllable word
I think of it primarily as a verb, but it is an abstract noun as well.
It's an ergative verb - like bake. I baked a cake, the cake baked in the oven. (But it's not bake!)
It forms a phrasal verb with "up"

If it is done at home, it does happen in one particular room (for most homes).
Here's a big hint: At home it requires an appliance. Outdoors, it happens naturally.

Re: Kyle took over/up the desk next to his own.

CalifJim — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:42:53 GMT

He took over the desk: He (possibly forcibly) took control of it, displacing anyone else who may have been using it!!!

The army took over the village. This is a more usual use of the phrasal verb take over.

However, you can have, in another meaning:

He took over the desk: He assumed the duties of the job associated with that desk. desk is an abstract noun here. It refers to the job, not to the furniture. More often an adjective would be added to explain what kind of duties are involved: After several years in invoicing, he took over the sales desk.

Note also, intransitively: Irma took over while the boss was on vacation. (She assumed the boss's responsibilities while he was away.)

He took up the desk: He began to use the desk. This is a very formal and/or old-fashioned usage, and very rarely used. Similar use: The students took up their pencils and began to write. (See also GG's explanation of take up in another sense.)

CJ

Re: having something uncountable

CalifJim — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:09:45 GMT

Should I just accept the fact some uncountable nouns, especially those that have abstract meanings, do not go well or don't ~~not~~ fit with a verb showing possession such as 'have'?

Yes, you probably should accept that. It's probably a lot easier to memorize idioms with have plus a noun than to establish some sort of rule about which types of uncountable nouns go with have and which don't.

have pity on someone
have mercy on someone
have trouble doing something
have difficulty doing something
have heartburn
have indigestion
have patience
have confidence in someone
have influence over/with someone
have power over someone

It seems one can't 'have' most of the emotions. These you mostly 'experience' or 'feel', not 'have'.

*have anger
*have fear
*have happiness
*have sadness
*have joy
*have grief

Nor many other abstract nouns. Often the correct expression involves 'be' rather than 'have'.

*have coldness (be cold)
*have willingness (be willing)
*have fame (be famous)
*have virtue (be virtuous)
*have caution (be cautious)
*have pride (be proud)
*have greed (be greedy)

CJ

Re: gerund or verbal noun

Ant_222 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:24:44 GMT

Schetin
«A grammar is only a view of language. No matter what terminology, if it helps avoid mistakes and explain phenomena, then the grammar is good.»

Very true. Also I'd say this: Rules describe the language, not define it. Rules follow from the language just like physical laws reflect reality, not vice versa.

«I think that trying to simplify understanding modern grammar makes it more ambiguous, hence even more complex.»

Who is simplifying?

CJ:

«All examples with the ---ing of --- are called gerunds there.»

I must have overlooked something, but I clearly see that all such examples are listed under the caption: "The VERBAL ABSTRACT NOUNS". Correct me if I am wrong.

1. That's a clever saying is one thing
2. My saying it doesn't make it so

Your comment:
«In the first use of saying, there is nothing at all verb-like about saying except that it is derived from the verb say; not so in the second use, where the action of saying, hence something verb-like, is involved.»

Also in #2 "saying" governs "it", which the old book declares a feature of the gerund, not the verbal noun.

Re: gerund or verbal noun

CalifJim — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:25:23 GMT

All of your examples are gerunds if we stick to modern terminology.

Forget about the terminology verbal noun. It's total garbage!

It has many different definitions, depending on the author and when the grammar book was written.
_____________

The modern definition is given at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_noun

A verbal noun is a noun formed directly as an inflexion of a verb or a verb stem, sharing at least in part its constructions. This term is applied especially to gerunds, and sometimes also to [bare] infinitives and supines [i.e., full infinitives].

That is, there are three types of verbal noun: gerunds, bare infinitives, and full infinitives.

So anything that is a gerund is also a verbal noun, because a gerund is one of the types of verbal nouns.
____________

The modern definition is echoed at

http://www.ielanguages.com/english.html

Gerunds: [Like participles,] Gerunds are also formed by adding -ing to the verb, but they function as a verbal noun [as opposed to the participle, which is a verbal adjective] and are normally preceded by articles or demonstratives. The singing was excellent.
___________

A completely different definition is found here:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-VERBALNOUN.html

VERBAL NOUN. A category of noncountable abstract noun derived from a verb, in English by adding the suffix -ing. Like the verb from which it derives, it refers to an action or state: writing in The writing has taken too long; hearing in His hearing is defective. Verbal nouns are frequently combined with the preposition of and a noun phrase that corresponds to the subject or object in a clause: The grumbling of his neighbours met with no response (compare His neighbours grumbled); His acting of Hamlet won our admiration (compare He acted Hamlet). Verbal nouns contrast with deverbal nouns, that is, other kinds of nouns derived from verbs, such as attempt, destruction, and including nouns ending in -ing that do not have verbal force: building in The building was empty. They also contrast with the gerund, which also ends in -ing, but is syntactically a verb.

Note the last (underlined) sentence. By this definition only usages like The neighbors were acting like fools are considered gerunds -- not all the other examples that preceded -- examples that we would all agree are gerunds in current terminology.
_____________

The next definition is more than 100 years old, and I've seen it quoted on this site. Note that it is classified (see the URL) under "Classic Literature". It is useful only as a historic document -- not as a guide to modern English and modern syntactic analysis.

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/wmbaskervill/bl-wmbaskervill-grammar-parts-nouns.htm

An English Grammar

1896

by W. M. Baskervill & J. W. Sewell

273. It [the gerund] differs from the participle in being always used as a noun: it never belongs to or limits a noun.

It differs from the verbal noun in having the property of governing a noun (which the verbal noun has not) and of expressing action (the verbal noun merely names an action, Sec. II).

[Sec. II. is actually Sec. 11, where nouns are discussed. The discussion of verbal nouns is within a category called Abstract Nouns, so in Section 11 verbal nouns are called by their more specific name: Verbal Abstract Nouns.]

II. The VERBAL ABSTRACT NOUNS Originate in verbs, as their name implies. They may beâ

(1) Of the same form as the simple verb. The verb, by altering its function, is used as a noun; as in the expressions, "a long run" "a bold move," "a brisk walk "
[These are called deverbal nouns in modern terminology -- or 'zero-related nominals' or just 'nouns'.]

(2) Derived from verbs by changing the ending or adding a suffix: motion from move, speech from speak, theft from thieve, action from act, service from serve.
[These,too, are called deverbal nouns nowadays -- or just 'nouns'.]

(3) Derived from verbs by adding -ing to the simple verb. It must be remembered that these words are free from any verbal function They cannot govern a word, and they cannot express action, but are merely names of actions. They are only the husks of verbs, and are to be rigidly distinguished from gerunds (Secs. 272, 273). [These are nouns that end in -ing. They have acquired fixed meanings as nouns, referring to something more concrete than the action of the underlying verb.]

To avoid difficulty, study carefully these examples:

The best thoughts and sayings of the Greeks; the moon caused fearful forebodings; in the beginning of his life; he spread his blessings over the land; the great Puritan awakening; our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting; a wedding or a festival; the rude drawings of the book; masterpieces of the Socratic reasoning; the teachings of the High Spirit; those opinions and feelings; there is time for such reasonings; the well-being of her subjects; her longing for their favor; feelings which their original meaning will by no means justify; the main bearings of this matter.
______________

It is debatable whether anything whatsoever is to be gained in the study of modern English by resurrecting these older definitions.

CJ

Re: Part of Speech identification

Clive — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:29:49 GMT

Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

this is my first post here, I like to know these words
kilometer
centimeter

Are those words noun if they are standing alone ? if it's, what kind of noun it's, proper noun or abstract noun or etc ? My usual approach is to categorize nouns as either proper nouns or common nouns, so I consider these to be common nouns. Do you want to use the same system? If not, what categories do you want to use?

After that, I want to indentify the part of speech of the following setence by using the stanfard parser at http://nlp.stanford.edu:8080/parser/index.jsp
if you input,
convert kilometer to centimeter
it gives convert/VB kilometer/NN to/TO centimeter/VB

if you input,
convert 2 kilometers to centimeter
it gives convert/VB 2/CD kilometers/NNS to/TO centimeter/NN

You can refer to the tagset below, my question is, is the first input setence correct ? if it's correct the part of speech given by the program seems to be incorrect because
the centimeter should be noun instead of Verb, or am I wrong ? No, 'centimeter' is not a verb. If you add the "2" as the second input the program gives the correct part of speech tagging,
it it because my first input grammar is incorrect ?

Your sentences are not written correctly. If I understand your meaning correctly, #1 should be Convert a kilometer to centimeters.

Similarly, sentence #2 should be Convert two kilometers to centimeters.

Why don't you try inputting the corrected versions, and tell us what happens?

(In Canada, we spell 'meter' as 'metre'.)

Best wishes, Clive

Re: TEA

Grammar Geek — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:26:48 GMT

Which is better: (it's part of the information on the tea box)
1. Tea facilitating digestion process
2. Tea which facilitates digestion process
3. A tea which facilitates a digestion process
SHOULD I USE THE ARTICLE "a" BEFORE DIGESTION PROCESS. I KNOW THAT BEFORE ABSTRACT NOUNS WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT ARTICLES AND THE WORD PROCESS,ACCORDING TO ME, IS AN ABSTRACT NOUN CAUSE WE CANNOT TOUCH IT.

Tea facilitates the digestive process. This says that all types of tea helps digestion.

A tea that facilitates the digestive process... This is only a noun phrase - there is no main verb. It distinguished some types of teas (those that help disgestion) from others, but doesn't say anything else, such as will help you sleep better or control you appetite or whatever you want to say.

Abtract nouns can take articles: We could feel the anticipation in the auditorium building. or We improved the process.

Use "the digestive process." Which process? The digestive process. If you use "a digestive process" you are saying that there are many types, and this is just one of the types. Although a cow may have a different digestive process than a human, it's clear we're talking about humans, so use "the."

About omission of the articles

Anonymous — Sat, 19 May 2007 16:07:10 GMT

I have 2 questions. I'd be happy if someone answer them.

(1) Omitting "the" from "the Abstract Noun" can be seen especially in phrases that have inside them the Verb-Object structure, as in "protection of nature", "lack of food" and "construction of a building". Can we always omit "the" from phrases that have inside them the Verb-Object structure?

(2) Omitting "the" from "the Abstract Noun" can hardly be seen in phrases that have inside them the Verb-Subject structure, as in "the arrival of a train", and "the coming of a new age".

And It can hardly be seen in phrases that have inside them the Complement (Adjective)-Subject structure, as in "the importance of training", and "the value of gold".

Why can't we omit "the" from phrases that have inside them the Verb-Subject structure, or the Complement(Adjective)-Subject structure?