Search results for 'tag:Articles tag:Nominative' matching tags 'Articles' and 'Nominative'

Re: nominative and objective pronouns.......confusing!

Cool Breeze — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:20:46 GMT

Avangi

When the majority of native speakers prefer an incorrect usage, grammarians respond.

Avangi, I couldn't agree more! You have arrived at the nitty-gritty of language! (Zero article!) That's the only way it happens, no matter what usage experts say, sometimes for a long time! Some people have been objecting to using like as a conjunction in sentences like Do like I say! for about 150 years. They are late. It has been used that way for 500 years and no one objected to it until the mid-19th century. I am of course liberal enough not to object to anyone being opposed to using like as a conjunction. I am just wondering WHY?

Re: which one is a properly constructed one?

Believer — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:05:34 GMT

Thank you, Mr. M.

That is as you said, I think.

As to the first one, I think like this.

His dog is a happiness. (a kind of happiness his dog is.)

As to the second sentence, why no article here? I think it is because eventhough it is the same predicate nominative as the one above, it is different from the above one because it is NOT saying it is a kind of beauty but rather this is expressing his feeling. This is what I think. Please tell me why there is no need for 'a' here? Sorry if I ask too many questions on this subject.

This is (no 'a' why??) real beauty.

Re: Lesson on issue of descriptive adjective and choice

Mister Micawber — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:23:37 GMT

Actually, I think I have already said what I had to say in my response to your post about the cats and alligators. But I'll go over some of your concerns:

I think I saw from a post here that kind of said that many times, having "descriptive adjectives" in front of UNCOUNTABLE NOUNS trigger the need (necesssity??) to have the indefinite article "a" -- I don't think there is the need, but certainly there is the possibility:

I have great faith in you.
I have a great sadness in my heart for their plight.

and I think Mr. M said to the effect that in many cases, the choice to put "a" or not to put it is optional for the cases like one below ("a great happiness" vs. just "great happiness")-- generally optional because both are possible; each case demands its own decision on which should be used.

Here, I think happiness is one-hundred percent uncountable noun??, not a variable noun.-- No, we have no context, and the noun itself is capable of either form.

His dog is a great happiness in his life. (Sounds good, isn't it? I think the writer is talking about a kind of happiness and not the general term, happiness.) -- I agree

His dog is great happiness in his life. (Sounds good, I think, and the writer seems to be saying that his dog is great happiness in a general sense, not to mean any kind of happiness.) -- I don't agree. You have set up a predicate nominative. His dog has brought great happiness into his life would be fine. I leave further analysis to you.

1) So, can I say in almost all the cases, the choice to put a or not to put a when you have some descriptive adjectives in front of them depend on the context and perspective of the writer? -- Yes, that sounds good-- but more critical is the semantic meaning.

2) Can you give me some cases where the choices as described above in not available? -- Not offhand, but I am sure there are many-- I am sure that not all candidate nouns are capable of such permutations.

3) Can you check if these are right?

This form of words is fantastic English. -- OK

This form of words is perfectly acceptable English. -- OK

This form of words is "good" English -- OK

This form of words is a fantastic English.-- Not so.

This form of words is a perfectly acceptable English. -- Not so.

This form of words is a "good" English. -- Not so

This form of words is a regional English -- OK. English and Englishes are specific concepts in linguistics; perhaps that is why the countable form is not so attractive in your sentences. Context, flexibility, semantics.
4) Right now, I have this uneasy feeling when I try to put what look to be descriptive adjectives in front of uncountable nouns because I am afraid I might accidently turn them into paticular kinds of something and not to mean generally. Do you think my feeling regarding that is unwarranted because the control is in me whether I want to make them to mean kinds of something or refer (or use them to mean something) in general terms? -- Fear not; just think what you are trying to say: are you speaking of a general concept or an individual instance? and choose accordingly.

5) Can I be able to put "a" in front of uncountable nouns which have what I think are descriptive adjectives? -- Generally yes, if you realize that it then becomes countable.

Is something in apostrophes qualify like "good" above qualify as a descriptive adjective? -- Yes.

Help. -- I hope this did.

Re: The reform of linguistics

Forbes — Tue, 16 May 2006 14:44:13 GMT

Imagine a language in which:

âThe man hit the table with a stickâ is

âCopoloteko tipadela tisadure asutariki bu.â

In this sentence

co = a classifier indicating that we are talking about something animate

polo = man

te = a nominative case marker

ko = the speaker wishes to emphasise the word âmanâ

ti = a classifier indicating that we are talking about something inanimate

pade = table

la = accusative marker

ti = as above

sadu = stick

re = an instrumental case marker

a = a prefix indicating that the event took place in the recent past

suta = hit

ri = a suffix indicating that the subject of the sentence is animate

ki = a suffix indicating that the object of the sentence is inanimate

bu = a particle showing respect to the person addressed

If we substitute a completely different set of phonemes throughout, so that for example âcopolotekoâ becomes âdasazaviwuâ, the morphology and syntax have not been changed. We can go a step further and make all the syllables closed so that we have âdansaszarvitwunâ, or again go further still and introduce some consonant clusters to produce âdranspaszarvlistwunâ. In each case the phonology of the language is different, but the morphology and syntax are identical.

Now of course changes in the phonology of a language go hand in hand with changes in its morphology: a classic case is where case endings for nouns are weakened and eventually dropped. But what you seem to be saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that you can predict the morphology and syntax of a language from its phonology. In particular, you seem to be suggesting that if a language has a small inventory of phonemes and a simple phonology (that is all syllables must be of the form V or CV or CVC where the final C is restricted to, say, /m/ /n/ and /Å/) the language must be analytic, isolating, monosyllabic and have significant tonality.

If we take Spanish, it is a language with a comparatively simple phonology. It has only five vowels and the total number of phonemes is about the same as in Mandarin Chinese. The range of consonant clusters is restricted to initial C1C2 where C2 has to be /l/ or /r/. Syllables may only end in a vowel or /Ã°/, /l/, /n/, /r/, /s/ and /Î¸/ and even then the /Ã°/, /r/, and /s/ are weak and even disappear in some speakers/varieties with /Î¸/ becoming /s/. Whilst Spanish is less synthetic than Latin, from which it derives, it is not isolating, certainly not monosyllabic and does not have significant tonality, at least not at the lexical level, though the difference between statements and questions is often marked only by intonation. Thus we have Spanish and Chinese with broadly similar phonologies (except of course that the phoneme inventories are different) but which are otherwise completely different from each other. It may also be noted that whilst French has a far greater number of phonemes and a more complex phonology than Spanish, Spanish and French have a similar morphology and syntax (at least compared to other non-Romance languages).

Unless I have completely misunderstood what you are saying, what seems to be the sum of your argument is that simple phonology equals simple language equals simple mind, which is a contention I cannot possibly accept.

Re: Looking for an accepted grammatical explanation.

Pinenut — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:28:25 GMT

Paco2004 wrote:
"The farther you move away from Earth's center, the less the pull of gravity becomes"

This "the" was originally "thy", i.e., the instrumental case of the nominative definite article "the" and was used to mean "by means of". Now this "the" is lexically classed as an adverb and OED's grammarians take it that the first "the" means "by how much" and the second "the" means "by so much"
       "By how much farther you move away from Earth's center, by so much less the pull of gravity becomes."
The oldest use of this construct appeared in King Alfred's translation of Gregory's Regula Pastorialis scripted in 897: "ÃÃ¦t her Ã°y mara wisdom on londe wÃ¦re, Ã°y we ma geÃ°eoda cuÃ°on"

On the other hand, a British grammarian Quirk explains "the â¦ the â¦" in his CGEL as paring subordinators to make up a proportional relative clause similar to "as â¦ so â¦".
       "As you move away from Earth's center farther, so the pull of gravity become less."
Suppose the paired "the"s could be used independently, and suppose
       The pull of gravity becomes less the farther you move away from Earth's center.
be grammatical, then it would be paraphrased like:
       "As you move away from Earth's center farther, the pull of gravity become less."
It makes sense, but sounds somewhat weaker in the sense of proportionality than "the ... the â¦" or "as â¦ so â¦"

paco

I am somewhat satisfied with this explanation. It at least tries to explain the usage of "the" in 'the farther'.

Re: Looking for an accepted grammatical explanation.

paco2004 — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:33:09 GMT

"The farther you move away from Earth's center, the less the pull of gravity becomes"

This "the" was originally "thy", i.e., the instrumental case of the nominative definite article "the" and was used to mean "by means of". Now this "the" is lexically classed as an adverb and OED's grammarians take it that the first "the" means "by how much" and the second "the" means "by so much"
       "By how much farther you move away from Earth's center, by so much less the pull of gravity becomes."
The oldest use of this construct appeared in King Alfred's translation of Gregory's Regula Pastorialis scripted in 897: "ÃÃ¦t her Ã°y mara wisdom on londe wÃ¦re, Ã°y we ma geÃ°eoda cuÃ°on"

On the other hand, a British grammarian Quirk explains "the â¦ the â¦" in his CGEL as paring subordinators to make up a proportional relative clause similar to "as â¦ so â¦".
       "As you move away from Earth's center farther, so the pull of gravity become less."
Suppose the paired "the"s could be used independently, and suppose
       The pull of gravity becomes less the farther you move away from Earth's center.
be grammatical, then it would be paraphrased like:
       "As you move away from Earth's center farther, the pull of gravity become less."
It makes sense, but sounds somewhat weaker in the sense of proportionality than "the ... the â¦" or "as â¦ so â¦"

paco

Re: The meaning of 'Gonna'

Anonymous — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:43:18 GMT

What is the word sucks in "Homework sucks"? Is it a verb or an adjective? If it is a verb, what does homework suck?

This brings up an excellent point, and a wonderful opportunity to discover the beautiful syntactic structure of the English language. The question at hand is "Does an English verb need to have an object?" Consider the simple construction, "I eat" (Subject-ActionVerb). It is a coherent English thought; there is no need to express what is eaten. Just because an English sentence contains an action verb does not mean an object of that action must occur. The neat thing is, though, that it can occur and the thought is just as coherent. "I eat pizza" (Subject-ActionVerb-Object) is an equally logical thought.

Action verbs that have an object of their action are said to be transitive, while those that do not are said to be intransitive. Objects can receive the action of their verb either directly or indirectly. An object which is indirectly acted upon only occurs when there is one which is directly acted upon as well. Objects which receive their verb's action directly are said to be direct, whereas those which receive it indirectly are said to be indirect. In the sentence "I baked them pizza," pizza is a direct object, and them is an indirect object.

We have observed three fundamental patterns of the English language:
                        Subject-IntransitiveVerb                                              (S-InV)                I eat.
                        Subject-TransitiveVerb-DirectObject                          (S-TrV-DO)         I eat pizza.
                        Subject-TransitiveVerb-IndirectObject-DirectObject (S-TrV-IO-DO)    I bake them pizza.

As it turns out, the entire English language follows only about six different fundamental patterns, depending on how you count them. Essentially, there are only three more. I find this fascinating, so here I have written a short exposition on the topic. I intend to learn as much from those who view this forum as they can learn from me, so please read, enjoy (hopefully), and critique it.

        An Inquiry into the Syntactical Structure of the English Language

Fundamental Parts of Speech
There exist various schemes that depict the fundamental parts of speech in the English language. The underlying assumption of them all is that every English word can be classified into a fairly small number of categories. According to a word's inherent qualities these are somewhat nebulous, but according to how the word is used in a sentence they our definitive. The scheme I adopt here models English words in seven divisions: nouns* (N), verbs (V), adjectives** (Adj), adverbs (Adv), prepositions (Prep), conjunctions (Conj), and interjections (Interj). No attempt will be put forth to define these whether operationally or inherently. That being beyond the scope of this work
*Nouns in this work refers to both nouns and pronouns. Though they constitute two distinct categories they are used virtually interchangeably distinguishable only by the inherent qualities they possess. (A point in which syntax is largely uninterested.)
**This class contains what other schemes might divide into the categories of articles, determiners, qualifiers, modifying nouns, etc.
A Steal Framework
Again the various models of English syntax would number the fundamental patterns differently. I have adopted a scheme of six. The patterns are concerned only with two parts of speech: verbs and nouns. They form a sort of a metal framework upon which the rest of the fundamental part bestow their graces connecting and decorating it into a beautiful masterpiece. I model English nouns as possessing eight unique functions (subject (S), direct object (DO), indirect object (IO), objective complement (OC), subjective complement (SC), object of the preposition (OP), noun of direct address (DA), and appositive (App)) and English verbs as possessing four unique functions (action verb*, linking verb (LV), state of being verb (Be), helping verb** (Aux)). Only the first five of the noun functions and the first three of the verb functions are used in constructing the patterns. The rest are added on later for decoration.
*As it has been aforementioned actions verbs are either transitive verbs (TrV), possessing objects, or intransitive verbs (InV), not possessing objects.
**Helping verbs also known as auxiliary verbs or simply auxiliaries serve solely to aid the one main verb of a syntactic pattern in expressing such complexities as tense, mood, or voice. Unlike other languages, English verb ending are unable to accomplish this consisting of only four principle parts with little variation or no variation for person or number. Rarely will you find a verb written more than four ways.

The Fundamental Syntactic Patterns
Some schemes include adjective and adverb elements. I do not, however, because I do not consider them the pegs on which other elements can hang. They are merely filler. I have put alternate examples in boldface type for where some find grounds for other patterns.

                                            1. S-Be*                    I am. or I am here.
                                            2. S-LV-SC*,*              I am Daniel. or I am good.
                                            3. S-InV                         I eat.
                                            4. S-TrV-DO*                I eat pizza.
                                            5. S-TrV-IO-DO*        I bake them pizza.
                                            6. S-TrV-DO-OC*,*    I consider pizza food. or I find pizza tasty.
* "I am here," or, "I am of the tribe of Benjamin," are examples of an adverb element on the S-Be pattern. Under some schemes this would be a new pattern, S-be-Adv. The adverb element, often referred to as the adverbial modifies the verb indicating where or when.
*The subjective complement is the completer of the subject. If it is an adjective it is called the predicate adjective (PA). If it is a noun it is called the predicate nominative or noun (PN). As a noun it is said to rename the subject (Daniel). As a adjective it is said to modify the subject (good). Under some schemes these two cases form distinct patterns (S-LV-PN and S-LV-PA).
*Depending on whether or not the definition of linking verb is broadened to include the state of being verbs, a separate pattern (S-be-SC) is often employed which in turn is typically divided into the two distinct patterns (S-be-PA and S-be-PN).
*Both direct and indirect objects are considered to be predicate complements (PC). So the distinction between them is sometimes lost and these patterns can be depicted S-TrV-PC, S-TrV-PC-PC, and S-TrV-PC-OC with the former two occasionally fusing into one pattern (S-TrV-PC).
*Sometimes a distinction is made between an objective complement that functions as a noun (pizza), objective noun (ON), and one that functions as a adjective (tasty), objective adjective (OA). Thus two distinct patterns are formed (S-TrV-DO-ON and S-TrV-DO-OA).

Whether or not it is wise to exclude the patterns S-Be-Adv, S-LV-PA, and S-TrV-OA, I do not know, but since I maintain that the fundamental syntactic units are composed of certain nouns and verbs I will. For now the other parts of speech and remaining nouns and verbs are for filling out the framework.

The Decorations and Connections
The remaining verbs, helping/auxiliary verbs (Aux), come before the verbs in the patterns and give them tense. Of the remaining nouns, nouns of direct address (DA) are when you address the person you are talking two by name, appositives come right after one of the nouns in the fundamental patterns and serve to rename them, and objects of the preposition are the words the prepositions (Prep) are relating to the rest of the sentence. Prepositions (Prep) then relate nouns to the rest of the sentence. Conjunction (Conj) join elements whether they be fundamental patterns, subject, or verbs. Interjections (Interj) do just that. Butt in breaking the flow of everything. Adjectives (Adj) modify nouns, and adverbs (Adv) modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs.

These nine links and flesh may simply be one word or, as four of them (OP, App, Adj, and Adv) often are, be expanded into multiword units composed themselves of smaller units which in turn are linked to other units. Thus you have the massive interlocking structure of the English language.

What are these large units with in units though? They are either clauses or phrases.

Clauses
Clause contain both a subject and a verb but cannot stand alone as a complete thought. They are one of the fundamental units fleshed out. They come in three varieties those that will function as an adverb (Adv), those that will function as a adjective (Adj), and those that will function as a noun (not just OP and App, but the fundamental makeup of the patterns S, DO, IO, OC, and PN/SC).

Phrases:*
Phrases certain either a subject or a verb, but not both. The prepositional phrase--the unit Prep-OP (sometimes fleshed out with other elements)--functions as either an Adj, Adv, or a N. There are three phrase which are one of the six or nine depending on how you look at it fundamental patterns with the S severed from them. The gerund phrase is the one in which the main verb must be in the second principle part** and functions as a N. The participle phrase is the one in which the main verb must be in the second or fourth principle part** and functions as an Adj. The infinitive phrase is the one in which the verb must be in the infinitive (nearly synonymous with the first principle part** and functions as an Adj, Adv, or a N. A fifth and unusual type of phrase functions as a modifier (Adj or Adv) of the entire sentence, and is composed of a noun followed by a participial phrase.
*Sometimes the classifications of phrases are broadened to include a noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase, adverb phrase, and appositive phrase. However, I will abstain from such a measure because noun phrases are just simply any of the five above which can function as a N, appositive phrases are just simply any of the five above which can function as an appositive (a N), adjective phrases are just any of the five above which can function as Adj, adverb phrases are just simply any of the five above which can function as Adv, and verb phrases are just the verb of the six fundamental patterns with its auxiliaries.
**Sometimes English verbs are depicted as having three principle parts, (1) present, (2) past, and (3) past participle, presumably because the present participle of all English verbs is the present + -ing. However, the scheme used here is that which depicts four principle parts, (1) present, (2) present participle, (3) past, (4) past participle, which can be derived from the infinitive [to . . .] by asking the four questions (1) Today, [I/we, you, he/she/it/they] . . .Currently, [I/we, you, he/she/it/they] [to be] . . . , (3) Yesterday, [I/we, you, he/she/it/they] . . . , (4) Previously, [I/we, you, he/she/it/they] [to have] . . . of the infinitive.

Re: parts of speech

Mister Micawber — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 14:39:08 GMT

1) My little brother would not turn down the radio volume in the morning.

MY = possessive adjective
LITTLE = DESCRIPTIVE ADJECTIVE
BROTHER = noun
WOULD = modal auxiliary
NOT = NEGATIVE PARTICLE
TURN = main verb
DOWN = adverb particle
THE = definite article
RADIO = noun (used as an adjective)
VOLUME = noun
IN = preposition
THE = definite article
MORNING = NOUN OBJECT OF PREPOSITION; THE PREP PHRASE IS A TIME ADVERBIAL

1) She came to class very late.

SHE = nominative personal pronoun
CAME = main verb
TO = preposition
CLASS = noun
VERY = adverb of intensity
LATE = adverb of time

parts of speech

Hela — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:04:31 GMT

Dear teachers,

Would you please tell me if my analysis is correct ?

1) My little brother would not turn down the radio volume in the morning.

MY = possessive adjective
LITTLE = determinative adjective (quantifier)
BROTHER = noun
WOULD = modal auxiliary
NOT = ??
TURN = main verb
DOWN = preposition or adverb ? (adverb particle ?)
THE = definite article
RADIO = noun (used as an adjective ?)
VOLUME = noun
IN = preposition
THE = definite article
MORNING = adverb of time

1) She came to class very late.

SHE = nominative personal pronoun
CAME = main verb
TO = preposition
CLASS = noun
VERY = adverb of intensity
LATE = adverb of time ?

Thank you very much.
Hela

It is me/I

paco2004 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:05:25 GMT

Hello guys

I know we had a conclusion on the subject but I'd like to put some additional information. The article below is a description in a book (written in Japanese) by Late Dr Toshio Nakao, a scholar who taught the history of the English language in several colleges in Japan and in Great Britain.

Let's suppose someone ask to a group of people saying :"Who is the boss?" and let's see the historical change in the way English speakers answer to this question.
[1] Days of Old English
In the days when English people still retained case inflexions for nouns, A and B in the statement of "A is B" should be both in the forms of nominative case. As for the question "Who is the boss?", an grammatical answer should be "I am it". However, "It am I" was likely a more popular saying, because it was their linguistic custom in Old English to invert the subject (=I) and the complement (=it) when the complement is a pronoun."
[2] End of Middle English
The expression "It am I" continued to be spoken at least until the time of Chaucer. "Peter, it am I" quod she [Chaucer, , 1386]. However some people began to feel it was rather ungrammatical. It was because they thought that in English a noun that stands before a verb should be the subject of the sentence. So they took 'it' as the subject and 'I' as the complement, and revised the phrase into "It is I". It is I that am here in your syth [ 1450].
[3] Early Modern English
"It is me", what OED is still now calling as an 'uneducated speech', began as early as in 16 century. Shakespeare used the nominative me in (1591) : The dog is me, and I am my self. But its use has got popular since 18 century on. To dine with her and come at three! Impossible, it can't be me! [Swift 1733]. Why do modern day's English speakers feel "It is me" more natural than "It is I"? It is because they tend to think all a nominative pronoun should be in the status of the subject in a sentence and they tend to feel as if there are two subjects in the sentence "It is I".

What I have learned from this brief history of the expression "It is me" is that what expression is considered to be grammatical in a language is time dependent.

paco