Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Auxiliaries' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Auxiliaries'

Re: Conditional:Auxiliary Commentary Words?

Mister Micawber — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:26:02 GMT

You wrote this as your partical response to the overall question:
I think that the "good morning's" are inappropriate.-- No
I think his "how are you's" are inappropriate. -- No. His "how are you"s are inappropriate. I don't think we need the "?".

Your technique (if I can call it that) is new to me. Anyway, how do you make distinctions as to which phrase/clause is appropriate to put an "s" after putting quotation marks around it: why not "good morning" but "how are you"?

I don't understand your question. The '-s' goes outside the quotation marks, as I indicated in both italicized sentences.

And I wrote this:
Thank you. So if the word is specifically referenced to by context, we should use the definite article to indicate specifcity of it like you did with the noun 'power'. Is that right?

-- Yes again.

The problem I have is that it is hard to distinguish situations where the detinite noun is necessary

-- It takes some practice.

We value freedom of press.
Order for proclamation of the King's Peace

In the two examples above I feel can use the detinite noun and not use it with little difference, if at all.

-- As they stand, the first should have no article and the second should: freedom of the press is a general freedom, but the King is a specific king. That at least is the presumption that the reader should make.

I thin the same goes to the original sentences with the word 'power' except you are very sure the reference it to a specific group of people and situation needs to be specific, but I feel, in most wriiting situations in the real world, don't need the definiteness brought by having placed 'the' before the likes of the word 'power'.

-- I agree that there is often an option; nevertheless, in your sentence, a specific power source is implied-- i.e the power supplied at where 'they' are.
.

Re: Conditional:Auxiliary Commentary Words?

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:22:23 GMT

Thank you.

You wrote this as your partical response to the overall question:

I think that the "good morning's" are inappropriate.-- No
I think his "how are you's" are inappropriate. -- No. His "how are you"s are inappropriate. I don't think we need the "?".

Your technique (if I can call it that) is new to me. Anyway, how do you make distinctions as to which phrase/clause is appropriate to put an "s" after putting quotation marks around it: why not "good morning" but "how are you"?

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

YoungCalifornian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:33:12 GMT

Tanit
But I'm stuck with a sentence where "to do" is replaced by "not to do":

    a1) I suggest not doing X.                         (I reckon this is fine)
    a2) I suggest not to do X.                          (???)
    b1) I suggest [that] Y shouldn't do X.         (I reckon this is fine)
    b2) I suggest [that] Y [not do | don't] X.      (this sounds terribly bad!)

Your questions stem from the use of the mandative subjunctive, which arises in turn from the use of the verb "to suggest." However, you've complicated things by using the complicated predicate "to do X" in your sentences' subordinate clauses. I'm assuming that "Y" always represents a personal pronoun (or proper noun), but "X" could be either a demonstrative pronoun (or regular noun in certain cases) or a verb depending on your meaning.

a1) This construction is fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, but incorrect if represents a verb.

a2) This construction is incorrect. If "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, the verb "to do" must be changed from the infinitive to the subjunctive and a personal pronoun added so that the sentence reads I suggest Y not do X. This makes the subordinate clause a content clause, which means that the word "that" could be added as you've done in example b2). The sentence will not work at all if "X" is a verb.

b1) While this construction is not grammatically incorrect, it can sound too passive when "suggest" and "should" are in close proximity. Anyway, that's assuming that "X" is once again a demonstrative pronoun. This construction will not work if "X" is a verb.

b2) It may not seem like it, but switching between "not do" or "don't" (i.e. "do not" ) dramatically changes this sentence. They cannot be used interchangably in this context. As I mentioned above, the "not do" construction works fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun. However, if "X" is a (subjunctive) verb then "do not" or "don't" (or does not/doesn't for singular third person pronouns) must be used.

I apologize if this sounds complicated, but it's a result of using an auxiliary verb in your example predicates. If you replace "to do X" with a simpler verb it would probably be clearer. Basically, your two options are to follow the verb "to suggest" with either a gerund or the subjunctive. Either way, the word "not" would precede the dependent verb should you choose to make it negative. Looking ahead, I've used the verb "to interview" in an example of each construction.

Gerund: I suggest (not) interviewing...
Subjunctive: I suggest (that) he (not) interview...

Here's the sentence I'm trying to write (it's for a research paper):

1. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not interviewing any member of the scientific committee."
2. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not to interview any member of the scientific committee."
3. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed."

I'd go for no. 1 (no. 3 seems to carry a different meaning ... or am I wrong?), but I am not sure about that. What do you think?
I'm also trying (with little, if any, success) to work out the general pattern.

Both the first and third examples work. The first is the gerund construction, the third is the subjunctive construction. The second is incorrect. However, despite being technically correct, both the first and third examples still sound awkward. Ultimately, I think this is because it sounds strange for "issues" to suggest something directly. Typically they would suggest something to someone. For instance, I think that "Issues of availability... suggest not interviewing any member of the scientific committee to me" or "Issues of availability... suggest to me that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed" both sound better.

Re: tense

Huevos — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:41:30 GMT

This is hypothesis of the past hence it should be a type III conditional (if + ... + had/were to have + past participle + ... + would + have + participle).

If 20 years ago you had predicted that today everyone would have a mobile phone no one would have believed you.

If 20 years ago you had predicted that today everyone would have a mobile phone no one would have believed you.

In 20 years time everyone will have a mobile phone.

If clause! Would clause! Prediction! Past future auxiliary!

Re: conditional

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:37:10 GMT

Thank you. I think no. 4 is a typical type 2 conditional -- a hypothetical or unreal situation.

4. If you received the certificate, you would be able to take high-level courses. -- has to be 'will be able to'??

Sometimes, I get confused when there are some what I would call auxiliary words or phrase in front of the main clause containing 'would'. Sometimes, I feel the auxiliary part makes a difference and other times, I feel they don't; sometimes, I don't know whether they make a difference -- confusing me. Do they make a difference; if so, how? Are these type 2 conditionals? Thankyou.

If you received the certificate, I think you would be able to take high-level courses.
If you received the certificate, it would be logical to say that you would be able to take high-level courses.
If you received the certificate, it follows that you would be able to take high-level courses.

Re: article

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:26:00 GMT

Thank you, again.

I might have to word this question carefully. Please take a look at these simple sentences that could be correct or wrong in term of grammar.

1. I am using a cream.
2.I purchased a shampoo.
3. I ordered a pizza.

To me, no. 1. and 2 seem to call for additional context or information, whereas no. 1 could stand alone without any auxiliary element (if I could call it that). They look the same in terms of how they are structured in terms of sentence pattern, yet no. 3 seems to be different than the other two. Am I right in thinking that way.
Your example sentences:
I went to the drugstore because I needed some shampoo. I bought a shampoo that I have never tried before.

If you look at your second example sentence, you will see there is an additional element to the clause "I bought a shampoo." And I feel no. 1 and 2 of the above seem to demand more like you have done, whereas it seems that no. 3 could stand alone.

Re: Sentence structures: How flexible?

CalifJim — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:30:39 GMT

Which one is the recommended way to form sentences? Or all of them?

a) I was at the movies yesterday watching the newest Indiana Jones. Yes.

b) I was at the movies yesterday and watching the newest Indiana Jones. No. You can't connect two different usages of was with and. (was where and was doing.) You have to repeat the auxiliary was. b) is like saying "She went away in a Cadillac and a bad mood."

c) I was watching the newest Indiana Jones at the movies yesterday. Yes.

_______

But note that a) does not have the verb phrase was watching. It's two separate clauses, the second a participial construction. The verb phrase of a clause cannot be separated by phrases like at the movies yesterday.

-- Where were you yesterday?

-- I was at the movies yesterday.

-- What were you doing there?

-- Watching the newest Indiana Jones.

Thus: I was at the movies yesterday. || (I was) watching the newest Indiana Jones (there).

In c) the emphasis is different:

What were you doing yesterday?

I was watching the newest Indiana Jones at the movies (yesterday).

a) is essentially about where you were. What you were doing is incidental added information. c) is essentially about what you were doing. Where you were is incidental added information.

Re: Would

Cool Breeze — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:43:35 GMT

Rotter
[ Om jag har pengar, ska jag kÃ¶pa en ny bil.]
{ In Swedish, the verb comes first in the main clause. Swedish is like that.}
[ If I have the money, I will buy a new car.]

Hi Rotter

Yes, of course, there are differences in the word order, but a similar auxiliary (ska, which is related to shall) and a present infinitive (kÃ¶pa, buy) is needed in your sentence. And a perfect conditional is formed in the same way in English and Swedish as well:

If I had had money, I would have bought a car. = Om jag hade haft pengar, skulle jag ha kÃ¶pt en bil.

I wish you a lot of success in your language acquisition efforts - French, that is!

Re: conditional

Anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2008 01:59:29 GMT

Thank you, Mr. M. Then, what are these ones I wrote? They have if-clauses and what look to be resultant clauses, and also, they seem to be good, sensible sentences.

All first conditional??

If I hear from you before I leave, I would call you when I get home.

If I get a raise this month, I would buy a new car.

If I play soccer every two days, I might beat this illness.

If I work hard, I might/would get a raise before the end of this month.

I think those are sentences I can use any day. What are they then? Should I not use any of them and as you seem to have recommended, change the modal auxiliary verbs in the main clause to 'will'?

Analyzing WH-questions the H&P CGEL way

Anonymous — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:18:39 GMT

Hi!

I am reading Huddleston & Pullum's CGEL, and I've run into a problem. I don't understand how to analyze WH-questions with both subject-auxiliary inversion and . Couldn't somebody help me out?

Let us take the sentence What did the Captain say? as an example. Here the Captain is obviously the subject. But what is the predicate? Is it say ___, with the gap as the object, or what is it?

This is the solution I've come to, but I'm at all sure it is not altogether wrong:

[Clause[Prenucleus:NP_i [Head:N What]] [Nucleus:Clause [Prenucleus:V_j did] [Nucleus:Clause [Subject:NP [Det:D the] [Head:N Captain]] [Predicate:VP [Predicator:GAP_j ___] [CatComp:Clause [Predicate:VP [Predicator:V say] [Object:GAP_i ___]]]]]]]

Looks totally weird to me. Any ideas?

//AC